ArcturusViotto (Arc)

If y’all wanna find out what all this art has been about, dm me, and I’ll share my debut novel, Sagittarius A with you!

Meet Cyanide ☣️ my new upcoming adopt!

hellooooo ????

Das me!! Freaking love it 😻

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Objective morality would be consistent and unchanging—woven into the fabric of reality. My stance is whatever ideas result in better stats (economic growth, security, freedom, and overall happiness) at a given moment should be applied

I hope you understand this means you actually do believe in objective morality. If you thought morality was subjective, you wouldn't have a problem with a society that chose option two. You would consider their choice valid, it just isn't what you would choose personally. Perhaps there might not be much that you include in the objective category. But you acknowledged that there are things you do consider essentially good and bad.

Right on time

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Yes. It either suggests a society that is apathetic to those who are suffering (or worse, completely ignoring it), or one that is using the suffering to prop up those in power. Practically speaking, it’s impossible to create 100% human fluorishment, but the effort should exist

@ArcturusViotto @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Do you think that it would be wrong if society were to choose option two?

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Everyone would need to flourish by 10%. The 10% harmed in the second example implies unfair treatment such as human rights infringements, higher class/lower class desparities, or forms of bigotry, biases, and discrimination

Is flourishing the ultimate metric, or do you put greater weight on values? Let's say we have a society and we have two options. Option one simply makes everyone flourish by an extra 10%. Option two harms 10% of society, but the rest of society flourishes 50% more. Which path should be taken in your view?

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I think human society flourishing is a good thing. It’s my personal opinion, and (I would think) the overall point of government. Laws and regulations are meant to protect humans on a macro and micro scale as well as guarantee rights and liberties

I think I'll skip a few step here, because I figure my long-windedness is getting a bit tiring. I'm guessing your core principle boils down to promoting the flourishing of human society, right? Now, do you think human society flourishing is a good thing, or is it just your personal preference?

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine My major stance is a principle has to benefit more people than it hurts. This, to me, is the only measurable “objective morality” that we should fight for. I.e., allowing abortion benefits more people than banning it. Abolishing slavery benefits more people than allowing it

Considering that you don't believe in objective morality, there are two possible ways you view morality, then. The first would be that morality doesn't exist. Meaning, nothing is ever good or evil. Whoever believes this has no reason to have any strongly held beliefs. The second would be that of subjective morality. You view morality as a social tool and it's shaped by the society we live in. Meaning, it changes depending on how the people at the time feel about morality. This is likely where you stand. Now here's the thing. Why would you never support it, since you don't believe in objective morality? If your society were to be indifferent to consciousness, why would you care about it? If you were living in a society where virtually everyone is for abortion up to birth, why would you ever be against it if you don't believe in objective morality? You do understand that in the world of subjective morality, whoever holds a belief that is not the current prevailing belief is in the wrong, right? If the Confederates won the Civil War, and they wished to continue slavery, being anti-slavery would be wrong. If Hitler won WW2, and Germany became the global empire, anti-Nazism would be wrong. "The winners and those who hold power are the good guys" is basically what subjective morality boils down to.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine You bring up great points. I would’ve disagreed with slavery even when it was seen as morally acceptable. That doesn’t mean, however, I can’t have other reasons to disagree with it. For example, slavery impedes on my belief that all persons have equal rights and liberties

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine To further elaborate: I will never support abortion past 20 weeks unless complications arise with the mother and/or fetus. The fetus has attained consciousness at this point.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say in the second half. Are you saying you'd be in support of abortion up to birth if there wasn't a significant portion of people that were against abortion? The "consciousness" restriction isn't a guardrail for your team, but a concession to your opponent?

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine To clarify: There is no objective morality. In instances where morals become unclear no matter how much you debate (in cases like abortion and unplugging comatose patients), the proper solution in my eyes is not to ban it. Let individuals decide in their own personal situations

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I absolutely do think it’s murder to pull the plug on someone in a coma. Brain death is irreversible. You can still wake up from a coma. However, this is another moral gray area, and many will disagree, which is why (like abortion) it should regulated, not prohibited.

This is about to be a long one, I apologize in advance. I disagree. It is acceptable to pull the plug on people in a coma too, but they still have their consciousness. So clearly, consciousness is not the relevant factor. And it's not murder because we're not killing them. We're actually the ones maintaining their life. Left to their own devices, they will naturally die on their own. The reason pulling the plug is a permissible option is mainly because it costs resources to keep them alive. Also, not only do you not have a guarantee that they will wake up, but they also have no way to know if or when a patient would ever wake up. Someone in a coma today could wake up tomorrow, and they wouldn't be able to figure that out. And I agree mainly because although I believe life should be protected, as a general rule, we shouldn't be forced to spend an unreasonable amount of resources to maintain someone with an uncertain possibility at a future. Solely going by rule of consciousness, your position would have to be that pulling the plug on braindead is okay, but on coma it's murder. Let's depart from reality for a second and pretend that in both braindead and coma cases, their bodies were self-sustainable, meaning you don't have to do anything to keep them alive, and you could also estimate when and if they will regain consciousness. I would stand by the stance that you can't terminate the life of either one, even if they were to never wake up. We should allow them to pass naturally on their own. Your stance would have to be that it's okay to do whatever to the braindead person. As for the person in a coma, I guess it would still be murder. Personally I'm not a fan of this standard, and I don't think it's a socially productive one.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Consciousness is more valuable than “life” alone. If we as people empathized with the LIFE of braindead people, we’d call pulling the plug murder. But we don’t. Since the braindead person will never be conscious again, pulling the plug is okay

I am American, but I grew up outside of the US. As far as i know, drinking is the only thing that has this legal caveat, to which I never heard a proper explanation as to why that is the case. We just accept it at face value. Of course, I know that there are certain body functions that start developing during the "consciousness" phase. But what I'm asking is, what is it about consciousness that suddenly makes the life worth protecting? To me, it's very straighforward. Once a human life begins forming, it is already important, and we must not allow people to intentionally harm it.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Sorry, I assumed you were American. But that applies too! “Adulthood” is a form of value that grants you legal freedom to drink. Consciousness is interesting. There are studies that demonstrate thalamocortical connections form in the fetus’s brain around 20 weeks.

Why is consciousness the cutoff for the right to life, and what is consciousness anyway? Why is it important? Also, I think the 18/21 isn't a good example for that, because that is basically exclusively American, and I don't understand it either. Most places, adult age is drinking age.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Okay, thank you sincerely for clarifying. You’re right: I do think abortion is the mother’s choice. Not that all rape babies should be aborted. Absolutely. Sorry for the miscommunication. I will respect that this is not the argument you wanted to have, and I’ll bid you farewell

I'm not claiming that. In fact, I'm not claiming anything at all, really. But if my position interests you so much, then I'll answer it. Yes, that is basically my stance. Although that's not even what I'm talking about either. I'm here mainly questioning the atrocious use of logical inconsistencies from the JP Sears look alike. He basically started off with endorsing aborting rape babies. His stance, at first glance, is even worse than your stance. You likely believe abortion is the mother's choice. He implied giving birth to rapists children is a bad thing.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I mean, it’s kinda like how an 18-year-old can’t legally drink until he/she turns 21. They attain the maturity (a form of value) that allows them to partake in drinking. In the same vein, at 20 weeks, fetuses attain consciousness (a form of value) that grants them right to life

I'm not claiming anything. I'm questioning your ideology. Unlike you, im not trying to do a gotcha with everything I say. I'm trying to either see where this confusing thought process comes from, or get you to see that your thought process isn't consistent. All i did was ask why it is that a zygote being able to develop value matters. Not a convincing argument considering anything can develop value.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I thought your claim was that a zygote is a human, therefore abortion is never okay. Do feel free to clarify

I literally told you I don't care to talk about that part. You can whine about it and bring it up as much as you want, but I won't engage with it. I made no comments with anyone on the main topic because I have no interest in talking about that right now. Especially not with someone like you.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I guess I don’t know what your claim is then 🤷‍♂️

@ArcturusViotto @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Why does it matter that the zygote can develop value? After all, even objects can develop value. Dude, stop with this ridiculous talking about tangential subjects when you answer questions. You keep trying to tie everything in to abortion, and it's so retarded.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Again, this whole discussion’s taking place under a post mentioning Charlie Kirk’s stance that his 10-year-old kid’s hypothetical rapist’s child would be delivered. It became clear from your questions about whether her zygote would be considered human that you have gross views

@ArcturusViotto @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine I addressed and refuted everything except the deflections. Are you rage-quitting because I'm not falling for your petty little tricks to win an argument? And it's funny that you're tried to talk about everything except the topic you originally responded to.

@MattressBelow @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine The zygote can develop value. It develops value by taking resources from the mother. She should have a say in whether or not her resources go to furthering the attainment of the zygote’s value

@ArcturusViotto @AnttiSavolaine @TakeThiamine Sounds contradictory to me. If I thought it wasn't valuable, I wouldn't bother saving it. You weren't telling me that at all, by the way. This is the first time you actually engaged with that question.