A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists

[stiggy wiggy]

Here's an exchange that took place between me and the arborist in his silly Spiderman thread:


ME: Who determines what is good and just?

ARBORIST: We do.

ME: You and who? Ted Bundy? Who's included in your "we?"

ARBORIST: Me and SteveB

ME: And since SteveB doesn't condemn God, you just blew up the dumb point you were trying to make in your OP. Congratulations.

ARBORIST: "We" means the human race, stiggy. Me, SteveB, and you as well

ME: And Ted Bundy and Hitler and Pol Pot and Bill Cosby and OJ and Jack the Ripper too, right?

ARBORIST: Yes, that's right, stiggy. Guess what, though? The vast, overwhelming majority of us ARE NOT socio/psychopaths like the individuals that you and SteveB keep harping on about...

ME: So majority rules, right? In the South in 1856, since the majority thought slavery was moral, it therefore was, right?

ARBORIST: The voices of the evil are drowned out by the voices of the good,

ME: So if a neutron bomb wiped out everyone on earth except six people, four white and two black, and the four believed blacks should be exterminated, thus "drowning out" the voice of the blacks, then white supremacy would be moral, right?

No answer so far, but would anyone like to guess what it might be?

 

[Furion]

It is said there is more slavery today than at any time in history. Apparently evil is still quite rampant and is not drowning.

Whoever drowns first is the loser? Drown them before they drown you?

Such a strange morality.

 

[Eightcrackers]

ME: So if a neutron bomb wiped out everyone on earth except six people, four white and two black, and the four believed blacks should be exterminated, thus "drowning out" the voice of the blacks, then white supremacy would be moral, right?

No answer so far, but would anyone like to guess what it might be?

"To them, in that universe, yes.
To us considering that universe, no."

 

[stiggy wiggy]

"To them, in that universe, yes.
To us considering that universe, no."

So if "we," i.e, you and I didn't exist, white supremacy WOULD be moral.

Not a bad prediction. Sounds like something he'd say.

 

[Eightcrackers]

So if "we," i.e, you and I didn't exist, white supremacy WOULD be moral.

You say "would be moral" as though it's moral/immoral independent of consideration.
If nobody existed to consider it immoral, everybody that existed would consider it moral.

Whether or not it "is" moral depends on whom you ask - ask me, I say "no"; ask a white supremecist, they's say "yes".

 

[Furion]

Whether or not it "is" moral depends on whom you ask - ask me, I say "no"; ask a white supremecist, they's say "yes".

Might makes right.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Might makes right.

Can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic...

In case you're not, I disagree.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You say "would be moral" as though it's moral/immoral independent of consideration.

Correct. So if Bill Cosby were in solitary confinement in the only effective bomb shelter in existence, and a neutron bomb were to go off killing everyone on the planet except him, therefore rape would no longer be immoral?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Correct. So if Bill Cosby were in solitary confinement in the only effective bomb shelter in existence, and a neutron bomb were to go off killing everyone on the planet except him, therefore rape would no longer be immoral?

To him, it would not be immoral.
To me, considering that situation, it would be immoral.

Is it "actually" immoral? Question means nothing to me.

 

[Whateverman]

Might makes right.

You're referring to the bible, yes?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

To him, it would not be immoral.
To me, considering that situation, it would be immoral.

But you wouldn't be around. Please read what I typed.

Is it "actually" immoral? Question means nothing to me.

I.e, you can't answer.

 

[Eightcrackers]

But you wouldn't be around. Please read what I typed.

I did.

In that universe, there would be only one being, and that being would not consider rape to be immoral.
Clear?

I.e, you can't answer.

Correct - I cannot answer questions of morality unless I parse them as a solicitation of my opinion.

I do not see how things can be proven to be moral/immoral in an objective manner.

 

[treeplanter]

Here's an exchange that took place between me and the arborist in his silly Spiderman thread:


ME: Who determines what is good and just?

ARBORIST: We do.

ME: You and who? Ted Bundy? Who's included in your "we?"

