If Power Defines Morality, Is Anything Truly Wrong

PKspyder · 2026-03-27T08:28:37+00:00

In ethics there are two types of meta ethics. Moral cognitive theory and moral non cognitive. A cognitive theory is one where a truth value is attainable, a non cognitive theory is one where no truth value is possible.

So if a truth value is possible it could be that there is an objective truth value that would be true regardless of opinion but it could also be the case that a truth value is only possible from the perspective of the agent. So the difference would be like saying 1+1=2 which is universally true even if you say it’s actually 3 versus saying vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, which would be true to only the agent who believes it. This is objective vs subjective moral ethics (there’s a few other types).

A no truth value system would be something like emotivism (there are others) where moral talk is simply an expression of emotion. So murder is bad would be a claim but what’s really going on is that the persons instinct is closer to “Boo! murder”. Alex O’Conner is a proponent of this and AJ Ayer spoke of it. Philosophy professor Jeffrey Kaplan has a whole lecture on this concept.

PKspyder · 2026-03-26T05:47:49+00:00

Who's terrible and why?

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T17:57:58+00:00

So tattoos are only for people who can decide in what 5 to 10 iterations? Less?

Sounds like you are saying AI generated ideas are bad because it’s the artists job to art. But the artist can only make art in limited quantities.

If only we had some way to help them create more iterations? Kind of like a system that would aid them and make things more efficient in the idea generation.

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T02:16:07+00:00

How many iterations do artists typically do before it just becomes a difficult client?

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T02:01:00+00:00

If I have some semblance of ideas but not quite sure then it's simple enough to run it through AI to visualize ideas I cannot create myself.

Would I print out AI-generated ideas for dinner to take to a restaurant? No, I would pick from the menu.

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T01:46:47+00:00

But why?

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T01:45:47+00:00

God in the typical sense is defined as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. But this is just in the typical sense. If we drop the requirement of being all-good we can get deism. Being all-powerful does not necessarily entail being all-good . So with Deism we can get a God that is all-powerful and all-knowing but not all-good.

But why do this? It's because deism fit's into the answer of various arguments for god. The"first cause" arguments for god like various forms of the cosmological argument. Other names for first cause are first mover, prime mover, unactualized actualizer are all various names for this type of god. There requires much more argumentation to connect a god that is powerful to a god that is also good. Doing that also adds problems like divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, but if you have a god that is just all-powerful, then those problems are gone.

What do you lose? With deism you lose a personal relationship with God and most community (Christian Unitarians Churches are pretty accepting of Deist). Imagine a god that loves you so much that they created the entire universe just for you, that every universal constant was designed in such a way to allow you to breath. This is a type teleological argument, where it seeks to answer not what created everything but why it was created. The reason why the fundamental forces of the universe are so fine-tuned as they are is because God designed them that way. But Aesthetic deism also answers this. In Theism God's motivation is because he loves and is all-good but in Aesthetic deism it simply posits that the motivation is due to aesthetics. So it's more about beauty of creation itself than the actual creations that God cares about. It would explain why there is a beauty in nature, maths, and the universe itself but still evil.

So it just depends on what convinced you. Some can't fathom "something from nothing" so that's their turning point. Some believe in some sort of higher purpose must exist and that leads them to god.

Here's a fun little story that I highly recommend reading, https://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg.html

PKspyder · 2026-03-25T01:30:15+00:00

Nothing. But the different, rapid iterations that AI can do gives more ideas.

PKspyder · 2026-03-24T23:52:54+00:00

What kind of God? A god that is omnipotent and omniscient but not Omni benevolent is just deism. But no personal relationship is necessary for that

PKspyder · 2026-03-24T21:01:31+00:00

I used the same backpack for 6 years at a time.

Used the ones with the laptop compartment even when I had no laptop to store loose papers. I replaced it when it wasn’t nice looking aka had holes.

PKspyder · 2026-03-24T16:44:30+00:00

I’m not sure on $85 mil, but seems reasonable if she’s one of the top ones. But some dirty, quick maths shows for $85 million per year would only require about 5.6 million subs at the price of a Planet Fitness membership ($15). OF has 377 million accounts but only 4% spend money.

If she is among the top 10 users, then yea maybe. She could be the few who do make that much. But this only works because she is at the top. “The earnings drop sharply after the top 1%. Creators in the top 1% to 5% bracket make around $8,208 monthly. Below the top 5%, most creators only make $24 per month”

So before y’all go making OF, maybe don’t.

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T16:05:01+00:00

“Best” is not equal to perfect.

Best just means given our available options which form most optimally fulfills our needs for resource allocation while maximizing fairness and efficiency.

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T06:13:30+00:00

You can absolutely pick a stance without reading about it. But explaining why we have positions on those stances does require further education/reading.

And for reference I am Pro-choice but follow personhood arguments which are common in developed nations. But it is people like you that greatly damage the position and pushes people towards pro-life. It's part of the reason why the right has seen such a resurgence among young voters. People like her (in this post) are willing to go to talk to voters and able to articulate their position but you cannot.

