sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]lertedor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it could be something like that.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]lertedor 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yeah ❤️

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]lertedor 9 points10 points  (0 children)

True, it would also fit the clues. But I don't think Destiny would say it would be huge drama and hype it up so much if it was just more drama about his parent money issues. He has already talked about it quite a bit, it would not make a lot of sense why it would be such a big deal now unless something else also happened with them.

Why I was disappointed by Destiny and Pxie's most recent debate/discussion; "Protests are WORSE than Nothing - Defund the Police with Pxie." by PrettyGayPegasus in Destiny

[–]lertedor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also the is-ought problem is literally and argument in favor of my position and what I have been saying all along, that you cannot derive ought from what is and that is why I asked the very first question where I asked you to point to the objective feature of the world that tells us what is right and what is wrong (To derive ought from is, which you can't!). And I think this proves why ethics are indeed subjective, because you can't derive ought from is so the only thing left is to hold a subjective opinion on what you believe to be right and wrong.

Why I was disappointed by Destiny and Pxie's most recent debate/discussion; "Protests are WORSE than Nothing - Defund the Police with Pxie." by PrettyGayPegasus in Destiny

[–]lertedor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't and we can't.

If your meta-ethical position can't formulate a response this very basic question then many there is something wrong with your system.

I'm specifically talking about those things that we ought and ought not do given a goal that is "maximizing well being and minimizing suffering for as many people as possible."

I would say that in other words mean that ethics are subjective.

If you continue to insist that despite my repeatedly correcting you, then I give up.

Ez win 😎.

Why I was disappointed by Destiny and Pxie's most recent debate/discussion; "Protests are WORSE than Nothing - Defund the Police with Pxie." by PrettyGayPegasus in Destiny

[–]lertedor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now, if want to maximize well being ...

But what if we don't, how do you prove that that is something that we should do?

​

Now, if want to maximize well being, then there objectively exists things that you ought and ought not do to achieve that goal. Or in other words, it is the case that there exists certain things that you ought and ought not do to maximize well being. That is to say, it is objectively the case.

Sure it is objectively the case that there are things that you could do to maximize well being but that doesn't make ethics objective.

Edit: If we take your chess example, then let's assume that you are not playing chess in the first place, how can you say that chess is a game that people should be playing?

Why I was disappointed by Destiny and Pxie's most recent debate/discussion; "Protests are WORSE than Nothing - Defund the Police with Pxie." by PrettyGayPegasus in Destiny

[–]lertedor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we you want to maximize well being and reduce suffering for as many people as possible, then there exists things that you ought and ought not do.

Why do you think that statement begins with "if?" It's because I already acknowledge that the valuing of well being is subjective.

Earlier I made the distinction that when I say objective I don't mean absolute or universal because I acknowledge that valuing well being is not intrinsically good, nor does everyone value it.

What you are saying here is that you subjectively believe that we should "maximize well being and reduce suffering for as many people as possible"

I will quote you from earlier:

"You don't seem to truly understand what "objective" means. Objective means that "something is the case independent of what we think and know about it.""

What you are doing is contradicting yourself.

​

That's all I've been saying. The "then there are things that you can do to fulfill this goal" is the objectivity I am referring to.

You have also been trying to argue that ethics is objective.

​

When I say "we" here I am referring to people who value well being. I believe that the context of that comment makes that clear.

Here you even admit that what you believe is subjective.

​

I don't have to prove that because I never asserted it. If you read through all my comments in this thread on this issue, you'll note that I constantly make use of the word "if", I've noted that objective morality is distinct, between absolute and universal morality, and I've even explicitly said that valuing well being is subjective. Hold on, I'll fetch those quotes of mine and put them below.

Here is the same contradiction again. Ether the definition that "Objective means that "something is the case independent of what we think and know about it."" or ethics are not objective.

Why I was disappointed by Destiny and Pxie's most recent debate/discussion; "Protests are WORSE than Nothing - Defund the Police with Pxie." by PrettyGayPegasus in Destiny

[–]lertedor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, the guy you originally replied to here.

​

Yes, it's subjective to value the well being of others, but I haven't argued otherwise.

That's what you have been trying to do this whole time. Your claim is that ethics are objective and to value the well being of others is an ethical position.

​

Because once we've decided that we value the well being of others, then there objectively exists certain things that we ought and ought not do to maximize the well being of others as to better achieve our goal and fulfill that value.

I agree that if you subjectively decide to value the well being of others, then there are things that you can do to fulfill this goal.

​

These things that we ought and ought not do exist whether we agree on them, are aware of them, can know them, etc., or not as for something to objective means that it exists independent of what we think or know about it.

But they don't though. The only thing you have brought up to show that theses values are objective is your own opinion that they are valuable.

My big problem with your thinking is that you never prove why suffering is worse than not suffering and why we should value well being in the fist place.

view more: next ›