ARBORIST: Me and SteveB

ME: And since SteveB doesn't condemn God, you just blew up the dumb point you were trying to make in your OP. Congratulations.

ARBORIST: "We" means the human race, stiggy. Me, SteveB, and you as well

ME: And Ted Bundy and Hitler and Pol Pot and Bill Cosby and OJ and Jack the Ripper too, right?

ARBORIST: Yes, that's right, stiggy. Guess what, though? The vast, overwhelming majority of us ARE NOT socio/psychopaths like the individuals that you and SteveB keep harping on about...

ME: So majority rules, right? In the South in 1856, since the majority thought slavery was moral, it therefore was, right?

ARBORIST: The voices of the evil are drowned out by the voices of the good,

ME: So if a neutron bomb wiped out everyone on earth except six people, four white and two black, and the four believed blacks should be exterminated, thus "drowning out" the voice of the blacks, then white supremacy would be moral, right?

No answer so far, but would anyone like to guess what it might be?

No, majority does NOT rule!
Nor did I ever say it did

The rule is this:

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
Everything else is either moral or morally neutral

And where does this rule come from?

It comes from us - the human race
It comes from the vast, overwhelming majority of human beings {people who are, inherently, decent and good}
It comes from most every one of us {minus the odd socio/psychopaths that you and SteveB seem to be obsessed with}

Care to take a guess as to who has inflicted more and greater needless harm than Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bill Cosby, OJ, Jack the Ripper, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Lenin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Genghis Khan combined?

 

[Furion]

Can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic...

In case you're not, I disagree.

Pretty self explanatory really. I know how everything is argued to ridiculousness around here, but I only play in small doses.

You say "would be moral" as though it's moral/immoral independent of consideration.
If nobody existed to consider it immoral, everybody that existed would consider it moral.

Whether or not it "is" moral depends on whom you ask - ask me, I say "no"; ask a white supremecist, they's say "yes".

If I ask you, you say it's moral, if I ask them it is immoral. More of them than you, voila, immoral.

Unless you want to turn the corner and say something is objectively immoral and thus chase your tail, it is might makes right in your paradigm, majority opinion rules, yadda yadda.

So your truth is opinions of morality, not that morality has any truth.

 

[Eightcrackers]

If I ask you, you say it's moral, if I ask them it is immoral. More of them than you, voila, immoral.

No.
No, no, no.

A majority opinion is still an opinion.

Unless you want to turn the corner and say something is objectively immoral and thus chase your tail, it is might makes right in your paradigm, majority opinion rules, yadda yadda.

Again, wrong - the fact that the majority gets to enforce their morality doesn't make that morality correct.
Whatever "correct" means.

So your truth is opinions of morality, not that morality has any truth.

I do not see that moral statements can be shown to be factually correct.

 

[Furion]

No.
No, no, no.

A majority opinion is still an opinion.

Again, wrong - the fact that the majority gets to enforce their morality doesn't make that morality correct.
Whatever "correct" means.

I do not see that moral statements can be shown to be factually correct.

Right, so you are amoral.

Right and wrong become no more than color preference, only you'll throw people in jail over it.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Right, so you are amoral.

No.
Amorality is the dismissal of both objective and subjective morality.

Right and wrong become no more than color preference, only you'll throw people in jail over it.

Yes - I am happy that people are thrown in jail over "subjective" morals enshrined in law.
So?

 

[Furion]

No.
Amorality is the dismissal of both objective and subjective morality.

There is no such thing as subjective morality, there is majority opinion on where to exercise the might.

Yes - I am happy that people are thrown in jail over "subjective" morals enshrined in law.
So?

Might makes right, voila

 

[Eightcrackers]

Might makes right, voila

No; if I throw somebody in jail for rape, that doesn't make rape wrong. All it means is that enough people consider it wrong to band together and do something about it.

"Enforced" =/= "correct".

 

[Furion]

No; if I throw somebody in jail for rape, that doesn't make rape wrong.

Irrelevant rambling.

All it means is that enough people consider it wrong to band together and do something about it.

"Enforced" =/= "correct".

But your might, you do exercise it by the power of your majority.