hoppa

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Are you claiming that this is inherent to socially constructed systems?

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Humanity doesn't impose anything. Collectives cannot act. Certain humans imposed systems on other humans, for their own goals of maintaining that imposition. You are under a liberal delusion that it is anything else.

The best logical fallacy to give an atheist when discussing morals is to ask them why it's morally wrong to have intercourse with roadkill It's dead it will not feel anything, nobody will know and there are no victims If you ask a Christian or Buddhist why it's morally wrong, they will tell you it's because the body retains inherent dignity as part of God's creation (or the sacred flow of life), and desecrating it violates divine/natural order, harms your soul/karma, and shows disrespect, even if no one feels it or knows An atheistic worldview of this question taken to its extreme, concludes that intercourse with roadkill is tantamount to masturbation and nothing more

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No, I could keep moving down their chain of derived axioms until I hit their bedrock, demonstrating that they can't do that either. That would be a great argument.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Then you have zero argument against the religious when they claim they can actually do it. The best you can do is claim they're no worse than you.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No. You keep skipping several steps. Killing is evil, but some evils can be justified by being conducive to greater flourishing. If not killing means the opportunity cost is a net negative for human flourishing, it would be immoral under my framework.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash So killing anyone immoral is also good.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Yes, humanity imposed society on itself. And it didn't do so arbitrarily, or "magically". It was created to fulfil certain goals.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash This is a very liberal take on how systems work. Systems are imposed on people, not magically created by them to organize themselves. The goal of any system is the self interest of those who run it, everything else is secondary. Morals are for individuals. Not "systems".

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No one can do the first thing, and everyone does the second. But we can observe the practical realities of acting under "nothing is moral or immoral", so we feel the need to argue about whose axiom has the strongest structure on top anyways.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash I know. That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't argue your axiom is better than any other. You bake what "better" even means into the axiom itself.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No, "norms" was not the moral justification. Norms can be good or bad depending on whether they are conducive to human flourishing.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash I don't think so. You snuck in "norms". You haven't justified that. "Norms are good because they're norms and norms are good"

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Removing tyrants is good for the system. Killing can be a necessary step to achieve that aim, but it must always come with the expectation of sufficiently increased goods in other areas to compensate. As I said.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Killing is good when the outcome is good If it's good for the system it's moral

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash The arguments come from the structure built upon the axiom. Otherwise, no moral philosophy ever has any argument over another.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash You are missing the point. You have no argument against using any other axiom, no argument against other moral theories built on other axioms, because they did exactly the same thing you did.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash That is an insane reading of what I just said.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Oh so now "norms" are moral.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Please elaborate.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash And you already broke your moral system lol That didn't take long

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No. I'm saying that they are intrinsic goals of the system that humans created to organize themselves. I didn't decide that stability or health, for example, are goals of that system. Take away enough of it and the system collapses, regardless of my preferences.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash That YOU label. The system that YOU define. You're the one deciding what's good and what's bad. Sure, you can pick whatever trait you want and decide if something is objectively good or bad, but you can never defend those traits with anything but circularity.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash No, arbitrarily swapping the bedrock axiom collapses the structure of the moral theory. Like it would for any other moral philosophy.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash If it's not derived then it's just an arbitrary statement that could be swapped out for any other, and you'd have no argument other than "I like mine better".

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash It's demonstrating how deviating too far from sexual norms is corrosive to mental health, and as we established that societal outcomes are aggregates of individual ones, to human flourishing. I don't need a specific study on the societal effects of necro-beastiality.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash I don't see anything in there about necro-beastiality as you claimed.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Yes, I believe in my moral system. Again, I don't claim universal metaphysical moral truth.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Also, don't think I didn't notice that "I believe"

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash And the good in question is providing an expectation for compensation by increased goods in other areas, as I said. It's a necessary evil.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash That doesn't follow at all. If people are celebrating a death via disease, they're valuing the disease. They're recognizing that disease has performed a good, at the very least in this particular instance.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Again, it's not. It's the foundation, and trying to make it derived is what becomes circular. Just like "God has moral authority because God is good" will eventually become circular if you pretend it's not derived.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash "it's not circular, it's circular" Alright man

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash It wouldn't. Just like not wanting a police state wouldn't imply you value crime.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash That would mean that they value disease in that instance.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash And they were easy to find. In fact, here is an article that draws from several of them: sexualalpha.com/sexual-addicti…

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash "Flourishing is good" is not circular, it's the foundation of my morality. It's the unavoidable non-derived axiom that all moral philosophies begin with, theist and secular alike.

@TowerHeretic @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash I can. I believe society is a system that was created by humans with an intrinsic goal, to produce a certain set of outcomes that I label under "human flourishing". Those outcomes are instrumentally objective goods to the goals of the system. Not metaphysically objective.

@hoppafar @SnowBallz7777 @ShitpostRock @VinceDefash Sure. But you can't defend them as objective.