(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 1:52 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: So you think wellbeing is not a moral objective. Oh fucking boy.

Explain why wellbeing is not a moral objective.

You asked me if well-being is a reasonable basis to base morality on, not whether wellbeing is a moral objective.

And the hair splitting starts. It wasn't a difficult question until you fucked it up

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: So based on the original question, let take the example of gave of Japan.

Let's not. That is trivial diversion. Grow up.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: It would be beneficial to the wellbeing of Japanese society, if their younger generation got married and produced more children.

No it wouldn't be beneficial to that country. It would be detrimental. Japan is already screwed by overpopulation.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: The situation currently shows a growing trend that’s causing a significance demise of their society as a whole.

Sure, Japan is dying. Right.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Yet, I don’t see the idea of forgoing marriage and children as immoral, do you?

Strawman

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Is it immoral for Japanese young people to be okay with the predicated decline of their society as a whole, as a result of low birth rates? I don’t think so.

Strawman.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I also fail to see any reason to label what’s beneficial or not beneficial to wellbeing with moral components, not to mention the term is a bit hazy.

Well that is just a dumb statement.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Has Christianity been beneficial to the wellbeing of society, has western societies been better off with it, than if they continued n their pagan tradition? I think so, does that mean Christianity is or at least was morally good?

Sure, because stringing up those witched was a good thing. The crusades were a good thing. Raping those children was a good thing. Covering up the child rape was a good thing. Right?

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: How about slavery, if slavery benefited us more than cost our societies in the long term with several hundred years of free labor, does this mean it was a morally good thing?

Wow. You are now defending slavery. That makes you immoral straight out of the box.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: In addition in the real world morality works a lot more different, than any sort of rational system you devise for it. In fact our proactive moral behavior, has no real connection with any sort of moral rationalization.

No, the moment you defended slavery, you lost any moral standing. That is on you, nobody else.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:44 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: You asked me if well-being is a reasonable basis to base morality on, not whether wellbeing is a moral objective.

And the hair splitting starts. It wasn't a difficult question until you fucked it up

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: So based on the original question, let take the example of gave of Japan.

Let's not. That is trivial diversion. Grow up.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: It would be beneficial to the wellbeing of Japanese society, if their younger generation got married and produced more children.

No it wouldn't be beneficial to that country. It would be detrimental. Japan is already screwed by overpopulation.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: The situation currently shows a growing trend that’s causing a significance demise of their society as a whole.

Sure, Japan is dying. Right.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Yet, I don’t see the idea of forgoing marriage and children as immoral, do you?

Strawman

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Is it immoral for Japanese young people to be okay with the predicated decline of their society as a whole, as a result of low birth rates? I don’t think so.

Strawman.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I also fail to see any reason to label what’s beneficial or not beneficial to wellbeing with moral components, not to mention the term is a bit hazy.

Well that is just a dumb statement.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Has Christianity been beneficial to the wellbeing of society, has western societies been better off with it, than if they continued n their pagan tradition? I think so, does that mean Christianity is or at least was morally good?

Sure, because stringing up those witched was a good thing. The crusades were a good thing. Raping those children was a good thing. Covering up the child rape was a good thing. Right?

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: How about slavery, if slavery benefited us more than cost our societies in the long term with several hundred years of free labor, does this mean it was a morally good thing?

Wow. You are now defending slavery. That makes you immoral straight out of the box.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: In addition in the real world morality works a lot more different, than any sort of rational system you devise for it. In fact our proactive moral behavior, has no real connection with any sort of moral rationalization.

No, the moment you defended slavery, you lost any moral standing. That is on you, nobody else.

I’m not defending slavery, you’re the one that questioned why I don’t see wellbeing as a reasonable basis for morality.

You can use wellbeing, for a variety of things that are immoral (slavery) as well as non-moral, hence the reason I don’t find it to be a reasonable basis for morality.

I can agree that slavery is immoral, but is very well possible a reasonable argument could be made that it was beneficial to the wellbeing of society as whole especially in the long run, but this doesn’t make it any less immoral.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:28 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 16, 2019 at 9:56 am)Grandizer Wrote: Moore is saying that it's meaningful to ask the question "Is harm really bad?" unlike with say "is a bachelor an unmarried man?"

Yes, it’s a meaningful question because there is a distinction in meaning between good and harm, or else it would be a meaningless tautology like saying a bachelor whose also an unmarried man.

Good is distinct from harm, same way it’s distinct from a pizza.

Or it may well be that good is distinct from harm in the same way water is distinct from H2O. Again, there are good counterarguments against the open question argument that continue to be successful.

Quote:

Quote:But doesn't matter anyway. The argument hasn't really been successful over time. Again, Google the counterarguments.

There’s plenty of argument like that of Hume is/ought that many individuals think they have resolved like Sam Harris, without really understanding them.

Nonsense. I wasn't referring to Sam Harris anyway. Again, google the counterarguments. There's more than one. Just as the logical problem of evil has not been successful over time, the open question argument also has not been successful over time.

Quote:

Quote:And Moore was nevertheless not a supernaturalist. There's no God in his position.

He’s not, he’s just a non-naturalist, there no God in his view here.

But that’s because it’s incomplete, not fully realized, his picture though true, is only partly formed. Wittgenstein was a student ( he was also a student of Bertrand Russel), and eventual teacher of Moore as well, his views are far more realized than Moore’s.

