Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

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

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:20 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:18 pm I doubt that Peter Holmes rejects the wrongness of murder, and I doubt that he is saying he does, but you know that, even though you stupidly pretend not to. The point is: anyone is free to reject (in the moral sense) the principle of murder being wrong. That's all it is; a moral principle, and a moral principle can only be measured against personal standards and values.
Why do you doubt that?
Why don't you ask him what his personal, moral opinion of murder is? Then we would know for sure if he personally approves of murder or not.
He understands the definition of "soundness". A valid argument with true premises.
The argument is valid.

If he rejects the soundness of the argument then he is necessarily rejecting the premise.
I doubt that you've made a sound argument in all the time you've been posting on this forum. :roll:

And I doubt it because I have yet to see one from you, before you ask why I doubt it.
The premise is "Murder is wrong"
It is certainly legally wrong, if that's what you are arguing, but I took you to mean morally wrong, and moral rightness and wrongness is purely a matter of personal opinion in the context of personal values.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:39 pm Why don't you ask him what his personal, moral opinion of murder is? Then we would know for sure if he personally approves of murder or not.
I don't have to. He said he rejects the premise. The premise being "Murder is wrong".
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:39 pm I doubt that you've made a sound argument in all the time you've been posting on this forum. :roll:
So you too are doubting the premise of this valid argument ?
P1. Murder is wrong.
P2. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:39 pm And I doubt it because I have yet to see one from you, before you ask why I doubt it.
Oh, so you missed it the first time? No problem.

Here it is again...
P1. Murder is wrong.
P2. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:39 pm It is certainly legally wrong, if that's what you are arguing, but I took you to mean morally wrong, and moral rightness and wrongness is purely a matter of personal opinion in the context of personal values.
So many words - so little addressing the point.

Do you reject or accept the premise?

it seems so trivial to agree with this that the only fucking morons who would nitpick this are philosophers
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:47 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:39 pm Why don't you ask him what his personal, moral opinion of murder is? Then we would know for sure if he personally approves of murder or not.
I don't have to. He said he rejects the premise. The premise being "Murder is wrong".
I also reject the premise that murder IS wrong, but that is not the same thing as holding the opinion that murder is not wrong. You are either fully aware of that, and are being dishonest, or you are unaware of it, and being stupid.
So you too are doubting the premise of this valid argument ?

P1. Murder is wrong.
P2. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.
It isn't an argument; it's an assertion without an argument to support it.
Do you reject or accept the premise?
Of course I reject the premise; it is too indeterminate to sensibly do otherwise.
it seems so trivial to agree with this that the only fucking morons who would nitpick this are philosophers
If you object to the matter being treated according to philosophical principles, it seems rather stupid of you to enter into discussion with members of a philosophy forum. :?
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm I also reject the premise that murder IS wrong, but that is not the same thing as holding the opinion that murder is not wrong
Yes it is. Either P is true or the negation of P is true.

Either it's true that murder is wrong.
Or it's true that murder is not wrong.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm You are either fully aware of that, and are being dishonest, or you are unaware of it, and being stupid.
3) You are rejecting commonly accepted principles of reasoning without goot cause or justification.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm It isn't an argument; it's an assertion without an argument to support it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion
Premise 1: Murder is wrong.
Premise 2: Murder is wrong.
Conclusion: Murder is wrong.

An argument!
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm Of course I reject the premise; it is too indeterminate to sensibly do otherwise.
Great! That makes two idiots in the corner who think that the unlawful premediated killing of one human being by another is not morally wrong.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm If you object to the matter being treated according to philosophical principles, it seems rather stupid of you to enter into discussion with members of a philosophy forum. :?
If philosophical principles lead you to such absurd conclusions such as the rejection of the wrongness of murder it seems like a good fucking idea to abandon philosophy; or at the very least to consider that the practice of philosophy as objectively immoral.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:23 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm I also reject the premise that murder IS wrong, but that is not the same thing as holding the opinion that murder is not wrong
Yes it is. Either P is true or the negation of P is true.

Either it's true that murder is wrong.
Or it's true that murder is not wrong.
It can only be true that murder is (morally) wrong, or not (morally) wrong, in someone's personal opinion.
You are rejecting commonly accepted principles of reasoning without goot cause or justification.
That isn't a bad thing when the principles are only commonly accepted by you. :?
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion

Premise 1: Murder is wrong.
Premise 2: Murder is wrong.
Conclusion: Murder is wrong.

An argument!
That is merely a column of three identical, unsubstantiated premises, and most certainly does not constitute an argument. It seems that you have gone from impersonating a policeman to impersonating a child. :shock:
Great! That makes two idiots in the corner who think that the unlawful premediated killing of one human being is morally wrong.
Well of course it's unlawful, that's what murder means: unlawful killing. But why do you call someone an idiot for thinking that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being is morally wrong? I happen to think it is morally wrong, that is my subjective opinion.
If philosophical principles lead you to reject the wrongness of murder it seems like a good fucking idea to abandon philosophy; or at the very least to consider that the practice of philosophy is objectively immoral.
Philosophy isn't objectively immoral, but it should be objective.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm I also reject the premise that murder IS wrong, but that is not the same thing as holding the opinion that murder is not wrong.
A murder is a wrongful killing, so I don't think there's scope to doubt the premise that wrongful killing is wrong, it's a tautology. It's the same as doubting that unmarried men are batchelors or all that black swans are black. Even a nihilistic argument to the effect that wrongness is a concept with no extension at all would not negate this simple matter of definition.

