On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

Strange that, it being so simple, you resist putting a single sentence together to express the simple meaning. I know you are more than able, so it is just surprising that you won't.

Why would I move forward? I know what you mean, but you clearly don't grasp my meaning. The fact that you see a fundamental difference between your own formulation and the broadest of strokes I painted demonstrates that. If you are not willing to open your mind to that possibility, then I think our dialogue is over.

You know what I mean, I grasp your meaning, we simply don't agree.  

I am telling you that we mean different things by the word "happiness". The sort of life to which, as you call them, truly "helpful" things lead is what I call a "happy life". The "trumpsters" are wrong about helpful things, which is, in my way of putting it, wrong about happy things.

That my helpful things might lead to your happy life would be a happy coincidence, nevertheless, the two terms are not synonyms.  You feel empowered to tell the trumpsters what they are wrong about in that context, what a happy life is and is not.  I wouldn't make that determination and do not -need- to..because my morality is not based upon -any- reference to "the happiest life" by any definition you or anyone else care to give it.  

Look, you're already speaking to me as if I were a child, so why not keep up that theme and explain to me what it means to help someone or to harm someone, and why helping is good and hurting is bad. I know you can do it. And what's more, I will even ADMIT IT if it is fundamentally different than a morality based on doing good and avoiding evil for the sake of human happiness.

Yes, I;m speaking to you like a child, because you're asking me what help and harm means, and petulantly arguing  that we agree about whatever it is you want to be right about.  Those are the actions of a child.  I could list off helpful or harmful things...and we could agree or disagree whether or not any of those given things belongs in either set...but simply doing so would blow your bullshit wide open....since you would have to have an understanding of help and harm to even mount an agreement or disagreement or any notion of whether or not it leads to "the happiest life" as you define whatever that is.  There;s no point in "admitting" anything...i go by help and harm, you go by "happy life"...I;m sure that we will sometimes arrive at the same moral conclusions about many of the same things...and I said as m,uch, but it won;t be for the same reasons...because help and harm may be -related- to "the happiest life", but they aren't interchangeable with it.  

Now, if, at any point, you can accept a simple disagreement, maybe we can have a conversation...but if you can;t...ofc we can;t.  I;m not interested in arguing with you over what belongs in either set, I'm not arguing with you that things I place in the helpful can't  lead to "he happiest life" -however you define it-, and I'm not interested in arguing with you over which morality is the "right morality". I'm simply making you aware of a different framework. You have found a way to make this simple task as odious as possible, lol. Congratulations.

Does -this- lead to "the happiest life"? If I told you that decapitating someone and parading their skull up and down the street could -easily- fit into my "helpful" category, would you twist your scrote into knots to tell me how this leads to or has something to do with "the happiest life"? What if I told you that my harm category could include chemical therapy and brain surgery to remove any negativity in a person..would you twist your scrote in the other direction to tell me how that -doesn't- lead to "the happiest life"? At this point, I'd love to watch you turn "happy life" into a dumpster term in order to make it the same as things it isn't.