Fallible wrote:I suppose your own morality is just fine, is it? Did you read your own linked thread? Stop trolling and fuck off out of it.

Awnser the question and I'll leave.

Why would you leave, because someone wants you to?

Well, when someone calls you a troll and wants you to fuck off, I'd say that's a hint. Or do I have to come up with further rationalizations for that as well? I'm sorry I couldn't find the peer-reviewed papers on that matter.

Well, can I answer the question?

tuco wrote:Well, can I answer the question?

Please do. To recap :

I agree that moral bad doesn't equal what feels bad but that moral bad depends on feeling bad to make any kind of sense at all.
What, for example, is your reason to consider rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?

Spearthrower wrote:
Then you also fail at the most elementary aspect of logic - self-evident truths are religious, not philosophical. If you are unable to support your claims, declaring them self-evident or not in need of discussion doesn't actually make your argument cogent, it means it's failed.

Hate to break it to you, but you have to assume certain things as self-evident rationally. And elementary logic is based on self-evident truths. Just keep breaking concepts down long enough and you'll end up with concepts which have no further support; try to define them, and you'll just end up reasoning circularly. But that's another discussion.

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think the problem is equivocation on the word "bad".

Dying of slow dehydration while trapped in a cave is "bad", but it is not morally "bad". Being the person not in the torture device is "good" but it is not morally "good".

Different systems of describing morality place the "goodness" and "badness" on different things - although typically on conscious actions taken by agents rather than mere situations or circumstances. The portion of the OP that I read seemed utterly oblivious to this crucial distinction, despite its seeming obviousness.

The ideas of good and bad are ultimately based on what feels good or bad, in any moral theory. Show me a moral system that doesn't in the end boils down to this.

Egalitarianism is one such example - Rights may be formulated to ensure that certain "bad feelings" are avoided, but the system does not boil down to only these elements. Other components are crucial, and if crudely removed the system is no longer egalitarian.

This overly reductive approach is part of where the OP veers off the rails at almost its first premise.

To include an example: Most egalitarian systems exhibit a strong preference for rules that prevent "bad feelings" but do not mandate "good feelings". There is no symmetry between the "good" that a torturer enjoys and the "bad" that a torture victim endures. Your post misrepresents these as being offset against one another under egalitarianism when they are not. This shows how boiling down has failed. You have lost fundamental components of the structure that underpins egalitarian thought and are no longer saying anything about egalitarianism.

Not that your post even distinguished a torturer from a passer by, mind you. Which is again a fundamental part of the system - the torturer acts upon a torture victim. A passer by does not. A torture victim does not act upon a torturer. Since egalitarianism is a system that affords rights not to be acted upon by others but does not afford rights to act upon others with impunity, again something truly basic to the system of reasoning has been ignored.

Master Lawbringer wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but you have to assume certain things as self-evident rationally.

If you want to create a system, it's not going to be possible unless you can achieve agreement on what self-evident truths you seek to begin with. You can't establish them by fiat, as you are obviously attempting to do, and that's the only way you manage confidence in your claimed axioms that you push along by means of equivocation. That's a strong reason why I agree with Spearthrower that you have fallen, pretty much at the first hurdle. By all means, go on pretending you have not.

Master Lawbringer wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, can I answer the question?

Please do. To recap :

I agree that moral bad doesn't equal what feels bad but that moral bad depends on feeling bad to make any kind of sense at all.
What, for example, is your reason to consider rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?

What is immediately problematic is that I do not understand what is meant by "evil", but since we are talking about moral judgments which I do form I will try to answer.

Because its against the law.

I guess, now I can say this is the end of the thread, ktxbai.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Well, when someone calls you a troll and wants you to fuck off, I'd say that's a hint.

I know you're just answering a direct question, here. but you do, after all, seem to understand that someone has asked you to leave. To some extent, you're breaking your cover, here, because in no other post you make do you admit to understanding what someone has asked you. Bad form, when trolling.

tuco wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:

tuco wrote:Well, can I answer the question?

Please do. To recap :

I agree that moral bad doesn't equal what feels bad but that moral bad depends on feeling bad to make any kind of sense at all.
What, for example, is your reason to consider rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?

