Makaze

Is it just me or is Mashengo an incredibly flat token black character?

Kircheis is in his own tier above everyone. That's a given.

Midway through Episode 65. Oberstein = Reinhard = Yang, imo.

Oberstein is scary.

Specta is very friendly and open minded. An earnest and straightforward person whom anyone can talk to.

Virion was built for the Dark Knight class. The cravat was his calling. My top pick.

Onimusha Tactics. How could I forget?

Is anyone else interested in Crawl?

Depends on the context. Sometimes it's better to feign nicety for the sake of group morale. But it's nice when people are forthcoming. I don't like spending my time on ingrates. Lego Island 2? I have no idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the moral realist and the observer will have these conflicting definitions of morality: MR: Morality: The objective standard for right and wrong. O: Morality: MR's concept of the objective standard for right and wrong. Then, if another moral realist with another standard comes along: MR2: Morality: Another objective standard for right and wrong. O: Morality: MR or MR2's concepts of the objective standard for right and wrong. The more concepts the observer comes in contact with, the more confusing the word 'morality' becomes to use in conversation, until: O: Morality: Any standard for right and wrong that is believed to be objective by some MR. Or some such equally all-encompassing understanding that amounts to subjectivism or relativism. I hope this question helps illustrate my confusion: If moral realism is true, then when is killing immoral?

DISPEL FNORD THE POWER OF GREYFACE.

I believe it's important to define things in a way that can be comprehended and discussed by all parties involved. To an outside observer, it's clear that one moral realist's concept of objective morality only has meaning relative to them. Even other moral realists will differ in some way. The observer will recognize it as either epistemologically subjective or agent-relative. The moral realist cannot possibly accurately communicate such a concept to the observer. Their understandings of what it is are fundamentally different. If you suggest that moral realists should be able to keep up their incompatible delusions and confuse everyone or that they are right to do so, that would be why I said you sounded like an egoist. It sounds similar to 'enforce your subjective views as objective' as a standard. I'm not sure if you meant to portray this, but I don't understand why you would defend moral realism only because it still exists en masse. That seems like an is-ought confusion.

If reason suggests that subjectivism or relativism are the default (negative) claim, what do we gain by defining morality as something so arbitrary as to make discussion impossible?

Rationality can only be applied when a goal is specified. If my goal is to survive as an individual, then I might end up having to kill everyone else do it. If my goal is for the group to survive, I might have to sacrifice my individual survival to do it. If I don't care either way, then the rational thing is to do nothing. We have a natural inclination, yes, but why does that matter? Even if every human had it (which they don't), it's irrational to assume that the way things are is the way things should be (formally known as the is-ought fallacy/problem). When I explained morality's existence and how it came about due to evolution, I was describing how it is, not how it ought to be. When it comes down to it, all statements of 'ought' facts are statements of desires. If not your desires, then a god's or someone else's. The universe doesn't have desires or purpose. People do. If we were to look to the universe for our purpose or desire, our purpose and desire is death. Our desires seek self-removal. We eat to no longer be hungry. We breed so that we no longer lust. We eliminate threats so that we no longer feel afraid. The ultimate goal of desires is to want for nothing; to have no reason to make any changes to our environments. That is ego death. Some would say the death of the soul. In the physical world, we live an extremely short while and are soon destroyed by time. Ironically, if we lived to extreme long life we would reach ego death by sating all desires to the point that of dull anhedonia. Physical death saves us from that fate. According to our nature we should all die. Many paths to the same end. People fight futility against this. Ought they? It seems irrational. They ought to accept their fate and go extinct. According to society, our morals should mirror those of our ancestors or peers. By extension, your rights are relative to your social status and the society you live in. Racism exists partially as an effect of this. Races have their own social standings within a society, so while they may occupy the same space, they have different moral codes and ecology among people of different races. They get around their moral qualms by mentally and emotionally placing other people outside of their society. The Italian mafia in the US were an example of people of one race enforcing their own moral standards within a larger society that was hostile to them. They protected their own. Societies within societies. The smallest unit within a society is the individual. There are many, many cases where individual people are cast out of society and it is believed that killing them is alright because they are outside of the society. There is no such thing as 'human' rights when you can marginalize a party as 'criminal' and therefore 'undeserving'. Similarly many believe it is alright to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians overseas but become morally outraged when ten are killed in their homeland by outsiders. It should be obvious that social mores are relative on all kinds of scales. What is left? What you, personally, want. If you want a particular type of social order, enforce it. Make it a reality. You can apply rationality to this philosophy. If society is against your desires, it is rational to disassemble that society and rebuild it to your liking. Giving up will not make what you want happen. It is irrational to deny what you want to suit society, or the universe. If you want to become immortal, do so. If you want to end the species, do so. You make right or die trying. I don't understand. Isn't that begging the question? "If moral realism is true then morals are objective." Why are we assuming that it's true when all evidence points to subjectivity? Basically I'm saying why should I believe such a positive claim? If you aren't saying I should accept a positive claim to objective truth when there are equally credible alternatives, then I'm not sure why you object to my claim that it is subjective. Am I incorrect in assuming that subjectivism or relativism are the default positions in the absence of a provable positive claim? Or is there a third position that is neither anti-realist nor realist?

