# PragerU's Not a Real Uni and Murder is Wrong.



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 23, 2018)

Free University? More like, Free Brainwashing.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 23, 2018)

They aren't a free university and that _should be common knowledge_. They are Conservative propaganda channel that pushes Right Wing views, they are extremely biased and often push these extreme views.


----------



## eworm (Dec 23, 2018)

Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 23, 2018)

I'm not religious, nor right-wing, and that was a good video.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 23, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.



I kinda fail to see the argument. Are you saying religious morality is objective?


----------



## osm70 (Dec 23, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to* figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality* for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.


I highlighted your mistake. Morality isn't objective. Sure, people sometimes agree on some moral principles, but they aren't objectively right. I know it's hard to imagine, but some people (or even cultures) don't necessarily have to view murder as wrong.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 23, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.


Leaving aside murder being defined as unlawful killing and thus human law coming into it (if you kill someone in self defence it not necessarily being murder being the classic example, to say nothing of all the weird and wonderful laws out there that various religions or historical quirks might have given us).

I think I will start with a favourite quote from Terry Pratchett, mainly because why not.



> ‘We do not execute.  We do not massacre.  We never, you may be very certain, we never torture.  We have no truck with crimes of passion or hatred or pointless gain.  We do not do it for a delight in inhumation, or to feed some secret inner need, or for petty advantage, or for some cause or belief; I tell you, gentlemen, that all these reasons are in the highest degree suspect.  Look into the face of a man who will kill you for a belief and your nostrils will snuff up the scent of abomination.  Hear a speech declaring a holy war and I assure you, your ears should catch the clink of evil’s scales and the dragging of its monstrous tail over the purity of the language.
> ‘No, we do it for the money.
> ‘And, because we above all must know the value of a human life, we do it for a great deal of money.
> ‘There can be few cleaner motives, so shorn of pretence.
> ...



Anyway the general foundation for most modern non theistic morality is that life is pretty sweet and causing suffering to others, much less removing their ability to continue life without their permission is a bit of an arsehole thing to do, and if you allow it then you allow it to be done to yourself (nobody can yet wield enough force to prevent it). It gets codified in a few different ways, some with some subtle distinctions, and there is endless debate about various things*, but that would be the basis of it.

*whether the right to your existence also includes the right to end it being a big one, when said existence might start, how the state of technology might change things being another, the nature of your autonomy -- going from tech in the previous things where do we grant ourselves the ability to compel certain actions with force, the scope of autonomy (of which the start of existence mentioned earlier is but a small aspect) and what counts as what here, the nature of suffering (words is words vs words is violence) and it goes on and on.

I have not seen the video at this point so I will skip the countering of religious morality stuff for now.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 23, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.


If the only thing stopping you from killing someone in cold blood is your belief in your flavor of deistic faith, I think we've got bigger issues to discuss here


----------



## x65943 (Dec 23, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.


An interesting point

But consider this - even if there was a God there would be no objective right or wrong

God would be another entitiy simply stating his wishes - and perhaps you could follow his subjective opinions, but his authority as "creator" would not allow him to make actions objectively right or wrong - only right or wrong in the eyes of one being.

It will always be impossible to make a value judgement objective.


----------



## Carnelian (Dec 23, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Free University? More like, Free Brainwashing.




School/High-School/College/University = Brainwashing...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 23, 2018)

Carnelian said:


> School/High-School/College/University = Brainwashing...


The mere fact that you're able to say that means it clearly isn't. But, to a degree, I agree with that statement. Just not for the reason you probably said it


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 23, 2018)

I like quite a few of their videos, they often present the flip side of issues and they're well-researched. I don't think these views are "extreme" and demonising them is simply divisive. If you disagree with someone, you can make a coherent argument instead of just calling them "biased". News flash, we're all biased, we naturally lean one way or the other, it's just that some are transparent with their bias while others aren't. PragerU isn't a "real university", but they never promoted themselves as one, so that's simply a strawman. They're a conservative organisation that creates videos which explain their point of view, I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 23, 2018)

Basically sums up PragerU in one image:







As for this video in specific, the idea that morality can only come from religion or god is ludicrous.  It's straight up religious propaganda, and the logic throughout the entire thing is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.



I'm Christian but not really religious about it. By definition and morally, murder is wrong since it's not something you'd be doing in self-defense but attacking someone and taking his/her life away completely with or without mercy.

There's also other aspects of PlagueU's video that are cringey and could turn into a drinking game but eh, I prefer to stay away from alcohol. lol



Xzi said:


> Basically sums up PragerU in one image:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's also the kind of audience PJW goes for and his videos have become pretty repetitive, he tends to pick subjects he already covered but does them somewhat differently again. His newest is about how great Tik Tok is (can't believe I just wrote this).

I'm subscribed to PJW for a long time now but generally don't even bother finish watching his videos entirely anymore or even agree with him most of the time. Sorta want to unsub but don't want to miss out on how silly his videos can be.  Now, I do somewhat enjoy watching other YouTubers who roast PJW 'cause he thinks he's always correct about everything.

Personally, I'm neither a lefty or a righty but look at both sides and see the good that both have and realize that both are flawed.

By the way, his video about love.. He got dumped hard. xD


----------



## eworm (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I highlighted your mistake. Morality isn't objective. Sure, people sometimes agree on some moral principles, but they aren't objectively right. I know it's hard to imagine, but some people (or even cultures) don't necessarily have to view murder as wrong.


Atheists always say morality is not objective, but nobody actually believes that. If morality is just "behavioral tendencies specific to given culture", we have no right to call Islamic terrorists wrong. Their morality says infidels are to be killed. Meaning they're not monsters - they're martyrs, heroes, saints. How dare you say a bad word about their actions, you bigot. Sure, they break our laws and we can prosecute them because of that, but our laws are simply unjust in this regard, clearly.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> If the only thing stopping you from killing someone in cold blood is your belief in your flavor of deistic faith, I think we've got bigger issues to discuss here


There's plenty of things stopping one from _murdering_, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from _believing murder isn't wrong_. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.
Do tell me what stops you from believing murder is as morally neutral as blowing your nose and doesn't have its source in objective idea of morality. That something is exactly what I have never been able to find.



x65943 said:


> But consider this - even if there was a God there would be no objective right or wrong
> 
> God would be another entitiy simply stating his wishes - and perhaps you could follow his subjective opinions, but his authority as "creator" would not allow him to make actions objectively right or wrong - only right or wrong in the eyes of one being.
> 
> It will always be impossible to make a value judgement objective.


Not exactly.
Because of His omniscience God knows what is right and because of His Love, He commands exactly that. Things aren't good because He commands them, He commands them because they're good. This may sound like God is subject to an even higher authority, a "morality" beyond Himself - but again, that is no morality at that point, that's Love. He wants Good, because He is Love and that's what Love wants for Its object. We're like little children, trying to put a metal fork into the electrical socket and calling our parents' decision to forbid it "arbitrary" and "selfish". It's not - they just know better and they love us. That combination is key.



Xzi said:


> As for this video in specific, the idea that morality can only come from religion or god is ludicrous.  It's straight up religious propaganda, and the logic throughout the entire thing is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.