Even if I were to concede Moore's point, it would already be complete on its own. Adding a God into the equation would be unwarranted. You're just adding a different type of sugar over a dessert that's already sugary enough.

(August 17, 2019 at 10:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 9:44 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: And the hair splitting starts. It wasn't a difficult question until you fucked it up

Let's not. That is trivial diversion. Grow up.

No it wouldn't be beneficial to that country. It would be detrimental. Japan is already screwed by overpopulation.

Sure, Japan is dying. Right.

Strawman
Strawman.

Well that is just a dumb statement.

Sure, because stringing up those witched was a good thing. The crusades were a good thing. Raping those children was a good thing. Covering up the child rape was a good thing. Right?

Wow. You are now defending slavery. That makes you immoral straight out of the box.

No, the moment you defended slavery, you lost any moral standing. That is on you, nobody else.

I’m not defending slavery, you’re the one that questioned why I don’t see wellbeing as a reasonable basis for morality.

You can use wellbeing, for a variety of things that are immoral (slavery) as well as non-moral, hence the reason I don’t find it to be a reasonable basis for morality.

I can agree that slavery is immoral, but is very well possible a reasonable argument could be made that it was beneficial to the wellbeing of society as whole especially in the long run, but this doesn’t make it any less immoral.

Yup, as predicted, apologetics for slavery. Take a long hard look at yourself. 

Is slavery immoral now? Yesterday? Last week? Last year? How about 2,000 years ago? Was morality somehow different then?

(August 17, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 10:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I’m not defending slavery, you’re the one that questioned why I don’t see wellbeing as a reasonable basis for morality.

You can use wellbeing, for a variety of things that are immoral (slavery) as well as non-moral, hence the reason I don’t find it to be a reasonable basis for morality.

I can agree that slavery is immoral, but is very well possible a reasonable argument could be made that it was beneficial to the wellbeing of society as whole especially in the long run, but this doesn’t make it any less immoral.

Yup, as predicted, apologetics for slavery. Take a long hard look at yourself. 

Is slavery immoral now? Yesterday? Last week? Last year? How about 2,000 years ago? Was morality somehow different then?

Lol not to mention it didn't benefit society in fact quite the opposite

(August 18, 2019 at 12:06 am)Amarok Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Yup, as predicted, apologetics for slavery. Take a long hard look at yourself. 

Is slavery immoral now? Yesterday? Last week? Last year? How about 2,000 years ago? Was morality somehow different then?

Lol not to mention it didn't benefit society in fact quite the opposite

The scrote is now arguing that slavery promoted well-being for....something. Bet you a dollar he is going to next claim the slave owners were mere philanthropists looking out for the welfare of their fellow man or some such tosh.

(August 17, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 17, 2019 at 10:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote: I’m not defending slavery, you’re the one that questioned why I don’t see wellbeing as a reasonable basis for morality.

You can use wellbeing, for a variety of things that are immoral (slavery) as well as non-moral, hence the reason I don’t find it to be a reasonable basis for morality.

I can agree that slavery is immoral, but is very well possible a reasonable argument could be made that it was beneficial to the wellbeing of society as whole especially in the long run, but this doesn’t make it any less immoral.

Yup, as predicted, apologetics for slavery. Take a long hard look at yourself. 

Is slavery immoral now? Yesterday? Last week? Last year? How about 2,000 years ago? Was morality somehow different then?

Grow up. 

The point is, since you want to claim wellbeing as an objective for morality. If slavery ultimately benefited our wellbeing in the long run, by 200 years of free labor, significantly contributing to why we're the wealthiest country today, have the resources, etc.. we have today. Would this make it no longer immoral?

If X contributed ultimately to a net benefit for well being, would it make it moral, in your view of morality, where well being is the ultimate determinate of right and wrong?

(August 17, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: So based on the original question, let take the example of gave of Japan.

It would be beneficial to the wellbeing of Japanese society, if their younger generation got married and produced more children. The situation currently shows a growing trend that’s causing a significance demise of their society as a whole.

Yet, I don’t see the idea of forgoing marriage and children as immoral, do you? Is it immoral for Japanese young people to be okay with the predicated decline of their society as a whole, as a result of low birth rates? I don’t think so.

As a longtime resident of Japan, I can tell you that what you say here is true. And it is much in the minds of Japanese people, including their politicians. 

With the population aging, and the numbers declining, traditional Japanese values about society and family are unsustainable. Maybe "decline" is a judgment call -- certainly it will be difficult to maintain many positive societal practices from the recent past. Like multi-generational families supporting one another, excellent health care at cheap prices, high quality public infrastructure and services, things like that. 

(I don't think Mr. Ire is the least bit interested in a reasonable discussion.)

(August 18, 2019 at 6:13 am)Acrobat Wrote: .If slavery ultimately benefited our wellbeing in the long run, by 200 years of free labor, significantly contributing to why we're the wealthiest country today, have the resources, etc.. we have today. Would this make it no longer immoral?

But slavery didn't benefit society considering that many people died in civil war and that society still looks down on black people resulting still in many inequalities, like black families being generally poorer than white families.

(August 17, 2019 at 9:44 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: No, the moment you defended slavery, you lost any moral standing.

There is nothing wrong with slavery if God allows it.