Attempting to deductively arrive at a tautology is equally dubiuos so only a fool attempts to prove that wrongful killings are wrong. If you wish to argue that that some particular killing was wrong, you argue that it was a murder, and if you wish to argue that it was not wrong, you are required to argue that it was not murder.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm It can only be true that murder is (morally) wrong, or not (morally) wrong, in someone's personal opinion.
Towards the pursuit of truth any truth seems sufficient.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm That isn't a bad thing when the principles are only commonly accepted by you. :?
Why than you for crediting me with the law of excluded middle.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm That is merely a column of three identical, unsubstantiated premises,
Nowhere in the definition of argument does it say that the premises have to be "substantiated" (whatever the fuck that means). It sufficient that the premises are true.

Nowhere in the definition of an "argument" does it prescribe that the conclusion needs to differ from the premises either.

You are moving the goal posts.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm and most certainly does not constitute an argument.
it most certainly constitutes an argument - it satisfies the definition. But if you insist otherwise please point out which requirement for being considered an "argument" is being violated; or is not being satisfied.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm It seems that you have gone from impersonating a policeman to impersonating a child. :shock:
it seems your trolling is as lame as ever ;)
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm Well of course it's unlawful, that's what murder means: unlawful killing. But why do you call someone an idiot for thinking that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being is morally wrong? I happen to think it is morally wrong, that is my subjective opinion.
Well, for starters - I happen to think that you are an idiot because you are intellectually dishonest.

You are rejecting a premise you agree with.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:49 pm Philosophy isn't objectively immoral, but it should be objective.
Should? You mean like a prescriptive social norm? A bit like... you shouldn't murder?
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:00 pm A murder is a wrongful killing, so I don't think there's scope to doubt the premise that wrongful killing is wrong.
A murder is an unlawful killing, not a wrongful killing.

Hence my question of whether an unlawful killing (a.k.a murder) is morally wrong.

Now of course, you can chase the semantic gap from unlawful to morally wrong, but at that point anybody can see nitpickers for what they are.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:07 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:00 pm A murder is a wrongful killing, so I don't think there's scope to doubt the premise that wrongful killing is wrong.
A murder is an unlawful killing, not a wrongful killing.

Hence my question of whether an unlawful killing (a.k.a murder) is morally wrong.

Now of course, you can chase the semantic gap from unlawful to morally wrong, but at that point anybody can see nitpickers for what they are.
If you are insisting on a sparse legalistic definition you'll need to adopt the VA bracketed notation system in a manner such as this: Muder[Legal-FSK]. Of course your own previous comment that muder's wrongness is is tautological doesn't apply to a strict legalistic definition because the holocaust wasn't illegal by the terms of relevant powers, but it did include a very large number of murders.

Otherwise the normally understood meaning of a word is about an unjustified (and thereby definitively wrongful) killing, and the presence of a magistrate to declare it unlawful is neither here nor there.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:20 pm If you are insisting on a sparse legalistic definition you'll need to adopt the VA bracketed notation system in a manner such as this: Muder[Legal-FSK]. Of course your own previous comment that muder's wrongness is is tautological doesn't apply to a strict legalistic definition because the holocaust wasn't illegal by the terms of relevant powers, but it did include a very large number of murders.

Otherwise the normally understood meaning of a word is about an unjustified (and thereby definitively wrongful) killing, and the presence of a magistrate to declare it unlawful is neither here nor there.
You sure seem to be moving the goal posts/definitions all on your own...

If murder is a legal term and the criterion of illegality was not met then why are you calling it "murder" anyway?

Almost seems like you think the term has a moral yet non-legal use.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Peter Holmes »

Skepdick-for-brains: 'Now of course, you can chase the semantic gap from unlawful to morally wrong, but at that point anybody can see nitpickers for what they are.'

In the Deep South, it was unlawful to allow a slave to escape enslavement.

Skepdick is an immoral fucking moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:37 pm Skepdick-for-brains: 'Now of course, you can chase the semantic gap from unlawful to morally wrong, but at that point anybody can see nitpickers for what they are.'

In the Deep South, it was unlawful to allow a slave to escape enslavement.

Skepdick is an immoral fucking moron.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes can't even tell the difference between an obviously moral law and an obviously immoral law.

So he has to run for the false equivalence between guarding slaves and murdering people.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Peter Holmes »

So 'unlawful' and 'morally wrong' are different things. So it's not nit-picking to point out the difference between what's unlawful and what's morally wrong.

But hey. What sort of fucking moron would think that, because something's unlawful it must therefore be morally wrong?

Oh, wait. Skepdick is that kind of fucking moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:48 pm So 'unlawful' and 'morally wrong' are different things. So it's not nit-picking to point out the difference between what's unlawful and what's morally wrong.

But hey. What sort of fucking moron would think that, because something's unlawful it must therefore be morally wrong?

Oh, wait. Skepdick is that kind of fucking moron.
Q.E.D running for the strawman. I never said that murder is wrong BECAUSE it's unlawful.

Sooooo. what kind of fucking idiot doesn't think that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another isn't morally wrong?

Ohhh yes... Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes!
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Act based Utilitarianism and sex crimes and moral solutions

Post by Harbal »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:00 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 3:13 pm I also reject the premise that murder IS wrong, but that is not the same thing as holding the opinion that murder is not wrong.
A murder is a wrongful killing, so I don't think there's scope to doubt the premise that wrongful killing is wrong, it's a tautology. It's the same as doubting that unmarried men are batchelors or all that black swans are black. Even a nihilistic argument to the effect that wrongness is a concept with no extension at all would not negate this simple matter of definition.

Attempting to deductively arrive at a tautology is equally dubiuos so only a fool attempts to prove that wrongful killings are wrong. If you wish to argue that that some particular killing was wrong, you argue that it was a murder, and if you wish to argue that it was not wrong, you are required to argue that it was not murder.
I have already said, twice, that I acknowledge murder is legally wrong, but I don't think it automatically follows that being legally wrong also means being morally wrong.
Post Reply