Once again, an atheist hears "morality comes from God" and answers with "that's just ridiculous, illogical propaganda and no, I'm not gonna tell you why that is, have an insult instead".
Edgy 13-17 year-olds indeed.
Come on, if you want to argue against the points made - argue against the points being made.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Atheists always say morality is not objective, but nobody actually believes that. If morality is just "behavioral tendencies specific to given culture", we have no right to call Islamic terrorists wrong. Their morality says infidels are to be killed. Meaning they're not monsters - they're martyrs, heroes, saints. How dare you say a bad word about their actions, you bigot. Sure, they break our laws and we can prosecute them because of that, but our laws are simply unjust in this regard, clearly.
> 
> 
> There's plenty of things stopping one from _murdering_, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from _believing murder isn't wrong_. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.
> ...


god is not the answer, morality swings in each religion, there are more religious murderrers than non religious murderers.
morality comes with experience not relligion...
someone feeling cornered because his or her words of "wisdom" are not taking serious could bring anyone to murder, specially when this "wisdom" is religous based.
politics is much alike religion, and so the same kind of killers are in both to be found.
the other kind of murderers, for money, drugs, sex or panic? no religion ever changed numbers here...
or wait yes it does sometimes, when a (wo)men based on religous words got the idea that being married means they've claimed the partner for life, then this increasses the number of murderers in the religous corner.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Atheists always say morality is not objective, but nobody actually believes that. If morality is just "behavioral tendencies specific to given culture", we have no right to call Islamic terrorists wrong. Their morality says infidels are to be killed. Meaning they're not monsters - they're martyrs, heroes, saints. How dare you say a bad word about their actions, you bigot. Sure, they break our laws and we can prosecute them because of that, but our laws are simply unjust in this regard, clearly.



Oh boy, there's a lot to unpack here.
It's exactly what's happening. Are you saying they're fully aware they're monsters and don't believe they're martyrs, heroes, saints? That fact itself will tell you that they believe in a different set of morality.
A christian set of morals will literally believe everyone but christians are "monsters", especially people believing in polytheistic religions.
There isn't even one objective set of morals within christianity, what about monogamy, homosexuality? Weird how even christians are divided on these issues.
You whole argument is that there's ONE objective set of morals that comes from YOUR particular flavour of christianity and relies on a majority consensus of people who believe in that brand (which is a concept you earlier dismissed as "just law").



> There's plenty of things stopping one from _murdering_, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from _believing murder isn't wrong_. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.



Again, not even all christians adhere to the same set of morals and their understanding of morality has changed massively over time. I'm sure your argument would be that past christians such as the popes just weren't christian enough, which is nothing but a cheap cop out.
Chimpanzees have been shown to develop a sense of morality, last time I checked they couldn't read or communicate. How did they become aware of christian morals?



> Do tell me what stops you from believing murder is as morally neutral as blowing your nose and doesn't have its source in objective idea of morality. That something is exactly what I have never been able to find.



Look, the sense that murder is wrong has been around before christianity or judaism, you're just attributing the existence of a belief that murder is wrong to YOUR particular god and your line of reasoning makes it easy to refute everything with "but I believe everything was created at the start, we can only discover", so you'll just say it was instilled in people if they knew it or not. 



> Once again, an atheist hears "morality comes from God" and answers with "that's just ridiculous, illogical propaganda and no, I'm not gonna tell you why that is, have an insult instead".
> Edgy 13-17 year-olds indeed.
> Come on, if you want to argue against the points made - argue against the points being made.



I'm sorry but that's what you get for invoking *religous* morals without making clear you're talking about *a set of morals specific to a fraction of christianity*, it also makes it really hard to argue because you were not precise. As I've laid out before not even all christians agree on one set of morals. No one has insulted you here, unless you think challenging your beliefs is an insult.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 24, 2018)

The problem with "God is moral!" is it's pure Stockholm syndrome.. or the unwillingness to think on their own. I mean seriously... It -really- boils down to "The guy above me said it's okay!"

Abortions are performed *sometimes because the fetus is dead, sometimes it's a danger to the mother, sometimes the kid is unwanted." it's evil murder!
God kills thousands of babies with floods, plagues, telling people to rip wombs from women.. "It's fine! He decides what's good!"

it is literally abused spouse syndrome. "He just broke my arm because he loves me!"


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Atheists always say morality is not objective, but nobody actually believes that. If morality is just "behavioral tendencies specific to given culture", we have no right to call Islamic terrorists wrong. Their morality says infidels are to be killed. Meaning they're not monsters - they're martyrs, heroes, saints. How dare you say a bad word about their actions, you bigot. Sure, they break our laws and we can prosecute them because of that, but our laws are simply unjust in this regard, clearly.
> 
> *Well... yeah. I agree that they think they are morally in the right and we are immoral. They have their own set of morality that is different from ours. See? You just admitted that morality is subjective.*
> 
> ...




Answered directly in the quote *in bold.*


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

I generally like Prager's content, but I think he's making a big mistake by arguing about natural right from a religious perspective. I prefer the Shapiro approach towards natural rights, since all are logically derrived. If you were born on an isolated island, a Garden of Eden scenario, so to speak, you would have certain freedoms baked in - you could live and travel freely, you could satisfy your biological needs, speak and express yourself freely, defend yourself against the adversity of nature and so on and so forth. All these abilities are available to you naturally and without a government in place, so we can thus conclude that they are inalienable natural rights. At that point it doesn't matter if they were granted by a diety or not - natural rights are the basis of morality and they're logically derrived from the natural state of being human. Now, if you are religious, you could argue that said rights were granted to you by God, that's the "God-given rights" school of thought, but that's a different discussion. The point of this exercise is to outline that rights are not granted by government, you have de facto rights that others may infringe upon, but Prager goes a step further and fumbles in his video.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Not exactly.
> Because of His omniscience God knows what is right and because of His Love, He commands exactly that. Things aren't good because He commands them, He commands them because they're good. This may sound like God is subject to an even higher authority, a "morality" beyond Himself - but again, that is no morality at that point, that's Love. He wants Good, because He is Love and that's what Love wants for Its object. We're like little children, trying to put a metal fork into the electrical socket and calling our parents' decision to forbid it "arbitrary" and "selfish". It's not - they just know better and they love us. That combination is key.



"God knows what is right"

But there can be no right, how would you define it? That's like saying God knows what "fdjl;jaf" means

Of course it means nothing because it is gibberish. Or saying - God knows which ice cream flavor is best - none is best of course, because you cannot have a correct value judgement - value is in the eye of the beholder


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

x65943 said:


> "God knows what is right"
> 
> But there can be no right, how would you define it? That's like saying God knows what "fdjl;jaf" means
> 
> Of course it means nothing because it is gibberish. Or saying - God knows which ice cream flavor is best - none is best of course, because you cannot have a correct value judgement - value is in the eye of the beholder


It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.


But what is a cost and what a benefit? Although they may seem obvious, these too are subjective.

You might imagine someone who does not value their own life or happiness.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 24, 2018)

Morality should be relative. If we based society on Christian law to the letter today, we would still be stoning people for their opinions.

You want something objective to base good and evil on, how about freedom vs control. Any act of "evil" is a measurable amount of control taken over another person. For example, theft, rape, murder. But to give people more freedom, food, clothing, kindness, can be measured as good.

This is the philosophy I live by, which is why I feel religion itself can, in some ways, be measured as evil.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 24, 2018)

If you kill people, you're still a dick for doing it.  Peoples' lives are their own, you have no right to take that away from someone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

x65943 said:


> But what is a cost and what a benefit? Although they may seem obvious, these too are subjective.
> 
> You might imagine someone who does not value their own life or happiness.
> 
> There is no such thing as intrinsic value.


