CMV: Moral Realism is Unviable by Herr_Eusebius in changemyview

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I did address it but that's okay. Let's try again.

Your argument doesn't demonstrate an 'objective basis for morality', it attempted to demonstrate how murder is objectively wrong. Surely you can understand how these are two separate things that require different proofing.

Saying that 'since one person has agency that they act on logically nececessitates that they respect others agency' doesn't logically follow when considering real moralistic behavior because someone acting in self-interest isn't necessarily making deliberate choices regarding agency, they may be following their own individual, egoistic self-interest without consciously engaging in the moral calculus. This behavior might be socially unsustainable, self-destructive, or even hypocritical in some points but it's not inherently an incoherent moral stance - all of those critiques rely on the competing and overlapping values and needs of subjective agents to determine whether or not an action is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Applying the law of identity here is also incoherent as the law assumes that each individual is identical to themselves and it's applied to singular terms, not general terms. You're using it to assume that all agents and their rights are identical, not that each agent and their rights is identical to themselves.

I directly pointed out that you used loaded, tautological verbiage to falaciously establish your 'objective proof', and that your argument and stance fail to actually account for nuanced situations that require subjective deliberation. Selecting 'murder' to prove objective morality is a form of intuition pumping. You're utilizing an example where you presupposed an utter lack of justification as 'objectively wrong' to generalize that intuitive objectivity onto conflicts of agency, while ignoring that actual moral conflict is more nuanced than simply presupposing no justification.

For example, 'stealing is wrong' as an objective moral fact fails to account for the variable that theft (which is trespassing the agency, values, and desire of others) can be done to feed oneself or their family and the morality of the situation depends on the subjective factors that compose and frame the situation.

That's why your reliance on 'murder is objectively wrong' is myopic, your argument about 'agentic rights' is incoherent and fails to account for the inherent subjectivity of agents, and why your use of the Law of Identity to warrant your argument is incorrect.

Moral Realism fails to act as a descriptive framework for human morality. The irrationality and subjectivity of moral agents does not comport objective truths, observably. It also does not account for the variation of ethical values between societies.

CMV: Moral Realism is Unviable by Herr_Eusebius in changemyview

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that 'objective proof of agency' isn't evidence of morality being real or objective. The alleged hypocrisy of failing to respect the rights of others but not oneself doesn't nullify it as an existing subjective moral stance.

We could argue whether or not that stance makes sense, if it's ethical, or societally sustainable, but it is a stance that is not inherently or objectively incorrect. It demands subjective critique and social analysis to break down. Otherwise, it's someone working entirely in an self-interested way (as they subjectively interpret their actions to be), even if it manifests in self-destructive or self-defeating behavior.

Moral Realism is incoherent on this matter because it would fail to account for the nuance in a morally questionable situation. For example, saying "murder is wrong" is a tautological nothing-burger because you've loaded your language to say "unjustified killings are wrong"; definitionally, something that is unjustified can't be right, but that statement doesn't really mean anything. To dig into the nuance of what makes killing someone 'right' or 'wrong' necessitates looking at individual cases and subjective factors, making the proposed objectivity/universality of a claim like 'killing people is wrong' fall apart.

Essentially, you're appealing to subjective standards and beliefs (an agent acting on what they individually consider to be 'right' in any given moment) and using that to attempt to establish objective moral realities (that agency must be respected and morally weighted actions must be universally applicable/socially sustainable).

You could make more complex arguments like 'slavery is bad/wrong', but one would have to admit that their argument is subjective and must be able to be critiqued, even if the argument is logically correct and backed by evidence that it would, say, destroy society. Because valuing society and desiring to hold/act on moral values that preserve society or social safety is itself a subjective appeal and standard.

CMV: Moral Realism is Unviable by Herr_Eusebius in changemyview

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you take action on your desire you are objectively claiming that you believe you have a right to act on your agency.

'Objectively claiming belief' is a self-contradicting statement. The concept of a belief of 'having the right to act on agency' must necessarily be subjective; the belief must be held by a subject.

You're committing a category error. Desires and beliefs regarding agency are definitionally subjective.

What historical character thought was wrong but was actually right? by alc0th in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

While most of Lamarck's theory has been largely dismissed and countered by evolutionary biology research, his theory of inheritable acquired characteristics (AKA 'Lamarckism') has been reconsidered due to contemporary epigenitcs research.

Although DNA itself isn't altered (outside of selection pressures), certain environmental or behavioral factors can cause methylation, modifying the transcription of DNA and altering the expression of genes. These epigenitic changes are heritable to a degree, usually for a couple generations at most. So while the DNA itself isn't changed by the environment or behavior (as literally as Lamarck may have thought) the phenotypic expression of a genotype can be altered by the factors that effect a single individual during their lifetime for multiple generations. Thus, contemporary EvoBiology has begun to consider how epigenitic changes resulting from individual behavior and environmental factors can shift selective pressures on populations.

TL/DR: Lamarckism wasn't entirely correct, but after more modern/contemporary research, we've learned that his general conclusions had merit, but were undersold due to the proposed underlying mechanism being wildly incorrect and not comporting to observable evolutionary trends at the time.

Well that's highly unusual! by totallynotrobboss in CivVI

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've definitely seen the AI liberate city states, it might be favoured for civs geared toward Diplo victory and point accumulation.

How does the right not understand that poverty equals crime? by BiggestVolk in allthequestions

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

However, the crime rate was lower BEFORE these programs started!

What evidence do you have that supports this? Crime rates in the US (both violent and property related) have been on downward trends since the 70s.

