Arguments

Well, I seem to have opened a can of worms, hmm?

I'll be honest, I'm mostly just spitballing. Like I said earlier, I don't give this sort of thing a lot of thought, so I just go with what makes sense to moi.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

Oooh oooh a morality debate.

I think it's a little more complicated than "squick = wrong". I think of it as a sliding scale of discomfort, where after some point, acts beyond that point are just flat-out wrong (to the person in question). I.e. murder and rape for most people. Most people can usually tolerate stuff before that point, though. /captainobvious

What I'm interested in is if someone can come up with an objective basis that doesn't involve the sliding scale of discomfort, and make it convincing.

slowpoke.jpg

edited 22nd Feb '11 7:56:28 PM by melloncollie

For some reason, I tend to be more affected by arguments other people get into than ones I involve myself in.

Also, getting clear, reasonable explanations of a position make me more well inclined to it than arguments about it do. I originally thought that Continental philosophy in general and Speculative Realism  ^*

was a bunch of sophistic garbage, but after running into intelligent interesting people who were willing to explain them in terms I could understand, I became much more well inclined to them.

Kill all math nerds

Yeah, Bobby said it better than I did. Most people's morality is a result of some core assumptions that are gut feelings (such as minimize suffering, maximize pleasure), but as you build up from that, you being uncomfortable about something doesn't mean you think it's wrong. (For example, a person might say, "I want my morality to minimize suffering, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality. Should I persecute homosexuals? No, because that would increase suffering.")

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."