I'll have to disagree with you. When you're in the middle of a desert and completely parched, we can get back to the subject of intrinsic value of a bottle of water. Again, things that have value are things that allow you to live and prosper, this value is derrived from Maslov's pyramid of needs and it fluctuates based on factors like availability or urgency. The only kind of value that is not intrinsic is sentimental value because the demand is based on your subjective emotional attachment, everything else has a price tag.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll have to disagree with you. When you're in the middle of a desert and completely parched, we can get back to the subject of intrinsic value of a bottle of water. Again, things that have value are things that allow you to live and prosper, this value is derrived from Maslov's pyramid of needs and it fluctuates based on factors like availability or urgency. The only kind of value that is not intrinsic is sentimental value because the demand is based on your subjective emotional attachment, everything else has a price tag.


I see your argument

You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons

But that is a very subjective argument

You are basically saying it exists because we all feel it exists and say it exists

But you can never prove it exists either by a logic problem or otherwise scientifically

And this is why we say value is subjective - because unlike objective fact which can be measured, this can only be felt


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 24, 2018)

x65943 said:


> I see your argument
> 
> You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons
> 
> ...


But we can measure that we feel. At least most of us that don't suffer from psychopathy.

We are emotional and empathetic creatures, an evolutionary trait to make us work together and survive as a species.

We could then argue that good is any action that benefits all people and evil is measured as actions that benefit only the individual at the expense of others.

As much as that arguement better fits the conservative point that's trying to be made, I feel most conservatives wouldn't like this philosophy.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 24, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> But we can measure that we feel. At least most of us that don't suffer from psychopathy.
> 
> We are emotional and empathetic creatures, an evolutionary trait to make us work together and survive as a species.
> 
> ...


You can say many people agree on something, or that most people feel a certain way

But in the end that argument is pretty similar to "most people prefer chocolate over vanilla"

I completely agree with your points, all I am saying is it is not objective, but subjective


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 24, 2018)

x65943 said:


> You can say many people agree on something, or that most people feel a certain way
> 
> But in the end that argument is pretty similar to "most people prefer chocolate over vanilla"
> 
> I completely agree with your points, all I am saying is it is not objective, but subjective


For sure, we could say most people think murder is wrong and it would still be subjective. What empathy tells us is right is subjective. I'm trying to use just the existence of emotion and empathy, and its evolutionary purpose as an objective "one for all" philosophy. In this scenario most people can dislike murder, but killing someone for the good of society could be 'good'.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 24, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> For sure, we could say most people think murder is wrong and it would still be subjective. What empathy tells us is right is subjective. I'm trying to use the just the existence of emotion and empathy, and its evolutionary purpose as an objective "one for all" philosophy. In this scenario most people can dislike murder, but killing someone for the good of society could be 'good'.


I see. You're using the existence of shared values as a sort of reflection of an inner moral drive.

I can agree that humans seem to be biologically programmed to condone or condemn certain actions especially as they pertain to the group as a whole.

But you know a human's inner drives may not exactly be "good" in the sense we talk about in modern society. For example killing and raiding a neighboring tribe may be seen as good by older societies.

And different groups agree and disagree as to what is right and wrong. There seem to be some agreement over the biggies like murder, but in different circumstances even that is not a constant.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Morality also derives from what your end goal is. At the level of "the continuation of the species is the right thing", rape would be considered a good thing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> There's plenty of things stopping one from _murdering_, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from _believing murder isn't wrong_. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.
> Do tell me what stops you from believing murder is as morally neutral as blowing your nose and doesn't have its source in objective idea of morality. That something is exactly what I have never been able to find.


I mean, you could have just started off by asking, rather than taking the crusader route of asserting that your faith is objective truth and then making us come to you.

But, for your answer, murder is wrong for the same reason rape and, in most cases, theft, are wrong; you're taking something (in this case, life) from someone else without their consent. If you want to think of the Ten Commandments as objective moral law, I'd have no qualms with that, but you have to understand that they are also Jewish in origin, and the Commandments themselves are borrowed from a condensed version of Hammurabi's code; which is to say, the idea of Supreme Wrongs has existed LONG before Christianity

It's also worth mentioning that I was raised Christian, and I still occasionally go to and appreciated church -- but I was also religious to an extreme at one point, and after seeing what that did to me, I've distanced myself considerably from Christianity and prefer a more "do good without witness or reward" approach

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.


? God's a capitalist?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Once again, an atheist hears "morality comes from God" and answers with "that's just ridiculous, illogical propaganda and no, I'm not gonna tell you why that is, have an insult instead".
> Edgy 13-17 year-olds indeed.
> Come on, if you want to argue against the points made - argue against the points being made.


I'm not religious, but I'm also not an atheist, and I'm not going to spend hours dissecting a video that has a stupid premise to begin with.  His basic argument is that all morality outside of religion or god is reduced to "opinion," but that would make _all_ morality nothing but opinion because nobody has proven the existence of god yet.  Morality, even for religious people, is obviously informed by far more than their religion alone.  Otherwise goat sacrifices would still be as common as they were in the year zero.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 24, 2018)

I don't care what religious beliefs people have or don't have, but don't try to shove the whole "morality isn't real" or that "good and evil" don't exist bullshit, at least have a compelling argument as to why. Or how murder, rape, theft, etc are somehow not a bad thing to do against other people.

Even if religion wasn't a thing, people should still have a sense of good and bad.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't care what religious beliefs people have or don't have, but don't try to shove the whole "morality isn't real" or that "good and evil" don't exist bullshit, at least have a compelling argument as to why. Or how murder, rape, theft, etc are somehow not a bad thing to do against other people.


Of course, *I THINK* murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But *YOU* might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.

(You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Of course, *I THINK* murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But *YOU* might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.
> 
> (You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)



And I do, I think anything that harms another human in any shape, is a dick thing to do.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And I do, I think anything that harms another human in any shape, is a dick thing to do.


The point is that there might be people who don't think that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> The point is that there might be people who don't think that.



And I honestly worry about those people.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And I honestly worry about those people.


But you agree that it is possible for people like that to exist, right?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> But you agree that it is possible for people like that to exist, right?



Yes, and I think people who think this is okay are sick, twisted sociopaths.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Yes, and I think people who think this is okay are sick, twisted sociopaths.


I would agree with you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I'm not religious, but I'm also not an atheist, and I'm not going to spend hours dissecting a video that has a stupid premise to begin with.  His basic argument is that all morality outside of religion or god is reduced to "opinion," but that would make _all_ morality nothing but opinion because nobody has proven the existence of god yet.  Morality, even for religious people, is obviously informed by far more than their religion alone.  Otherwise goat sacrifices would still be as common as they were in the year zero.


And you know what, honesty, that. There are some things that just genuinely don't warrant intellectual discussion. A video that claims that moral authority comes from a higher power, despite "do-gooder" atheists and agnostics clearly existing with no incentive to follow what are supposedly religious moral standards, is kind of one of those things that exists purely to be laughed at if you think about it for more than 2 seconds


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean, you could have just started off by asking, rather than taking the crusader route of asserting that your faith is objective truth and then making us come to you.
> 
> But, for your answer, murder is wrong for the same reason rape and theft (in most cases) are wrong; you're taking something (in this case, life) from someone else without their consent. If you want to think of the Ten Commandments as objective moral law, I'd have no qualms with that, but you have to understand that they are also Jewish in origin, and the Commandments themselves are borrowed from a condensed version of Hammurabi's code; which is to say, the idea of Supreme Wrongs has existed LONG before Christianity
> 
> ...


Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.



x65943 said:


> I see your argument
> 
> You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons
> 
> ...


Intrinsic value is definitionally derrived from practical application - that's the point of "intrinsic", it's the value that a given item or being has de facto. It can absolutely be measured - you can only be so thirsty or so hungry before you die, you can only live for so long and you can only exist for so long without companionship or entertainment before you go crazy. Nobody in their right mind would argue against biological needs.

I also disagree with the statement that this stance dispenses with philosophy - it is deeply rooted in philosophy, it just happens to align with science.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.


Maybe, but our current system is more along the lines of crony capitalism or oligarchy.  Workers don't get paid even half of the value that their labor produces, monopoly laws are no longer enforced, and punishment for crime is uneven depending on financial/corporate standing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Maybe, but our current system is more along the lines of crony capitalism or oligarchy.  Workers don't get paid even half of the value that their labor produces, monopoly laws are no longer enforced, and punishment for crime is uneven depending on financial/corporate standing.


How is that in conflict with capitalism? Workers get paid precisely how much their labour is worth based on supply and demand. As for monopoly laws, I agree with a caveat - monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing and they're subject to a case by case analysis. A monopoly is only a bad phenomenon if it provides sub-par goods and services for inflated prices. You have to prove that with evidence. Nowadays Google is an example of a harmful monopoly, to look for examples.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.


That's kinda spitting in the face of nomadic hunter-gatherer communities, including most of the families featured in Genesis, but... Sure?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's kinda spitting in the face of nomadic hunter-gatherer communities, including most of the families featured in Genesis, but... Sure?


Not really, no. If you look at the particular customs you will see that their basis was trade of services. Everyone in the tribe had a particular function and the fruits of their labour were exchanged for other goods. Just look at arranged marriages - a bride would be valued at a certain amount of goods because the bride herself is a prospect of having offspring which bears the intrinsic value of being able to pass on your genetic material to the next generation. You could argue that that's a commune, but I would argue against that supposition - trades have existed for a very long time and certain family trees were tasked with certain jobs within the primitive social structure.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> How is that in conflict with capitalism? Workers get paid precisely how much their labour is worth based on supply and demand.


They don't though.  Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades.  Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.



Foxi4 said:


> As for monopoly laws, I agree with a caveat - monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing and they're subject to a case by case analysis. A monopoly is only a bad phenomenon if it provides sub-par goods and services for inflated prices. You have to prove that with evidence. Nowadays Google is an example of a harmful monopoly, to look for examples.


Tech and social media are the worst about this now.  Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas.  On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment.  I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US.  I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s.  Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Of course, *I THINK* murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But *YOU* might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.
> 
> (You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)


That's demonstrably false because you yourself don't want to be killed, raped or deprived of your belongings. You are well-aware of the fact that those things are evil, but once you put the choice through a cost-benefit equation and decide to commit those acts, you decide that they're worth it for you in your current situation. The only thing steering you the other way would be a closely-knit social structure, and that is often built on top of a religious standard. In other words, you need to be faced with certain stakes, whether you realise it or not. Those are not necessarily based in religion, they can be based in tradition or custom, but the point stands.



Xzi said:


> They don't though.  Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades.  Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.
> 
> 
> Tech and social media are the worst about this now.  Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas.  On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment.  I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US.  I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s.  Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.


I'll happily agree with half of what you just said. Alternatives to existing services must necessarily pop up and the government must necessarily put their foot down in terms of treating the Internet as, effectively, a public arena no different than a town square.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> That's demonstrably false because you yourself don't want to be killed, raped or deprived of your belongings. You are well-aware of the fact that those thongs are evil, but once you put the choice through a cost-benefit equation and decide to commit those acts, you decide that they're worth it for you in your current situation. The only thing steering you the other way would be a closely-knit social structure, and that is often built on top of a religious standard. In other words, you need to be faced with certain stakes, whether you realise it or not. Those are not necessarily based in religion, they can be based in tradition or custom, but the point stands.
> 
> I'll happily agree with half of what you just said. Alternatives to existing services must necessarily pop up and the government must necessarily put their foot down in terms of treating the Internet as, effectively, a public arena no different than a town square.




I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that it isn't possible for me to not think that murder is bad and if I commit murder, I must know that I am doing something bad?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
> 
> Are you saying that it isn't possible for me to not think that murder is bad and if I commit murder, I must know that I am doing something bad?


You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.


One could say the same about paying someone below a livable wage, but just a few posts ago you were arguing that wage should be aligned with supply and demand


----------



## burial (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.



Do you want someone to kill you?

No?

Thats all you need to know that killing is wrong.....


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> One could say the same about paying someone below a livable wage, but just a few posts ago you were arguing that wage should be aligned with supply and demand


I don't see the contradiction. Prices are determined by supply and demand, workers are paid as much as they agree to be paid via consensual contract. Nobody is forced to work in modern, developed societies - we've dispensed with slavery. If you want to argue that this is evil, you have to first deal with the fact that the worker in question entered into a legally binding contract with consent from both sides. If the contract is not beneficial to the worker and the worker signs it, he's an idiot. If less workers agreed to sub-par contracts, demand would be higher and wages would increase. It's the workers who are in charge in this relationship, they're the ones accepting unacceptable terms of employment. Supply and demand holds.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.



OK, what about this? (Keep in mind that this is an example and it is not the way I feel or think.)

"People with green eyes are terrible and they should all be killed. Green-eyed people don't deserve to live and they shouldn't have any rights. I am not doing anything wrong by killing them. In fact, I am doing humanity a favor by getting rid of the worthless scum that just wastes place. They are eating OUR food, so the less of them, the better."

So, assuming I don't have green eyes myself and I think the way I just described, I wouldn't actually think I am doing anything wrong.


And if you think having a mindset like that isn't possible then explain for example racism or for example the Holocaust. I am pretty sure Hitler didn't think he's in the wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> OK, what about this? (Keep in mind that this is an example and it is not the way I feel or think.)
> 
> "People with green eyes are terrible and they should all be killed. Green-eyed people don't deserve to live and they shouldn't have any rights. I am not doing anything wrong by killing them. In fact, I am doing humanity a favor by getting rid of the worthless scum that just wastes place. They are eating OUR food, so the less of them, the better."
> 
> ...


You've picked an arbitrary characteristic which denotes ideology. You are defending your tribe against external threats, this includes "The Other" which are de facto enemies as they are different to you. We overcame that instinct by introducing communities, both religious communities and nations. "The Other" is a well-known and researched subject. Hitler's Reich is entirely based on it, but that flattens the argument to a single dimension. People forget that Germany had legitimate grievances in addition to the irrational ones.

EDIT: Thanks, autocorrect.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see the contradiction. Prices are determined by supply and demand, workers are paid as much as they agree to be paid via consensual contract. Nobody is forced to work in modern, developed societies - we've dispensed with slavery. If you want to argue that this is evil, you have to first deal with the fact that the worker in question entered into a legally binding contract with consent from both sides. If the contract is not beneficial to the worker and the worker signs it, he's an idiot. If less workers agreed to sub-par contracts, demand would be higher and wages would increase. It's the workers who are in charge in this relationship, they're the ones accepting unacceptable terms of employment. Supply and demand holds.


