Constantine Skap

@EonIsTrill @SpeedWatkins But there is nothing wrong to select a failure mode right? Its just their preference.

@sk_constantine @SpeedWatkins You’re treating morality as obedience. I’m treating morality as stability. If someone rejects flourishing, they’re not expressing a preference. They’re selecting a failure mode. Systems don’t care about your preferences. They break the same way every time.

Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two pictures: Moral relativism Divine Command Theory Pam: They’re the same picture.

@EonIsTrill @SpeedWatkins Yes. If there is no obligation, then everyone who chooses not to follow your morality is never wrong. Its reduced to preference. If someone doesnt care for human flourishing, are they wrong or simply prefer not to follow human flourishing?

@sk_constantine @SpeedWatkins In my frame, ‘ought’ is what a system must do to persist. In yours, ‘ought’ is whatever an authority says. One of these tracks reality. The other tracks hierarchy

@Vegas82 @Danish_SMF So its not a metaphysical reality?

@sk_constantine @Danish_SMF Logic is how we describe reality. It's not "part of reality."

Not all knowledge is testable, but claims about reality have to be. And explanations only count as evidence when they can, in principle, be wrong.

@Gryph911 In a feministic society, duties are rejected. There is no obligation from one sex to another. Thats equality feminism fought for.

I hate seeing videos like this and it’s not because it’s yet again another hidden camera one. I hate the fact men have become so soft these days they won’t help someone in need.

@southside_mafs Human synpathy is subjective.

If you need religion to have human sympathy you’re a bad person.

@Marc_Desm @Danish_SMF Flash yourself in a toilet. Thats a command

@sk_constantine @Danish_SMF correct. It's a command. Get help

@Marc_Desm @Danish_SMF You told me. I admit that. Still not an argument

@sk_constantine @Danish_SMF when you can admit that I told you to get help from a doctor, we can talk some more.

@Danish_SMF We must start somewhere. Agreed. You start at logic and deny that anything can ground logic itself. Why?

Yes That doesn’t refute the question. It just shows we must start somewhere. We start with logic and evidence because they work. The theist who tries to use that same logic to prove God, then claims God justifies logic, is just adding an unnecessary loop.

@Marc_Desm @Danish_SMF Not an argument

@sk_constantine @Danish_SMF dear @sk_constantine if you can't accept the existence of this tweet, then no further discussion can occur & you should seek help.

@EonIsTrill @SpeedWatkins Even if human flourishing is constrained by reality (an is), it doesnt follow that we ought to pursue it. Why should anyone care about flourishing at all? Why is it something we should aim at rather than ignore?

@sk_constantine @SpeedWatkins You’re treating morality as a command. I’m treating it as a stability condition. If you want to argue against my view, you have to show that human flourishing is not constrained by reality.

@EonIsTrill @SpeedWatkins No. Ought is a normative claim. A mind is required to produce the normative claim. Who is obligating you to value human life?

@sk_constantine @SpeedWatkins They actually do. If a child's hungry and dependent, you ought to feed her. That 'ought' is the technical requirement for her survival. We call it morality because the system's a human life. It's the measurement of what's required for that life to persist and flourish.

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins If the laws of logic are just tools, you are losing the normative element. You do believe logic is normative right? We ought be logical.

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins The laws of logic are a tool to check things independently.

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Ok but you are comparing logic to energy. Do you think they both can be observed? Because i dont think logic can be observed through instruments or interactions like energy. Thats why i wouldnt classify both of them as immaterial.

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins No no, you don't understand. That ISN'T my standard, I'm pointing out why that standard is absurd and that by your reasoning, energy must be immaterial. But that's silly. It is fundamental to material reality.

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins That’s not measurement. thats presupposition. You are not measuring logic, you are using it to evaluate things. In physics, when you measure energy, you use tools that could in principle be checked independently. But with logic, you are appealing to logic itself to justify logic.

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Also, we "measure" logic using the laws of logic. By applying reasoning and deduction, we can illustrate real logical relations and features of reality and distinguish things from their negation.

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins No. you cant directly touch, smell, or hear energy itself. You only ever observe its effects through instruments or interactions. So if something has to be sensed directly to count as material, then even energy wouldnt qualify by your own standard. Is energy immaterial?

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Yes, but can you touch it? Or smell it? Or hear it? Clearly you think those are important criteria for material things, so I'm asking if energy fits that bill?

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Energy is property of physical systems dude. You can measure energy. You cant measure logic.

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins We do that any time we use logic to derive facts about reality. In terms of senses, can you smell energy? Can you taste it? Can you hear energy?

@EonIsTrill @SpeedWatkins Morality is about what you "ought and ought not do" All of those you mentioned do not produce any of this

@sk_constantine @SpeedWatkins Morality is the label we put on behaviours that stabilize our existence and flourishing most persistently. ​It exists in the sense that funny exists or power exists. It is a descriptive measurement of how well a behavior respects the physics of the social and biological stack.

@philobrossuckdi @EmilePoulpe @SpeedWatkins You cant prove logic dude. Attempting to prove logic would lead to a circular fallacy because you are using logic to prove logic. You have to ground it on a divine mind. Thats my whole point.

@sk_constantine @EmilePoulpe @SpeedWatkins Moron We’ve covered this 5 times now!!! You can prove logic…you can can’t observe logic Just because you don’t have evidence does not mean you can’t prove something exists 5 times dude!!!

@Seano299 @graves_aar85283 @SpeedWatkins Grounding is what makes something true, not just how we know it.

@sk_constantine @graves_aar85283 @SpeedWatkins What do you take "grounding" to mean?

@Seano299 @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Ok. Dude. Can you point to the laws of logic? Can you measure them? Can you smell them? taste them? hear them?

@sk_constantine @flamewave7 @SpeedWatkins Logic is not immaterial. That would make it magic.