Legal backups?

[Rurouni_Fencer]

[Limewater]

OK, I've had enough. I can't tell if you are just joking around and trying to fuck with me for fun, or if you are actually serious about this shit. Either way, I am done wasting my time with this absurd conversation.

Inazuma - "Doing harm to others is bad. Not doing harm is OK"
Limewater - "So what about if you do harm to others? You saying that's not bad?"
Inazuma - "Didn't you hear me? I said harm is bad."
Limewater - "So what about if you do harm to others? You saying that's not bad?"
Inazuma's head explodes.

How so? I don't see where I harmed anyone in any of the examples I gave above.

How does peeing on you harm you?
How does NOT touching a toddler (who happens to be drowning in a swimming pool) harm him?
How does NOT hitting someone with my car harm him?
Furthermore, if what you're doing really upsets someone, how can you say that they aren't being harmed?

The whole point of my previous post was the arbitrary nature in which you seem to be assigning "harm." You say that it's wrong to harm someone, and anything that does not harm someone is right. But you only seem to be willing to accept your perception of harm. I guess you're the final "harm" referee. I honestly do not see where in any of the examples I gave that I would be harming anyone, unless I really wanted to be picky and mention risk of skin cancer or my car's emissions while I'm driving it around drunk. If I considered those, then a heck of a lot more stuff would be "wrong."

[Limewater]

I don't know that you're wrong in your definition of wrongness.

LOL.

I'm sorry, I'm not going on with this.

Did you laugh at yourself when you asked this question?

If I'm wrong in my definition of wrongness, how do you know that?

The whole point of my responses to you were that you have chosen a definition of right and wrong. You see it as obvious, and ridiculous to disagree with. Yet, when pressed on why you believe it, you haven't been able to really give a better answer than, "In all honesty, it seems really absurd to deny this."

You say that something is wrong if it's not "right and true" or something, so that you can use it in a moral context, but can't give any definition of what is morally "right."

Moral standards are not obvious or self-evident at all. It seems like a lot of people on the board subscribe to some sort of Consequentialism-based ethics, cling to it religiously, and ignore or completely disregard any other ethical systems. There's a lot more out there than Consequentialism, there are a lot of legitimate (maybe "valid," even!) criticisms of it. But everyone ignores these, just assumes a simple moral rule, and goes from there.

I think I said all of this much more succinctly in my original response to FlamePanther. Consequentialism is an assumption. The idea that, if something is wrong, it must have a reasonable argument against it, is one also.

[Hatta]

All arguments are ultimately based on unproved axioms. You can't even do geometry without making some simple, unprovable, but obvious assumptions. Same with ethics.

Why does there need to be a reason? Because I need a reason. I will not condemn anyone until I am given a good reason. The burden of proof is on those who want me to classify an act as wrong. So you explain to me why I should condemn an act as "wrong" without any reason.

[Limewater]

All arguments are ultimately based on unproved axioms. You can't even do geometry without making some simple, unprovable, but obvious assumptions. Same with ethics.

In principle, I agree. However, not all axioms are obvious, and many things which are obvious are false. We couldn't really do anything without assumptions, but it is important to acknowledge what they are when they are made.

Why does there need to be a reason? Because I need a reason.

But do your wants or needs have value or relevance to a question of morality?

The burden of proof is on those who want me to classify an act as wrong.

I'd argue that the burden of proof is on those who wish to classify an act as right or wrong at all.

So you explain to me why I should condemn an act as "wrong" without any reason.

I'm not saying you should. I'm just wanting to know why moral determinations must be related to argument. I haven't gotten a real answer yet, but you've come closest. Thanks!

[ZeroAX]

Racketboy U, where everyone fails Piracy 101

[flamepanther]

This discussion got very silly, very fast.

All I should have to say to Limewater's question is this: a government that can accuse citizens of being criminals without a good reason is considered unjust (i.e. "wrong") by any modern, free society.

[Hatta]

Why does there need to be a reason? Because I need a reason.

But do your wants or needs have value or relevance to a question of morality?

My wants have nothing to do with the principles of physics or biology. But if you say you've discovered a new particle or gene, I'm not going to believe you unless you give me evidence. Moral determinations must be related to argument because all determinations must be related to argument. There is no a priori knowledge. There may be some unprovable truths out there (Godel assures us that there are), but I don't know what they are, you don't know what they are, and anyone who claims to know what they are is running a scam. So I'm happy enough to ignore them, if you can't prove it it might as well not exist.

[jfrost]

I don't know that you're wrong in your definition of wrongness.

LOL.

I'm sorry, I'm not going on with this.

Did you laugh at yourself when you asked this question?

No, I laughed at your pitiful attempt at being cute.

If I'm wrong in my definition of wrongness, how do you know that?

The whole point of my responses to you were that you have chosen a definition of right and wrong. You see it as obvious, and ridiculous to disagree with. Yet, when pressed on why you believe it, you haven't been able to really give a better answer than, "In all honesty, it seems really absurd to deny this."

Yet, I did provide you the reason why it was absurd to deny it. You conveniently ignored it. Like you always do, because you're so so pleased with your role of assumption questioning.

Absurdity is an argument against an idea. Absurd ideas must be discarded, unless it can be demonstrated that they're not really absurd.

You say that something is wrong if it's not "right and true" or something, so that you can use it in a moral context, but can't give any definition of what is morally "right."

Because I'm not arguing ethics. What I argued is that my definition applies to ethics. You disagree. In my recolletion, I gave a compelling argument why that is so. You didn't accept it. I can live with people not understanding or even thinking my arguments are, gasp, wrong. You don't even accept that you think I'm wrong based on the fact that you don't think I'm right. It's impossible to discuss like that.

Moral standards are not obvious or self-evident at all. It seems like a lot of people on the board subscribe to some sort of Consequentialism-based ethics, cling to it religiously, and ignore or completely disregard any other ethical systems. There's a lot more out there than Consequentialism, there are a lot of legitimate (maybe "valid," even!) criticisms of it. But everyone ignores these, just assumes a simple moral rule, and goes from there.

I think I said all of this much more succinctly in my original response to FlamePanther. Consequentialism is an assumption. The idea that, if something is wrong, it must have a reasonable argument against it, is one also.

It is not. It's even a pressuposition of argumentation. But you don't agree. Let's move on.

[ZeroAX]

This thread is going to be in 3...2....1....