Wage slavery is still slavery, just with extra steps.  Unless you're applying for CEO, the worker does not have the power in most employment situations.  The system is rigged in the employer's favor, especially in 'right to work' states where raises no longer exist because it's cheaper to just hire somebody new.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Wage slavery is still slavery, just with extra steps.  Unless you're applying for CEO, the worker does not have the power in most employment situations.  The system is rigged in the employer's favor, especially in 'right to work' states where raises no longer exist because it's cheaper to just hire somebody new.


Workers absolutely have power over the company, the company doesn't exist without the workers. This isn't even a right-wing talking point, this is a left-wing talking point and the origin of worker's unions.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You've picked an arbitrary characteristic which denotes ideology. You are defending your tribe against external threats, this includes "The Other" which are designed facto enemies as they are different to you. *We overcame that instinct* by introducing communities, both religious communities and nations. "The Other" is a well-known and researched subject. Hitler's Reich is entirely based on it, but that flattens the argument to a single dimension. People forget that Germany had legitimate grievances in addition to the irrational ones.


We did? Tell that to some extremist groups that still exist today.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> We did? Tell that to some extremist groups that still exist today.


Which ones are officially operating and are not faced with overwhelming public disapproval? It should be easy to name some.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Workers absolutely have power over the company, the company doesn't exist without the workers. This isn't even a right-wing talking point, this is a left-wing talking point and the origin of worker unions.


Unions no longer have the power that they once did (largely because of corporate lobbying), and we're well past the age of companies showing loyalty to their employees.  There are a ton of jobs available right now, but they all pay shit and the working conditions are often even worse than that.  Revolving door positions are extremely common now.  So how is an individual worker meant to have any influence whatsoever on a system so rigged against them?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Unions no longer have the power that they once did (largely because of corporate lobbying), and we're well past the age of companies showing loyalty to their employees.  There are a ton of jobs available right now, but they all pay shit and the working conditions are often even worse than that.  Revolving door positions are extremely common now.  So how is a single worker meant to have any influence whatsoever on a system so rigged against them?


I don't have a problem with that. I prefer individuals bargaining over collective bargaining. It's not the fault of the company that you lack marketable skills or fail to market them.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They don't though.  Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades.  Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.
> 
> 
> Tech and social media are the worst about this now.  Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas.  On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment.  I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US.  I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s.  Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.


70% is not a monopoly. Monopoly means 1.

And Microsoft never had a monopoly. And anti trust against them didn’t make sense. There is Apple OS, Linux, and a bunch of other substitute OS’s. Munich in 2003 switch 14,000 of their computers from Microsoft to Linux. That’s not monopoly.

Even anti trust laws didn’t make sense against Budweiser either. They had control of 46% of the beer sales but it’s still not monopoly. There’s still more then 400 new brewers added, so more then 2,751 brewers exist.

And beer is just 1 type of alcoholic drink you can buy. And beer has been loosing market share to other type of alcoholic drinks in the past decade. 

A monopoly is rare as long as competition can enter freely in the market. You won’t be able to give me many examples of monopolies.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Which ones are officially operating and are not faced with overwhelming public disapproval.


I can name a few that exist. But I cannot name any that aren't facing disapproval.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I can name a few that exist. But I cannot name any that aren't facing disapproval.


So they're not aligned with acceptable norms of behaviour then, they're outliers.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> So they're not aligned with acceptable norms of behaviour then, they're outliers.


Agreed.

The members of those groups think they aren't doing anything wrong, right?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't have a problem with that. I prefer individuals bargaining over collective bargaining. It's not the fault of the company that you lack marketable skills or fail to market them.


Again, unless you're going straight for CEO, companies underpay regardless of skills or resume.  Individual bargaining gets you maybe a dollar or two extra at hire if you're lucky.  And that's assuming the employer didn't already drop the base pay, knowing that people would ask for slightly more anyway.  Everybody's wages in 2018 are well below what they would be accounting for rate of inflation alone.  Some people are fine with getting fleeced like this I suppose, the majority are ignorant that it's even happening.



SG854 said:


> 70% is not a monopoly. Monopoly means 1.


Waiting until one company owns _everything_ in a given market sector before enforcing anti-trust laws would be ridiculous.  I'd seriously contemplate suicide if every channel was the Disney channel.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The members of those groups think they aren't doing anything wrong, right?


They're in a bubble. They're sub-cultures with different standards and they're rife with cognitive dissonance. This is learned behaviour, I'm sure we can both agree on that. The only natural element is the fear of the unknown, which is understandable and relatable. We all have prejudices.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Again, unless you're going straight for CEO, companies underpay regardless of skills or resume.  Individual bargaining gets you maybe a dollar or two extra at hire if you're lucky.  And that's assuming the employer didn't already drop the base pay, knowing that people would ask for slightly more anyway.  Everybody's wages in 2018 are well below what they would be accounting for rate of inflation alone.  Some people are fine with getting fleeced like this I suppose, the majority are ignorant that it's even happening.
> 
> 
> Waiting until one company owns _everything_ in a given market sector before enforcing anti-trust laws would be ridiculous.  I'd seriously consider suicide if every channel was the Disney channel.


That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?


Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?


It hasn't happened yet because we didn't give up on enforcing those laws until recently.  Continuing down this same path, we've got _maybe_ another decade before we see fully-saturated monopolies.  Meanwhile, the largest corporations are allowed to expand into any and every market sector they want, starving out any competition.



Foxi4 said:


> Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.


Apple and Google _kind of_ compete with one another, but no company is going to pop up out of the mud to challenge those two.  Amazon cannot be challenged as they'll just undercut anyone that refuses to be bought out.  Facebook knows everything about everybody because their trackers are in just about every website.  I don't see another Myspace-like challenger to their dominance happening.  The list goes on and on.  These corporations have strangleholds over their respective sectors, and competition literally is no longer possible for them.  They write the rules for themselves at this point.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.


Yes, they need government to gain control to restrict competition from entering. Even examples people give are hardly monopolies either.

And even price gouging isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just another way of saying supply and demand. Supply low, demand high, things are more expensive because people try to outbid each other from an item in scarcity. 

When people see the price gouging prices more people want to enter in the market to price gouge also and make lots of money. More people entering means an item in low supply that is really needed like food is now plentiful. Then prices come down from high supply and low demand through competition. Expensive prices in the beginning is a price to pay for something to more readily available latter on.

Only price gouging is a problem if competition is prevented from entering the market.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It hasn't happened yet because we didn't give up on enforcing those laws until recently.  Continuing down this same path, we've got _maybe_ another decade before we see fully-saturated monopolies.  Meanwhile, the largest corporations are allowed to expand into any and every market sector they want, starving out any competition.
> 
> EDIT: Apple and Google compete in the goods market, but they collude in terms of services. The deplatforming phenomenon shows that once one platform removes you, other platforms follow suit as the gates were opened. This phenomenon is called "unpersoning" - all of a sudden you're not allowed anywhere.


Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.



SG854 said:


> Yes, they need government to gain control to restrict competition from entering. Even examples people give are hardly monopolies either.
> 
> And even price gouging isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just another way of saying supply and demand. Supply low, demand high, things are more expensive because people try to outbid each other from an item in scarcity.
> 
> ...


