Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Flash

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm Are you explicitly comfortable with eliminating all of that part of our moral discourse in order to preserve your argument?

Not tryin' to preserve anything. My position is clear, solid, and coherent. And: I'm not gonna be bulldogged into muddying the waters by declaring a mental deficiency as immoral.
In the nromal way we think and talk about what is right or wrong and moral or immoral, punching your dig and punching your wife are both immoral actions. Your division seems artificial and doesn't explain normal moral beliefs that nearly all of us share. You are casually eliminating all of this with very little explanation of why your reasoning is something more than an opinion. In fact none, you've just stated an opinion as a fact and left it at that.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm The dog is not a person, it is still imoral to fuck it

Why? It's a sick act, yes, but why immoral? Explaining your take on morality is probably a good place to start.
Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns. This is why old rules about how hard a man should beat his wife when she talks too much are so absurd today.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm A pond full of rare fish is not a person, it is still imoral to poison it

Why. It's a wasteful act, mebbe even a sick act, but why an immoral act?
Abuse of power perhaps. You must remember, I don't need to actually establish my thing as a moral fact because I am one of those nasty moral skeptics your momma warned you about. So for my purposes I need only come up with various examples of stuff that seems immoral, because morality and immorality is a seeming sort of thing to my team. Then we work out whether your moral fact thing is based on all moral judgments being either factual or mistaken, or whether you are doing that weak sauce version of the whole deal where some trivial two or three things are moral fact, but everything else is still fashion. Then we do the same to Veritas because he is going to panic and blurt something stupid, which is the fun part.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm There is also nothing built into the concept of imorality that requires the other party to actually object.

Of course not, but it is tellin' that most the time people do object when mistreated. They understand they're bein' abused, that a moral wrong is being commited. Dumb animals, on the other hand, just lick up the peanut butter.
So it must be equally telling then if you punch your dog and he bites you.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm I'm sorry Henry, but the whole thing makes less sense than you are thinking it does.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. As I say: my position is clear, solid, and coherent.
Well if we're just going to mark our own homework, my response was clear solid and coherent. And so it is a matter of opinion unless you are in the market for mutually exclusive but true 'facts'. Which, you know, it's a bit French and post-thingy but might work for you.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

Please can you cite the IC argument in support of his religion that you find most solid and consistent, though not terribly convincing to you?

I'm not your middle man: go engage him yourself.


And the way to deal with objections to your moral realism - 'hole-poking' - is to show why they're wrong.

So: when is anyone gonna start? So far: it's just been a lot of tongue-cluckin' and tsk-tsking.


For example, I think 'people own themselves', even if it's true, has no moral entailments anyone . Care to show why it can and does?

It's in the opening: not playin' the endless recitation game.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

Flash wrote: In the nromal way we think and talk about what is right or wrong and moral or immoral...lecture, lecture, lecture...it's a bit French and post-thingy but might work for you.

See, uwot? Tongue-cluckin' & tsk-tsking.
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Not uwot

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pmPlease can you cite the IC argument in support of his religion that you find most solid and consistent, though not terribly convincing to you?
Yeah, that wasn't actually me.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pmI'm not your middle man: go engage him yourself.
Happy to, but he's saving my soul by not answering back.
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Still not uwot

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:39 pm Flash wrote: In the nromal way we think and talk about what is right or wrong and moral or immoral...lecture, lecture, lecture...it's a bit French and post-thingy but might work for you.

See, uwot? Tongue-cluckin' & tsk-tsking.
Like you say Henry:
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pmI'm not your middle man: go engage him yourself.
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Henry

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:42 pm The 'challenge' was the task you gave us in the op:

Which you didn't attempt to tackle opting instead to bring me cold fire.
Fair enough, I didn't edit that post very well. Try this:
uwot wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:24 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:24 pmI'm a moral realist: that is, I believe there is a moral fact that can be derived from fact. My reasoning, my statement, is the opening post. Go read it.
The thing is right from the start you have to make allowances:
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 amInstinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.
Yup, seems straightforward to me.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 am Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.
There are people, Catholics probably being the biggest group, who apparently believe that life is given by some god, and it remains the property of that god to take back any time it pleases. Apologists will argue that you are free to do as you will with your life, but the punishment for not making the right choice is torture on a scale the most ambitious mortal psychopath could only dream of.
Anyway, does that meet your challenge?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 amWhile you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.
Okie-dokie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUpv2AqbZ1E
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:42 pmMannie's arguments in support of his religion are a helluva lot more solid and consistent (though not terribly convincing to me) than any of the arguments foisted up by those lookin' to poke holes in my notions of moral realism.
Well my point is that any individual's morality is not based on logic - it is based on feelings. Some people feel compelled to defend their feelings with what are sometimes valid arguments. The thing with valid arguments is that they can't be demolished with logic, so people end up arguing about each others feelings, yours for example, and there is fuck all chance of those changing. So yeah, any argument is going to seem more compelling than a personal assault.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: uwot

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:39 pm Flash wrote: In the nromal way we think and talk about what is right or wrong and moral or immoral...lecture, lecture, lecture...it's a bit French and post-thingy but might work for you.

