Master Lawbringer wrote:If we can't even agree that considering getting tortured to death a bad thing is self-evident then the rest of my argument will be lost on you as well.

The so-called "rest of your argument" seems to consist of suggesting that some sort of reversal of good and evil is occurring because somewhere you got the idea that victims are being assumed to be good (people). At best that's a tautology, because why call somebody a victim, otherwise? The conclusion I reach is that you have nothing to say that does not involve trying to express your words in a voice other than your own. It figures.

The limit of inequality has nothing to do with metaphysical considerations of good and evil. It's the economy, stupid. Anatole France was not the first one when he pointed that out with his sarcastic destruction of the concept of formal equality before the law in 1894: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad. That we make a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good is the entire crux of the matter : That the difference even exists at all.
Why does this difference exist? Where does it come from and how does it relate to let's call it 'animal morality'.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad. That we make a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good is the entire crux of the matter : That the difference even exists at all.
Why does this difference exist? Where does it come from and how does it relate to let's call it 'animal morality'.

So morality cannot be derived from mutual benefit? Just because you say so? Since humans are also animals any set of moral values we generate are also ‘animal morality’.

...and you presume to lecture us?



RS

Master Lawbringer wrote:Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad.

Completely disagree. Morality also frequently causes you to choose actions or make decisions that run contrary to what would cause you the most satisfaction or gain you the most benefit.

Master Lawbringer wrote:That we make a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good is the entire crux of the matter : That the difference even exists at all.

But you're contradicting yourself. If there's a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good, then what feels good isn't what is morally good - so morality is not, according to your own argument, 'based on self-evident notions of what feels good or bad'.

Like I explained: it's an equivocation. If we were using a language that had a different word for moral good & bad and feel good & bad, then you'd have to actually make a coherent argument to link the two rather than just play on the words. For me, you still have that obligation regardless of the fact that English has these words as homonyms.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Why does this difference exist? Where does it come from and how does it relate to let's call it 'animal morality'.

Can you define "animal morality"?

Are you talking about the 'don't shit where you eat' type of 'morality', or are you talking about altruism, kin selection, social living?

Master Lawbringer wrote:Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad.

Is that so? I think you need to show your workings out, not just proclaim. As this utterance stands, there are numerous contradictions which could be brought forth to refute it.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad. That we make a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good is the entire crux of the matter : That the difference even exists at all.
Why does this difference exist? Where does it come from and how does it relate to let's call it 'animal morality'.

Psychologists have discovered that five of the six people involved in a gang rape that took place in the outskirts of Sydney, Australia, in 1986 felt good about the experience. The opinion of the sixth person remains unknown. Anita Cobby was unable to comment on account of being murdered that night.

Master Lawbringer wrote:
What if all moral judgements arising from all of those seemingly high ideals like compassion and equality simply never do anything else than reverse the basic concepts of good and evil expressed in the second example where to suffer is bad and to enjoy oneself is good?

Are you actually arguing some point with anyone who has actually stated flatly that to suffer is always bad and to enjoy oneself is always good? No? Then you can shove all that back into wherever you got it. And then you affiliate whatever that is with some distorted concept you have of equality. You know, as if. You should figure out what the first problem is that you want to solve, stick to that for awhile, and then if you get any traction on what that problem is, keep moving. You won't do this, because what you'd most like to rule out is thinking that differs from your own. The latter you are evidently embarrassed to articulate except to tell everyone what the Law is.

What evil do you wish to abate, you Master Abater?

Sigh. I don't need to define 'animal morality' since I already defined it as the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad. Like a kick in the nuts feels bad. There's no reason to argue any further. To insist that needs further rational justification is absurd and scary.
And all morality is ultimately based on what I call the 'kick in the nuts'-argument. Just analyze what 'mutual benefit' actually means : That everybody feels good. See?
Detaching morality form what feels good or bad is also absurd.
And sometimes someone has to sacrifice himself for the greater good, which also boils down to making the largest amount of people ... feel good.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Sigh. I don't need to define 'animal morality' since I already defined it as the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad.

The thing is, you don't get to define it unless there's actually some point you'd like to make by doing so. You need to complete Step 0 before going on to Step 1. To do that, you'd have to say a little bit more about why you're so pissed off about Nietzscxhe entitling an essay something like "Beyond Good and Evil" (which is a translation).

Also, please don't sigh in my presence unless you're really about to faint and might need reviving.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Detaching morality form what feels good or bad is also absurd.

You must have skipped reading post #47.

Master Lawbringer wrote:And sometimes someone has to sacrifice himself for the greater good, which also boils down to making the largest amount of people ... feel good.

Going by your logic that is exactly what Anita Cobby has done to the extent her modest sphere of influence allowed.

Master Lawbringer wrote:There's no reason to argue any further.

Then that might be a good time to STFU and go home. Unless, of course, you want to have an argument.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Just analyze what 'mutual benefit' actually means : That everybody feels good. See?

Is that what you are going to insist it means? See my previous remark. Your cover is dropping away like the heat shield on a Soyuz space capsule. But you haven't hit the upper edge of the atmosphere, yet. Be careful, or you might get burned.

Would you care to address post #29 Master Lawbringer?

Anita Cobby felt bad. She was not having a good time. And this is self-evident. There's no need to argue that point. To insist it requires further rational justification is absurd and scary.

To ignore the parties involved that didn’t feel bad in the gang rape is also scary and absurd, but ignoring that which counters you declarations seems to be your thing.

RS

Why did you get banned

Master Lawbringer
BANNED
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:35 am

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27887

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.

That’s right, just keep making the same proclamations. Or don’t. Having seen that other thread, I’d prefer if you just fucked off.

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.

You haven't identified "anyone's" ideas of good and bad except your own. You started with someone being roasted inside a metal container, which no one but you is testing to see how it fits into any moral system, since it is only a thought experiment you latched onto. As pointed out to you, moral systems are organic when they are not constructed by individuals.

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.

Well, kicking dogs and cats and abusing all those around me feel good to me...