I agree, government meddling is a necessary component if every monopoly, which is why it should be excised from the sphere of private business. Since we don't live in that perfect world, we must work on other mechanisms. I don't disagree with any principles you've outlined, they're all correct.


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> *Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company.* This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.
> 
> I agree, government meddling is a necessary component if every monopoly, which is why it should be excised from the sphere of private business. Since we don't live in that perfect world, we must work on other mechanisms. I don't disagree with any principles you've outlined, they're all correct.




You mean... what Article 13 is trying to pull?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.


I don't see that this really fixes the problem, just about everything on the internet is moderated by somebody.  It still leaves Google/Alphabet with several other sectors where they hold market dominance.  Online forums and comments don't make them nearly as much money as hardware, hosting, and other technology investments do.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I don't see that this really fixes the problem, just about everything on the internet is moderated by somebody.  It still leaves Google/Alphabet with several other sectors where they hold market dominance.  Online forums and comments don't make them nearly as much money as hardware, hosting, and other technology investments do.


The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.



osm70 said:


> You mean... what Article 13 is trying to pull?


Article 13 is the exact opposite, it limits speech and expression.

This conversation is fascinating and I am committed to continue it, but I have guests and I am unironically a bottle of vodka deep into the Christmas Eve party. Care to continue tomorrow?


----------



## osm70 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.
> 
> Article 13 is the exact opposite, it limits speech and expression.
> 
> This conversation is fascinating and I am committed to continue it, but I have guests and I am unironically a bottle of vodka deep into the Christmas Eve party. Care to continue tomorrow?




Yeah, Article 13 is limiting... by removing Safe Harbor. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.


That and Android phones are probably their biggest cash cows, yes.  They've got their hands in absolutely everything though, just as Amazon and Facebook do.  There are basically only two big players left when it comes to video hosting: Youtube and Twitch, owned by Google and Amazon respectively.  Netflix also runs through Amazon now.  It's just going to keep going like this until roughly four companies each own a quarter of everything that happens on the internet.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That and Android phones are probably their biggest cash cows, yes.  They've got their hands in absolutely everything though, just as Amazon and Facebook do.  There are basically only two big players left when it comes to video hosting: Youtube and Twitch, owned by Google and Amazon respectively.  Netflix also runs through Amazon now.  It's just going to keep going until like four companies each own a quarter of everything that happens on the internet.


It's sad that the Internet is getting smaller, not bigger. This is why I support upstarts like stream dot me, we need to support the alternatives. But alas, as I already mentioned, I fully intend to be a drunk fool tonight, so I must depart while I am still coherent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Yeah, Article 13 is limiting... by removing Safe Harbor. Or am I wrong?


Article 13 strengthens copyright laws and infringes upon Fair Use. I am perfectly fine with removing Safe Harbor from platforms that choose to stringently police content in a way that far exceeds the legal standard, I am not okay with an outright denouncement of freedom of information. It's a question of scope, not principle.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> It's sad that the Internet is getting smaller, not bigger. This is why I support upstarts like stream dot me, we need to support the alternatives. But alas, as I already mentioned, I fully intend to be a drunk fool tonight, so I must depart while I am still coherent.


Cheers and merry Christmas!  I'm already stoned ofc because I've had about a week long vacation from work.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see the contradiction. Prices are determined by supply and demand, workers are paid as much as they agree to be paid via consensual contract. Nobody is forced to work in modern, developed societies - we've dispensed with slavery. If you want to argue that this is evil, you have to first deal with the fact that the worker in question entered into a legally binding contract with consent from both sides. If the contract is not beneficial to the worker and the worker signs it, he's an idiot. If less workers agreed to sub-par contracts, demand would be higher and wages would increase. It's the workers who are in charge in this relationship, they're the ones accepting unacceptable terms of employment. Supply and demand holds.


The problem, though, is exactly that; jobs that are typically associated with entry-level positions have a high supply of applicants with a relatively low demand. As @Xzi mentions later, this creates a revolving-door scenerio in which the employer can effectively say "we can rotate out a bunch of low-skill high schoolers and train them for less money than what you'd want us to pay you. Why should we do that?" Sure, they'd be losing efficiency (even "low skill" jobs have a bunch of skill associated with them that can only be learned with experience), but as you've mentioned in a lot of different discussions, most employers will go with the best cost/benefit solution for the short term.

And don't get me started with unions. They work everywhere EXCEPT here because the US has constantly been pushing out propaganda that unionizing is never to the benefit of the individual and only serve to be pouty against the innocent businesses (when in reality, unionizing ALWAYS benefits the employees, and helps keep the businesses in check when they start taking advantage of workers)


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.
> 
> I agree, government meddling is a necessary component if every monopoly, which is why it should be excised from the sphere of private business. Since we don't live in that perfect world, we must work on other mechanisms. I don't disagree with any principles you've outlined, they're all correct.


There is no perfect anything. No perfect free market, no perfect regulation, and it’s about making sacrifices and choosing one that produces superior results. 

I would be in favor of regulation if it makes sense. But so far I have seen negative outcomes instead. The internet is one though that has me thinking, but so far I haven’t seen anyone propose a regulation that won’t negatively back fire instead.

People want us to imitate Sweden but Sweden has less regulation then we do. And we are prevented from coming out with useful innovations that is allowed to be sold in Sweden but not in the U.S. because of the regulations we have.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 24, 2018)

Video is hogwash. Assumes conclusion and then uses that as evidence for the conclusion. Doesn't make arguments so much as just states opinions as facts. This is why we need ethical philosophy as a mandatory part of our high-school curriculum.



eworm said:


> Atheists always say morality is not objective, but nobody actually believes that. If morality is just "behavioral tendencies specific to given culture", we have no right to call Islamic terrorists wrong. Their morality says infidels are to be killed. Meaning they're not monsters - they're martyrs, heroes, saints. How dare you say a bad word about their actions, you bigot. Sure, they break our laws and we can prosecute them because of that, but our laws are simply unjust in this regard, clearly.
> 
> 
> There's plenty of things stopping one from _murdering_, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from _believing murder isn't wrong_. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.
> ...



Morality is an emergent property of being social animals. Read up on the morality in other social animals and it'll become clearer. Evolutionary biology has a lot of answers, if you're curious enough to go looking for answers ("prisoner's dilemma" is a good starting point). The long and short of it is, the better we treat each other and the community, the stronger the community and the happier each individual generally is. Ethical discussions usually revolve the balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the few or individual, finding solutions that maximize both while sacrificing as little as possible.

If a higher entity told you something was wrong, and its opinion is what made it wrong, it's not ethically wrong in any logical way. It's wrong only because you'd be disobeying the higher entity's desires. Which is the absolute worst way to construct an ethical system. "do it because I said so" is a poor reason to do anything. "do it because I know better than you" hints they are also logically thinking it out, meaning morality is not based on their will, but because it is helpful or meaningful in some way we could suss out. Which means...we don't need a god to arrive at morality, we just have to think it through 

We have reasons not to murder. real, physical, meaningful reasons. We don't murder because we value our own lives. We value the lives of those important to us, those around us, those that are a part of our "tribe". The closer in proximity to your "tribe" someone is, the more you're likely to value their life, their opinions, and value their needs. The more ethical you are, the more likely you are to see the entirety of the human race as part of your "tribe". "darn foreigners" is an expression of "they're not a part of my tribe", which generally means that person will value their lives lower than those they do consider part of their tribe.