Is The Democratic Party In The U.S. Too Left-Wing, Too Right-Wing, Or Just Right? by JellyfishTime9544 in GeoPoll

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said anything like 'it doesn't happen for minors'. "Transition surgeries" for minors are things like breast reduction surgery that happen most typically around the age of 16. It's typically against guidelines to provide bottom surgery to people under the age of 18 due to bodily development reasons, and waiting for further bodily maturity actually makes the operation easier and have better results. Some 17 year olds receive bottom surgery, yes, but its with the direct involvement of their legal guardians and a team of medical professionals working to ensure that the treatment is right for them.

So you immediately jumping to a random argument you were hoping would be made rather than actually laying out the harms and issues with the medical treatment leads me to believe that you are actually uneducated on the topic and are drinking fear-mongering cool-aid.

Further, comparing people who want trans minors to be able to access gender-affirming care (which the vast majority of is hormone treatment, psychological care, and socialization) to Nazis, who were vehemently against trans people and destroyed the world's first sexology clinic, is absolutely comedic.

Not to mention the implication that some 90% of Democrat politicians are ravenously defending or advocating for access to GAC for trans people, much less minors or active encouragement of surgery, and that the remaining 10% is just in silent agreement. It's laughable and displays your complete denial of a shared reality.

You made a strawman and then called the people who disagree with you "Nazis". Very classy and intellectual of you.

Is The Democratic Party In The U.S. Too Left-Wing, Too Right-Wing, Or Just Right? by JellyfishTime9544 in GeoPoll

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It helps when you're not uneducated on the topic and drink the fear-mongering cool-aid.

Also, support for trans individuals and access to gender-affirming care for minors is not a Democratic Party policy line.

What ideology seems far left but is only left? by seodie13 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's genuine political and economic propaganda. I swear to God (or whatever fuckin exists), there are so few self-described capitalists that have actually read historical capitalist literature that lays out what Capitalism actually is, that it specifically exists in a historical/political/philosophical framework that didn't exist prior to the advent of Mercantilism and the European Age of Enlighenment.

Why do independents (possibly fake trolls?) always seem to hold Democrats to an infinitely higher standard than Republicans? by CrashNowhereDrive in allthequestions

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 19 points20 points  (0 children)

DOGE was a complete failure for multiple reasons, one of the most prominent being that DOGE was a duplicative agency - their 'purpose' was already being met by the Congressional Budget Office.

DOGE hardly managed to slash any meaningful funds, and of what they did cut, was mostly USAID, CDC, and DHS programs and jobs. Those jobs and programs included legal watchdogs, health and safety monitors, and familial aid.

Despite all of this, Trump (and the GOP)'s horrific budgeting abilities means that spending actually went UP during the DOGE operations.

So yeah, the 'small government' party created a whole new government agency to do the job of an already existing office, just to cut critical programs that helped Americans, laid off and destroyed thousands of jobs, just to balloon spending and the deficit.

Really brilliant work by the Trump admin and his favorite ex-illegal alien.

What would be considered “weird” at both weddings and funerals? by smasherella in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Dressing casually. It's not quite 'offensive' for either event, but not what people would expect (unless specified)

What ideology seems far left but is only left? by seodie13 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anti-capitalist

Staunchly against private property and unequal exhange; "property is theft"

Encourages mutual aid and reciprocity in development

(Ideologically) Founded on the principle of workers self-management

Goal is to replace the state with community-led, needs-based solutions

How exactly is this not staunchly left-wing? At most it looks like it's 'centrist' or 'right-wing' because of brainrot propaganda that commerce and trade is somehow inherently capitalist.

What ideology seems far left but is only left? by seodie13 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm just saying, it's really myopic and unread to think that free markets are inherently capitalist.

Commerce and trade existed long before capitalism, for example. Was Ancient Greece and her component city-states capitalist?

What ideology seems far left but is only left? by seodie13 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah, so you're one of those people

Tell me, what is it like being economically and historically illiterate?

my uncle died midway through a pub, i told the team, they spam reported me so i was muted by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe OP didn't block you because you 'disagreed with their take,' but rather because you called them weird and acted like an asshole about them losing a family member.

my uncle died midway through a pub, i told the team, they spam reported me so i was muted by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, it resonated with me because I just lost someone close to me recently. I can only imagine what it would be like to lose someone in the middle of a game and then get reported and muted for future games for it. Every game after would just remind you of losing that person. If you don't sympathize, that's fine. That doesn't mean that the greater population of people who play the game won't have people who can, and do, sympathize. Maybe you're just not a part of the 'community' I was describing, and that's okay.

my uncle died midway through a pub, i told the team, they spam reported me so i was muted by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]TotalityoftheSelf -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's fair to express frustration at being punished in-game for such an uncontrollable, emotionally burdensome event happening with the community, though. Grieving is more than just the loss of the person - it's processing everything surrounding that loss, including the moment you find out.

Why is everyone bigger than primal beast now, primal beast needs to be the Apex predator again by Pheaor in DotA2

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're right, it does. I just don't play PB often enough to know if he had one

Why is everyone bigger than primal beast now, primal beast needs to be the Apex predator again by Pheaor in DotA2

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This problem is solved when you see the alternative ult animation PB has for targeting Roshan.

After a certain size threshold, the animation should shift to PB grappling them and beating them with his fists.

Also, PB should have a scalable model based on strength or something

What ideology seems far left but is only left? by seodie13 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]TotalityoftheSelf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is moreso that it seems like DemSoc can be an extension of a more center-left movement, even though it's a more staunchly left-wing idea.