Isn't it? It has many rational objections and disagreements within itself. That article opens with and continues to express that there is controversy around and among moral realists. The standards required to make something moral for a moral realist seem to be based on subjectively preferable criteria. As I understand it, when two or more people claim incompatible objective standards, they are both rendered subjective simply by having equally credible opposition. I believe that these differences use the term subjective in the agent-relative/agent-neutral sense. Ethics are agent-neutral; morals are agent-relative. Is that better? Because logic itself could be a constraint of my mind rather than the universe itself. If there were the case, I would only be able to interpret the universe in logical terms. There is no way for me to comprehend anything else.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ In any case these are widely recognized to be two distinct concepts, whatever we want to call them. I can't imagine it, but that could be a constraint of my mind (and I believe it is) which may not necessarily be a truth of the objective universe. Regardless, I already stated that I subscribe to undeniable Maths truths... My objection to morality is that it is very easily deniable. I objected to Rapier because they were asserting that moral truth and 2 + 2 = 4 are objectively true regardless of rational denials. You're contradicting yourself. When replying to me you say that majority conviction decides what is moral. That means that it does rely on convictions after all. You contradicted that when replying to Cheeky by saying that even though a majority believed that killing the Jews was correct, it was wrong. Which is it? I wouldn't say that they were morally wrong.

Silver, I guess. Not a big fan of gold.

Why is society and/or survival better than all humans dying out? It is straight up incorrect that all beings want to give continuity to their existence. Both empirically and hypothetically. Suicidal people and animals exist, have intentionally ended the continuity of their lives, and are able to exist in the future.

You are inclined to think that way. I am not. How do you reconcile that fact? But... We just went over how 2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true... Why is our survival good in and of itself? Do you believe that suicide is immoral by extension?

I don't agree that they were immoral. Those fascist leaders not only believed that it wasn't immoral, but many believed that they were righteous moral actors. It's simply false to state that we all have the same morality. If not convictions, then what criteria do you use to determine whether something is moral or not? What makes the conviction 'killing is wrong' more righteous than the conviction 'killing is right'?

My mistake. Both children and animals enforce those desires on others and attempt to secure means of getting them by punishing others for interfering or refusing to accommodate. These actions speak of a desired code of conduct for themselves and others even if they can't tell you that they think it's wrong. If morality in this case is actions that induce shame or qualms in the actor, then you can consider your own heroin use immoral in one sense, but do it anyway, showing a conflict of convictions. In that case it would be both moral and immoral for you, but given your decision, it would be ultimately more moral for you (since that was the ultimate result of the hierarchy). If you feel no shame or qualms with doing heroin then it is moral because you want it but not immoral because you don't have a contrary conviction. Same with blowing yourself up. As I understand it, ethics and morals aren't the same thing. Morals are personal, ethics are social. If we're talking about ethics then that's another story. You acknowledged this below. As above: Sociopaths may have morals but they implicitly have no regard for ethics. Not from my perspective. If they intended to overdose then it would be their perspective. But in egoism, what I want is all that matters. What my kid wants only matters if I care about it.

There is no contradiction. Morals can and often do conflict in contemporary morality. e.g. 'Thou shalt not kill' versus 'Obey the deity's commands'. There is a hierarchy of conflicting convictions in each moral code. Those who subscribe to a system of morals might ignore one of them in favor of another based on their personal priorities. In the end it comes down to priorities. You could argue that their priorities don't count as morals if they don't make then into an enforced policy or rule, but I think that's just a question of how long they have those priorities. Peoples' concerns differ and sometimes change over time. People who are more decisive and stable will be prone to develop long-term codes of conduct while fickle people will be prone to changes in the hierarchy at varying rates. It's the same in the egoist model of ethics.

I don't think he likes me. That's pretty much it.

Your position seems reducible to egoism. I'm getting the impression that you are asserting that all systems of morality held by people are equally real and valid. I fundamentally disagree. If you have wants, you have morals. What you want is right. What interferes with our wants is wrong. Sociopaths don't necessarily lack morals. They lack empathy. All of their convictions are against things that hurt their personal interests. I believe that by definition they feel it is the right thing to do, and that if you interfered, that would be wrong of you. Like I said, I agree with Russel. I believe that it can be considered just plain false. I changed my position to include meaningless because you said you disagreed with Russel. I admit that these are potentially semantic arguments so I chose not to rule out meaninglessness. If I stated that it was impossible for it to be meaningless, you probably would have called me out for that since you disagree. I was intentionally avoiding that tangential debate when I can see reasons for both positions. Is it possible for the statement to be true?

Your position seems reducible to egoism, which is pretty agreeable, but lacks universal or even communicative value. It is not wrong for me to actively oppose the survival of the species because it is in my interests to do so; it is not wrong for you to actively promote the survival of the species because it is in your interests to do so. How is that not a stalemate? I don't believe that logic and morality can be equated like that. As we established, the basics of logic do not appear to be subjective in the epistemological sense. Our convictions and desires are subjective in the epistemological sense. We can accurately communicate our concepts of logic but we cannot accurately communicate our desires. I prefer Russel's assertion about these statements. It cannot be a true statement because it relies on the premise not only that 'wrong' and 'PM of the US' exist, but that 'exactly one exists such that...' Which is false. Alternately, it is meaningless. I believe you were the one who said that the statement 'The PM of the US is gay' is either false of meaningless, but cannot be true. Is that not the case after all? Can it be a true statement?