There are loads of books, youtube videos, research, podcast, whatever you want on this topic. I'd be happy to share any and everything you'd like. It's a whole field unto itself.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Unions no longer have the power that they once did (largely because of corporate lobbying), and we're well past the age of companies showing loyalty to their employees.  There are a ton of jobs available right now, but they all pay shit and the working conditions are often even worse than that.  Revolving door positions are extremely common now.  So how is an individual worker meant to have any influence whatsoever on a system so rigged against them?


If it makes things any better Amazon is lobbying to raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. But then comes the question why are they lobbying?

Would a company looking to pay its workers the least amount of money they can Lobby to raise the minimum wage out of the goodness of their hearts. What’s in it for them to force their competitors to raise their minimum wage.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> If it makes things any better Amazon is lobbying to raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. But then comes the question why are they lobbying?
> 
> Would a company looking to pay its workers the least amount of money they can Lobby to raise the minimum wage out of the goodness of their hearts. What’s in it for them to force their competitors to raise their minimum wage.


I'd imagine because they think that'll attract more workers while also improving the economy. A stronger economy means more people using amazon to buy stuff. I hear their working conditions aren't great in warehouses, and a higher minimum wage might keep them from complaining about the poor work conditions? Just completely guessing.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> If it makes things any better Amazon is lobbying to raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. But then comes the question why are they lobbying?
> 
> Would a company looking to pay its workers the least amount of money they can Lobby to raise the minimum wage out of the goodness of their hearts. What’s in it for them to force their competitors to raise their minimum wage.


Amazon used a $15/hour wage as an excuse to remove other benefits such as healthcare coverage and bonuses.  They also used the positive PR from this to take focus off their extremely poor working conditions.  I imagine other corporations will see this as an opportunity to engage in similar shitty practices, but I suppose it is still a net positive if big employers like Wal-Mart and fast food are eventually forced into a living wage.  Those people almost never had health coverage or other benefits to begin with, and their working conditions were already shitty.


----------



## orangy57 (Dec 24, 2018)

eworm said:


> Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.



Just because people don't believe in God doesn't make them a moral-less husk. There's this thing called hormones that we have that control emotion. Hormones tell people to not kill, because it's instinct to not hurt our own species.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Amazon used a $15/hour wage as an excuse to remove other benefits such as healthcare coverage and bonuses.  They also used the positive PR from this to take focus off their extremely poor working conditions.  I imagine other corporations will see this as an opportunity to engage in similar shitty practices, but I suppose it is still a net positive if big employers like Wal-Mart and fast food are eventually forced into a living wage.  Those people almost never had health coverage or other benefits to begin with, and their working conditions were already shitty.





osaka35 said:


> I'd imagine because they think that'll attract more workers while also improving the economy. A stronger economy means more people using amazon to buy stuff. I hear their working conditions aren't great in warehouses, and a higher minimum wage might keep them from complaining about the poor work conditions? Just completely guessing.


I’m thinking more along the lines that their competition can’t afford it. So they are eliminating competition. 

Walmart worldwide net sales $495,761 billion. But of that 9,862,000,000 is actual profit. Most of their sales goes into costs running the business.

There are 2.2 million Walmart workers. If you divide their profits with workers, and divide average hours worked a year, 1,811, that’ll be a $2.48 raise a year. 

Not enough to meet the 15 minimum wage. Not only that, that’s the entire profit so none will be left over to invest in innovations or to pay the business owners since they are payed on profits. Workers get paid first before CEO sees any money.

Walmart 2018 Annual report.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m thinking more along the lines that their competition can’t afford it. So they are eliminating competition.
> 
> Walmart worldwide net sales $495,761 billion. But of that 9,862,000,000 is actual profit. Most of their sales goes into costs running the business.
> 
> ...



Yes, but that's assuming the extra money folks are getting won't be spent. You have to include a reasonable expectation of how much will be put back into the economy, in which sectors, otherwise its an incomplete assessment.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m thinking more along the lines that their competition can’t afford it. So they are eliminating competition.
> 
> Walmart worldwide net sales $495,761 billion. But of that 9,862,000,000 is actual profit. Most of their sales goes into costs running the business.
> 
> ...


That's probably what they're thinking, yes. But assuming Amazon is the current highest-grossing retailer in the nation (and I'm inclined to say they are, although I'd need to look at a stat sheet), it makes sense for them to be among the first to pay a company-wide living wage, while giving other businesses a chance to breathe, build up a bit of revenue, and then follow the lead shortly after

Unfortunately, what you mentioned seems to be the case; Amazon will always pay their warehouse workers as little as they can legally get away with, and if raising the legal minimum wage can help eliminate small business competition, then they'll take that proverbial club to hit them in the kneecaps with. From a PR standpoint it looks like philanthropy, when in reality it would effectively be domination

Edit: it should be mentioned that a lot of this would be moot if Bezos paid ANY taxes, considering that would reduce the tax burden on citizens and decrease the need for a wage hike


----------



## eworm (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Oh boy, there's a lot to unpack here.
> It's exactly what's happening. Are you saying they're fully aware they're monsters and don't believe they're martyrs, heroes, saints? That fact itself will tell you that they believe in a different set of morality.


Way to miss my point entirely. Not knowing about how gravity works doesn't make it less real. Being wrong about what's moral or immoral is not "a different morality", it's being in the wrong. My whole point is that morality is not "ideals" or "beliefs", it's more akin to "facts" and "knowledge" - and you keep talking as if I'm saying the opposite.



supersonicwaffle said:


> You whole argument is that there's ONE objective set of morals that comes from YOUR particular flavour of christianity and relies on a majority consensus of people who believe in that brand (which is a concept you earlier dismissed as "just law").


I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.



osaka35 said:


> The long and short of it is, the *better* we treat each other and the community, the stronger the community and the happier each individual generally is.


The word "better" has no meaning if morality is subjective, that's the point. We can say "the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates" or something, because temperature is not a matter of opinion or majority vote. But we can't say "the nicer the temperature, the more water evaporates".
Treating each other well, sure, let's go with that. I'm gonna say "treating each other well" involves forbidding abortion, aka murder of helpless children, preventing it at all costs. But a person on the political left will jump in and say "treating each other well" involves giving all women free access to abortion, because they should be able to have unprotected, irresponsible sex all they want and not suffer the natural, obvious consequences of their actions. Would you look at that, we both agree on treating each other better, how well we would get along.

If a higher entity told you something was wrong, and its opinion is what made it wrong, it's not ethically wrong in any logical way. It's wrong only because you'd be disobeying the higher entity's desires. Which is the absolute worst way to construct an ethical system. "do it because I said so" is a poor reason to do anything. "do it because I know better than you" hints they are also logically thinking it out, meaning morality is not based on their will, but because it is helpful or meaningful in some way we could suss out. Which means...we don't need a god to arrive at morality, we just have to think it through 



osaka35 said:


> We have reasons not to murder. real, physical, meaningful reasons. We don't murder because we value our own lives. We value the lives of those important to us, those around us, those that are a part of our "tribe". The closer in proximity to your "tribe" someone is, the more you're likely to value their life, their opinions, and value their needs. The more ethical you are, the more likely you are to see the entirety of the human race as part of your "tribe". "darn foreigners" is an expression of "they're not a part of my tribe", which generally means that person will value their lives lower than those they do consider part of their tribe.