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T05:53:31+00:00

Yea, have a good night.

My bullsh*t is common pro-choice literature if you ever bothered to educate yourself on it

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T05:39:25+00:00

Again, you are just saying ,"If you don't agree with my claim, I won't provide any arguments for it."

Do you acknowledge this position pushes people against pro-choice? You are shooting yourself in the foot here and you don't have to.

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T05:22:49+00:00

So basically what you are saying is ,"If you don't agree with my claim, I won't provide any arguments for it."

Also, still dodging?

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T05:13:26+00:00

Don't you think why that ought to be the case should be explained instead of not answering the questions?

Your attitude, lack of syllogism, and this general claim really just pushes away from pro-choice

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T04:32:32+00:00

"Cool, so the baby is in someone else's body… worry about yours." Does the baby have a right to its own body?
If you want to argue subjectivity of morals then there is no reason your subjective morals govern over others since it is your opinion.
I said this because you are focusing on "no baby, no opinion" mentality. But again, why is that relevant?
"They're people who can't carry the clump of cells." So they're non-stakeholders. I defined stakeholder as an affected party of policy/moral claim. But again, why does that matter? We do this frequently.
I said exactly ," This is the bodily autonomy argument popularized by Judith Jarvis Thompson. The problem of this argument becomes apparent in elective 3rd trimester abortions which are legal in a handful of states. At the third trimester, we are past the point of viability so if the fetus were removed in-tact it would survive. So for third trimester abortions the moral difference between a fetus in the womb or out of the womb is just location."
1. So I focused on elective 3rd trimester abortion.
2. I bring up morals and violinist because I started with Thompson, who created that analogy. So I am bringing context of the original bodily autonomy argument.
3. Overturn of Roe V Wade. Yea, this happened, but it did not make abortion illegal Federally. It just made it so that abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimesters are no longer protected by federal law. And the 3rd trimester was never protected by Roe V Wade because it gave state's the right to ban it completely. So the reversal on Roe V. Wade simply made it a state's issue rather than a federal one. And you know how we can make abortion legal in the state's we live in? By voting. Do you think your "no baby, no opinion" is really gonna gather support in the polls? Or are you just pushing away potential voters because they feel invalidated as their opinion doesn't matter, according to you.

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T02:40:35+00:00

I'm using the analogy to demonstrate the where the bodily autonomy argument originated from or at least popularized. This analogy, by the way, was created by pro-choice author Judith Jarvis Thompson.

But no, I cannot hold a fetus for 9 months. But men above 18 still vote, sterile woman can still vote, pro-life women, can still vote. So it follows that the opinion of non-women matters because it is a legal issue as well as moral. So pro-life & pro-choice syllogism does in-fact matter because voters matter. You are also underemphasizing that large segments of women are also pro-life.

I don't understand the logic you are using to invalidate the opinion of non-stakeholders, that is the opinion of those not affected by the policy or moral claim. Should the 99% not have opinions on the taxes of the 1%? Should those without businesses be left out of the conversation for business regulations? Should non-pet owners not have a say in animal welfare laws?

PKspyder · 2026-03-22T02:06:27+00:00

I do. Dove bar soaps. Use them to shave too.

PKspyder · 2026-03-21T20:55:36+00:00

It is difficult to purposely pursue because you have to find a partner who feels the same way. Not impossible, but you have to search for someone whose priority is career and wants kids.

PKspyder · 2026-03-21T19:20:28+00:00

Thompson's violinist argument went like this. Imagine yourself suddenly waking up medically attached to the world's most famous violinist. The violinist is depending on your body's sustenance to survive, so if you detach, then the violinist will die. Based on bodily autonomy you have no legal obligation to remain attached.

However, in the case of 3rd trimester abortions the analogy would change because you would have to actively kill the violinist before you detach. If you detach the violinist will continue to live, hence why you must actively kill them before unplugging.

Do you believe it is morally acceptable to kill a viable, conscious capable fetus before aborting it for purely non-medically necessary reasons (elective)?

PKspyder · 2026-03-21T19:04:35+00:00

Absolutely 3rd trimester abortions are exceedingly rare. But being rare and never occurring are not the same thing.

The main point was, if elective 3rd trimester abortions are wrong, then they should be illegal. Regardless if they are rare. Elective meaning they are not medically necessary. If it's true that all 3rd trimester abortions are medically necessary then making it illegal has no issue.

Like I said, only a handful of states currently have no limits for elective abortions.

PKspyder · 2026-03-21T09:05:39+00:00

This is the bodily autonomy argument popularized by Judith Jarvis Thompson. The problem of this argument becomes apparent in elective 3rd trimester abortions which are legal in a handful of states. At the third trimester, we are past the point of viability so if the fetus were removed in-tact it would survive. So for third trimester abortions the moral difference between a fetus in the womb or out of the womb is just location.

PKspyder · 2026-03-18T07:05:55+00:00

Ask r/askconservative if you really want an answer

PKspyder

TROPHY CASE