What is immediately problematic is that I do not understand what is meant by "evil", but since we are talking about moral judgments which I do form I will try to answer.

Because its against the law.

I guess, now I can say this is the end of the thread, ktxbai.

The law is based on moral principles so you're just shifting the responsibility to the lawmaker, and I'm interested in the moral principle. Or are you saying that rape is ok when it is legal?

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Fallible wrote:I suppose your own morality is just fine, is it? Did you read your own linked thread? Stop trolling and fuck off out of it.

Awnser the question and I'll leave.

What would be the point of that?

You are not supposed to be here ;) I mean, not that I want you out but not keeping word could influence your credibility.

I am not shifting anything. My answer is genuine and does answer the question asked. Responsibility was not subject to question.

Now if rape was legal would I consider it ok? That is a hypothetical question, as I don't have experience with such situation*, so who knows? Maybe I would be ok or maybe I would roam streets at night looking for legal rapists to kick them in their nuts.

No other questions please as that was not the deal I thought I made with you.

---
edit: *its not all that true actually. This story is somewhere on this board already, but .. so when I was in highschool, around 16, got drunk with group of schoolmates, went to a room with one of them who was even more drunk, and proceeded to have sex, until she said: Zdeňku prosím ne. (please no), because she was a virgin and somehow remembered that she wanted to keep her virginity for, I guess, big love and not a one night stand with a schoolmate. And I was like .. OK and went drinking. Now at the time, if I would have had sex with her it was not considered rape by the law, because if I would press she would probably not fight as she was not able to. But what does it tell you about OP? Nothing.

Err, so if a person is in a coma and is repeatedly raped but never finds out about it, did the rapist still do something wrong? I think most people would say yes. But it's not because of how it made the victim feel.

But, yeah, looking at Hermit's link. Yeesh. Got the strong fashy occultist vibes from the OP, but wasn't expecting that much.

Edit: Responding to the general point going on here, not to anyone in particular.

Dammit. I fell into an old habit of spelling 'answer' as 'awnser'. Apologies.

Some concluding remarks :

This species is obviously degenerated. Their reasoning faculties are utterly diseased. There's no point in arguing with those who maintain that getting kicked in the nuts isn't inherently bad. And that's just one absurdity in a long list.

In the first post I talked about anti-evolutionary or anti-biological states, or worse. This is because a species can only degenerate for so long until entropy reassures itself, which would solve the problem. The reason this does not occur here is that there's some principle active that prevents this from happening.

Do you really think that if the majority of the people in a society think like they do, with their proven batshit insane morality, that's an ordinary evolutionary phenomenon? They would have died out long ago!

You can say there's no 'survival of the fittest'-component present anymore and that would already be physically absurd, but it's even more physically absurd than that. As it were, the 'survival of the fittest'-component hasn't just disappeared, it has become negative. This is a phenomenon you can call occult.

This occult principle is trying to replace Love, which is about unification and extasy, into into division and torture. You'll hear the terms 'diversity' and 'care' thrown around.

If you try to break out of the domesticated box, you'll find that you'll be pushed back into it with mathematical precision by this ... unthing. Large-scale anti-egalitarian organizations do not exist despite their products still being sold. It's a hoax, a hoax by a Daemon.

Please read Liber 418, The Cry of the 3rd Aethyr, and understand that Lilith is the name of this Daemon. Understand that Lilith is this society's notion of 'care'.

AL II 27 27 :

There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.

Whackadoodle!

I retract my accusation of trolling, and or sockiness.

I now haz sad.

RS

Don't believe me? They still haven't, and can't, answer this question :

I agree that moral bad doesn't equal what feels bad but that moral bad depends on feeling bad to make any kind of sense at all.
What, for example, is your reason to consider rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?
And if your answer is 'it's just the law', please remember that I'm interested in the moral principle, the principle behind the law. The rationale of the law.

Rape is bad because it makes the other person feel bad and that's also the rationale behind upholding that law.
You think otherwise? Indulge me with some degenerated zombie logic.