Physical reason = we care about each other.
Let me unpack what you said. We care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
Except objective morality is the _source_ of "we care about each other". We are moral therefore we care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we _think_ we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
That's like saying we don't need to actually like a video game because we keep playing it and we have a good time doing so. And since we're having a good time, we don't need to even like the game, just need to keep playing. Playing is the source of the fun, clearly, not some "liking", get real.
Yes, that is the weirdest analogy I've ever made.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

eworm said:


> I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.



Which GOD?


----------



## Engezerstorung (Jan 1, 2019)

"Have moral standards. Make a god who stand for thoses values. Wait some couple of 100 years and tell people that without this god those values wouldnt exist and use that to have power on people by using fear and emotional blackmail while using the words "love" and "respect" to watch them tearing themselves apart to protect your power in your place. Profit."


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 1, 2019)

eworm said:


> Way to miss my point entirely. Not knowing about how gravity works doesn't make it less real. Being wrong about what's moral or immoral is not "a different morality", it's being in the wrong. My whole point is that morality is not "ideals" or "beliefs", it's more akin to "facts" and "knowledge" - and you keep talking as if I'm saying the opposite.
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.
> ...



You know, every moral standard set in one part of the bible is contradicted somewhere else. There are parts that condone rape, murder, incest, slavery, dismemberment, and even abortion as the bible says life doesn't begin until your first breath. Sounds pretty subjective to me


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

eworm said:


> I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.


Realistically speaking, you can't honestly have one without the other (unless, for instance, you're a spiritualist that rejects the current direction your base religion is heading, which I wouldn't blame you for). If I asked you how a human was to go about following morality in a way that couldn't possibly anger God, you would likely respond with something along the lines of following the teachings of the Bible. Problem is, that's a book that was written by humans, and is the global basis for the Christian religion. That is to say, the morality taught by the Bible, which is supposedly objective, is something that only applies directly to Christians (and Christian literalists/Pharisees, at that). Adding to that, the Christian God is the same god that Jews and Muslims worship, and yet I've seen many faithful Christians call members of those religions immoral, God-hating pigs. If God's morality was objective, would it not be consistent for all of his followers, no matter how they worship? And what of the other various gods that other cultures worship?

That's also without touching your comment on gravity existing even if we don't understand how it works; yes, you're correct, except that for a force to be scientifically recognized, you have to be able to reliably observe it in action, and you can't ethically teach anything about it that you can't prove. For an example, try to look up much of anything about how magnetic forces actually work (not what they do, _how_ they do it). You're not going to find to much as there's still a LOT we don't know about them, because they're difficult to study in motion and even the people who have spent decades in the field (ba dum tss) don't even begin to fully understand them. Similarly, you can't simply assert something about how God functions without evidence to back that up; I have no objections with you believing that God is behind Creation, or that you feel that God is guiding you through your life to help you make the choices that are best for you. But to posit that God is the objective moral law for every living creature would require a pretty strong thesis as to when you've observed that to be the case.



> That's like saying we don't need to actually like a video game because we keep playing it and we have a good time doing so. And since we're having a good time, we don't need to even like the game, just need to keep playing. Playing is the source of the fun, clearly, not some "liking", get real.
> Yes, that is the weirdest analogy I've ever made.


That's... a really _bad_ analogy, because you're arguing basically the opposite of what your point is. Enjoyment of a game is subjective; look at all the praise and high ratings Zelda: Breath of the Wild received, then look at GBAtemp's review of it, for instance. If you wanted to argue that morality is to caring for each other as enjoyment is to playing video games, and morality is objective, you'd be implying that everyone would enjoy playing a game equally, regardless of actual interest in it and how much they say they like it


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 1, 2019)

eworm said:


> The word "better" has no meaning if morality is subjective, that's the point. We can say "the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates" or something, because temperature is not a matter of opinion or majority vote. But we can't say "the nicer the temperature, the more water evaporates".
> Treating each other well, sure, let's go with that. I'm gonna say "treating each other well" involves forbidding abortion, aka murder of helpless children, preventing it at all costs. But a person on the political left will jump in and say "treating each other well" involves giving all women free access to abortion, because they should be able to have unprotected, irresponsible sex all they want and not suffer the natural, obvious consequences of their actions. Would you look at that, we both agree on treating each other better, how well we would get along.



Of course better has a meaning. It's a relative meaning, but a meaning. it's relative to the individual and the community, as I defined fairly clearly (I thought) with the rest of my paragraph. Some morals are pretty basic. "don't kill folk" is a lot less nuanced than "how do we ethically divide money between parties who both have valid claims", so is considered more fundamental. The more fundamental something is, the less subjective it tends to be. Yet even then there's wiggle room. If someone breaks into your house and is going to kill you, most people agree it's ethically okay to kill them first to save yourself and those around you. Pretty clear example of how even the most basic, "don't kill folks", is somewhat subjective. We don't all agree on what's "better". That's why there are ethical discussions about what laws are just, how we should change them, etc. Again, this is a whole field unto itself, and it's seriously a lot of fun to read and learn about.

With the abortion argument, you're arguing a specific case (and you're arguing using scientific knowledge from the bronze age, which is...problematic) as a way to disprove how ethics aren't subjective. It sounds like you're having trouble with working out how ethics could be subjective if we could disagree on something as "obviously immoral" to you as this. Let me start by defining how better works in ethical discussions. We can talk about the ethics of a specific case, but we define what "better" is on a case by case basis. We compare like with like, which is why better is subjective to what you're comparing. Have to define it, which is what ethical decision making is all about. In the case of abortion, we are arguing the inherent bodily rights of the mother against the inherent bodily rights of a child. Adults, talking about how both have rights, so how do we balance both their needs to minimize harm to both and maximize their human rights? Black and white statements are the opposite of careful consideration, and do much to nullify actual ethics. Your biblical thinking is pretty anti-ethical in its methodology, and doesn't work at all in this case as far as ethical consequences. The crux of the matter is when is a baby an actual baby? When it's still in the "blueprints" phases where literally nothing human has been built by the mother's body (your position)? Or until it has a brain, the blueprints are mostly done changing to their environment, and most of the baby has been built(most non-religious, scientifically informed folk)?

You're also, I'm guessing, introducing law into this, which is considered a separate topic than ethics. Ethics are used in the creation of laws, but they aren't the same thing. I suppose that's a big one to keep in mind. But basically, you used the assumption your personal perception of a god is the correct one as evidence your god is the correct one, so therefore, ethics comes from him. You're talking in circles.

The rest of your text against sex is just religious dogma and has nothing to do with ethics. Just personal prejudice.



eworm said:


> Physical reason = we care about each other.
> Let me unpack what you said. We care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
> Except objective morality is the _source_ of "we care about each other". We are moral therefore we care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we _think_ we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
> That's like saying we don't need to actually like a video game because we keep playing it and we have a good time doing so. And since we're having a good time, we don't need to even like the game, just need to keep playing. Playing is the source of the fun, clearly, not some "liking", get real.
> Yes, that is the weirdest analogy I've ever made.



that's circular reasoning as well. You have to explain WHY it's objective rather than "it is objective, so therefore it's objective". You have to dig deeper and question why something is the case, rather than just accept something is a way because it's always been that way. As far as your example goes, playing is the action, liking is the personal assessment of the action. We are the ones creating the meaning based on the actions we take. The game is not inherently fun, it's fun based on whether the actions we take are ones we like. So...yes? no? I didn't really get your analogy.


----------