See, uwot? Tongue-cluckin' & tsk-tsking.
No, your claims have a set of serious problems that you are avoiding. Punching your dog is wrong, morally wrong. Punching your wife is wrong, morally so. You can't account for this stuff properly with what you have written so far. Your description of what is and is not moral concern is therefore just not good enough. Not good enough at all. Don't condescend to me.

Likewise your moral fact of the matter to do with self ownership is exactly what I said it was yesterday, nothing but an axiom and in this case not an obvious axiom. It's entirely reasonable not to accept it.

You haven't dealt with anything at all here, you've insisted on some things that don't make a lot of sense, and when they aren't agreed with you just closed up. That's fine if it's just your opinion versus mine. But you're supposed to think this stuff is fact.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Not uwot

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, that wasn't actually me.

yeah, i see that now: sorry.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Still not uwot

Post by henry quirk »

again: sorry
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

flash

Post by henry quirk »

Punching your dog is wrong, morally wrong.

Nope. It's just a dumb animal. Your abuse of it may be rooted in a mental illness, but it ain't a moral issue.


Punching your wife is wrong, morally so.

Absolutely it's morally wrong. Your wife is a person, she belongs to herself, you ought not treat her like *ahem* a dog.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

Well my point is that any individual's morality is not based on logic

I don't see how that's a given.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: flash

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm Punching your dog is wrong, morally wrong.

Nope. It's just a dumb animal. Your abuse of it may be rooted in a mental illness, but it ain't a moral issue.


Punching your wife is wrong, morally so.

Absolutely it's morally wrong. Your wife is a person, she belongs to herself, you ought not treat her like *ahem* a dog.
and the way in which a 12 week fetus owns itself that a dog doesn't is?
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

(Apology accepted by the way.)

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:54 pm Well my point is that any individual's morality is not based on logic

I don't see how that's a given.
You're right, it's not. The thing is I have never seen a moral argument based on a premise that can be demonstrated with the same clarity and certainty as, for instance, 'If I drop my pint, it will smash on the floor.' All the moral arguments I've encountered are of the type 'If I drop my pint, it will be a disaster.'
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: uwot

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pm Please can you cite the IC argument in support of his religion that you find most solid and consistent, though not terribly convincing to you?

I'm not your middle man: go engage him yourself.
He doesn't know which of his arguments you find most solid and consistent. That's why I'm asking you. (I don't think he offered any arguments in support of his religion whatsoever - but I may have missed them.)

And the way to deal with objections to your moral realism - 'hole-poking' - is to show why they're wrong.

So: when is anyone gonna start? So far: it's just been a lot of tongue-cluckin' and tsk-tsking.
I've set out why your argument for moral realism is unsound - because your premise doesn't entail your conclusion, which is why negating the conclusion doesn't produce a contradiction.
For example, I think 'people own themselves', even if it's true, has no moral entailments. Care to show why it can and does?

It's in the opening: not playin' the endless recitation game.
Trouble is, you haven't explained why what you call a moral fact is a fact, or how it follows logically from your premise that people own themselves. You just endlessly recite that it does - which is pointless.

Btw, if you don't like having your argument for moral realism criticised, don't post it in a public discussion forum. What do you want - uncritical agreement?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Henry's crazy-ass shit

Post by Lacewing »

Peter Holmes to Henry Quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:19 pm Trouble is, you haven't explained why what you call a moral fact is a fact, or how it follows logically from your premise that people own themselves. You just endlessly recite that it does - which is pointless.

Btw, if you don't like having your argument for moral realism criticised, don't post it in a public discussion forum. What do you want - uncritical agreement?
Henry makes claims that he pulls out of his butt, and then he repeats them over and over as if that somehow makes them true or indisputable -- plus he seems to be impressed with them. :lol:

Like this one...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:40 pm Much ado 'bout nuthin'...by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu
And he kept repeating this despite not having any intelligence to do so.

For someone who makes such a big deal about owning himself, you'd think he'd own up to his shit.
Last edited by Lacewing on Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply