I know what's moral because my mommy told me.

I agree that getting kicked in the nuts usually feels bad. I do not agree that kicking someone in the nuts is necessarily a bad thing.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Is there anybody who agrees that getting kicked in the nuts is just self-evidently a bad thing?
Anybody who agrees just with that?

Some people stand a higher than expected chance of getting kicked in the nuts. There's no benefit in deciding whether this is self-evidently (and more importantly, universally) a bad thing. It may not be the optimal solution, but you're not going there, are you?

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.

1) No, you didn't actually define it at all - your argument is getting more and more confused.
2) You actually tried to claim that all morality is about what feels good or bad, so you're once again not making any distinction between 'morality' and 'animal morality' - you really do need to define your terms and maintain some consistency if you hope to forward a cogent argument.

Master Lawbringer wrote: Like a kick in the nuts feels bad.

A bad feeling = / = morality.

Given that I specifically called this out and you've offered not a single jot of reasoning to contend it, you obviously aren't going to have this taken as granted.

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

Presently, I agree. Your arguments have failed because of your inconsistency and apparent confusion with reasoning.

Master Lawbringer wrote: To insist that needs further rational justification is absurd and scary.

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.

Master Lawbringer wrote: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?

Yes, I clearly understand your 'argument' as you can see from my responses. The problem is that it is logically inconsistent, based wholly on linguistic equivocation, and you don't appear able to provide any other justification beyond asserting that it is.

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

Because...?

If you feel inclined to say 'because it just is, there's no need to discuss it' - then perhaps stop 'discussing' it and run along somewhere else to play your games.

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.

So killing yourself feels good then, does it?

This thread doesn't deserve to be in the philosophy subforum, and that is about as damning an analysis as is possible.

Master Lawbringer wrote: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 keep declaring your arguments valid and self-evident is absurd and scary. It suggests a brand of close-minded arrogance that must inevitably lead to holding stupid positions for stupid reasons.

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.

No, they're not. Assertions aren't a proxy for argumentation.

Master Lawbringer wrote: Show me a moral system that doesn't in the end boils down to this.

How about prior to giving other people marching orders, you establish that your argument is credible first?

Master Lawbringer wrote:So basically you people want to detach morality from what feels good or bad and insist you still have a _moral_ theory in that case.
Or you'd even go as far as denying that a kick in the nuts is self-evidently bad.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... ation.html

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Feels bad man = / = morally wrong.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Is there anybody who agrees that getting kicked in the nuts is just self-evidently a bad thing?
Anybody who agrees just with that?

If I understand you correctly, more than 50% of the human population does not possess "the nuts" so being "self-evidently a bad thing" is not even a thing for the majority.

Master Lawbringer wrote:
Actually the only flaw in my previous writings was that I incorrectly identified the real enemy, the most important principle behind this absurd, anti-evolutionary, state you peoples seem to be in. It has to do with occultism.

And you can call me crazy but I'm not the one requiring evidence for the self-evident statement that getting kicked in the nuts is bad. You people outrank me on the insanity-scale.

Ok: you're crazy.

You people - the words of all ignoramuses, bigots and trolls the world over.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Is there anybody who agrees that getting kicked in the nuts is just self-evidently a bad thing?
Anybody who agrees just with that?

I agree that it feels bad.

I don't agree that the term 'bad' there is synonymous with moral bad.

I explained that to you already half a dozen times already.

Did you ever want to get round to addressing this gaping flaw in your reasoning?

So, being kicked in the nuts - we can assume - feels bad for pretty much everyone. But what can the act of someone being kicked in the nuts tell us about the morality of the situation? Nothing.

If a rapist attempting to violate a lady gets kicked in the nuts, is that morally bad? If a man is robbing an old age pensioner and gets kicked in the nuts, is that morally bad? If the world would blow up unless someone was kicked in the nuts, would that be morally bad?

This is because, as has been explained to you very clearly, what feels good or bad is not the same as what is morally good or bad - there's no inherent link between the two, despite your repeated self-assured assertions to the contrary.

And then the gang rape example. Gang rape is obviously evil, right? Essentially because it makes the person getting raped feel bad.
But the kicker is that these people do not agree on the reason this is bad, that this ultimately has to do with how it makes the person getting raped feel.
So what is their reason for considering gang rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy for the victim? What madness is behind this?

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 (always rape with you people) evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?

Master Lawbringer wrote:And then the gang rape example. Gang rape is obviously evil, right? Essentially because it makes the person getting raped feel bad.
But the kicker is that these people do not agree on the reason this is bad, that this ultimately has to do with how it makes the person getting raped feel.
So what is their reason for considering gang rape evil if it has nothing to do with empathy for the victim? What madness is behind this?

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 (always rape with you people) evil if it has nothing to do with empathy, with how it makes the other person feel?

I would respond to this but there's a stunning lack of relevance to anything you've written that has preceded this - it's like you've changed tack completely but not actually acknowledged it. You've added in all manner of new components, like reasons and empathy which were not part of your argument before. You're so obviously confused - why don't you take a step back, breathe deeply, collect your thoughts and then respond to the numerous posts already made?

(always rape with you people)

As I said: ignoramuses, bigots and trolls the world over refer to others as "you people" - which one are you aspiring to be?

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.

No, it doesn't, and even in your own post you've contradicted this idea.

Let's say I find the back door of a bank open and can simply walk in and shovel money into a bag, then walk away scot-free. Is it morally bad to do so? Well, it's trespassing and stealing, so one must assume that any moral system would recognize this as morally bad. But do I feel bad? If I felt bad, then I wouldn't have done it, would I? I assume that someone doing this would feel good because they've got free money, but that doesn't make it morally good.

The issue is that your central argument is, to use the official term, total bollocks. It doesn't even amount to gibberish. You've offered not one single logical substantiation of your claim, just asserted that it's self-evident which it clearly isn't.

So the onus really is on you here to either change tack if you aspire to convince others - try actually substantiating your argument rather than assuming it.

Spearthrower wrote:
I would respond to this but there's a stunning lack of relevance to anything you've written that has preceded this - it's like you've changed tack completely but not actually acknowledged it. You've added in all manner of new components, like reasons and empathy which were not part of your argument before. You're so obviously confused - why don't you take a step back, breathe deeply, collect your thoughts and then respond to the numerous posts already made?

No, you just can't awnser the question. 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?

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
I would respond to this but there's a stunning lack of relevance to anything you've written that has preceded this - it's like you've changed tack completely but not actually acknowledged it. You've added in all manner of new components, like reasons and empathy which were not part of your argument before. You're so obviously confused - why don't you take a step back, breathe deeply, collect your thoughts and then respond to the numerous posts already made?

No, you just can't awnser the question.

What 'the question'?

Your post was a complete mess - it contradicted your own central argument for a start, and as if that wasn't bad and nonsensical enough, there were 4 questions in your post - well, there were 4 question marks, I am not entirely convinced that any of them could reasonably be called questions; they were more like assertions you'd rephrased to have me perform some trick on your behalf whereas you should have been using those words to validate your claims.

Master Lawbringer wrote:To recap :

I agree that moral bad doesn't equal what feels bad...

That's literally your entire central argument that you've just agreed is wrong.

Master Lawbringer wrote:... but that moral bad depends on feeling bad to make any kind of sense at all.

And I gave you examples that show this isn't the case, whereas you've offered nothing to substantiate your position other than repeating yourself over and over, and occasionally declaring it self-evident.

Master Lawbringer wrote: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?

This question is predicated on an assumption that wholly contradicts your argument prior to this post. According to your own argument, the person engaging in the rape is enjoying it, therefore they feel good, therefore it's morally good.

Like I said - prior to the previous post, you'd never mentioned anything about empathy or reasoning before; I understand why you'd want to abandon that obviously defective argument and start engaging with some more nuanced positions, but I'm sitting here watching you pick up the goal-posts and struggle to carry them off somewhere else. You can't try and pretend that you're still making the same argument when you have 'agreed' it's wrong, and your follow-up argument bears no resemblance at all to your prior argument.

laklak wrote:This is the end of this post.

No, this is.

How wrong can both of you possibly be? Isn’t in self evident that this is the end of this post?

RS

Spearthrower wrote:
And I gave you examples that show this isn't the case, whereas you've offered nothing to substantiate your position other than repeating yourself over and over, and occasionally declaring it self-evident.

Yes, it's self-evident that getting kicked in the nuts is bad. And a morality detached from the notions of feeling good or bad doesn't exist. Like I said, mutual benefit ultimately boils down to the maximum number of people ... feeling good, for example. I never saw any examples to the contrary, except ... your morality maybe?
Maybe you can give me a good example by awnsering the 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?

Spearthrower wrote:
This question is predicated on an assumption that wholly contradicts your argument prior to this post. According to your own argument, the person engaging in the rape is enjoying it, therefore they feel good, therefore it's morally good.

No, my argument is that moral judgements carry the danger of simply reversing the animalistic notions of right and wrong so that the ideal of everybody in goodness contradicted or even reversed. And from that observation arises the issue anew : What is Good?

The reason I'm asking this question is that their morality is batshit insane but for some reason they seem to be hung up on the crime of rape.

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.