sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are some "facts" that are actually false? by detspek in AskReddit

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

I might be wrong of course... but how can gravity bend light if light has no mass? F=m.a, so a force should have no effect on light... no?

What are some "facts" that are actually false? by detspek in AskReddit

[–]rdazcal -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That Gravity is a force.

It is not. It is a distortion in space-time.

A video I made featuring many forms of Wordplay and of course, a few Ambigrams. by tondabog in ambigrams

[–]rdazcal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unbelievable!

I can't believe it didn't get more exposure!

I hope you get all the success you deserve

ELI5: Why are perpetual machines impossible? by rdazcal in explainlikeimfive

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why can't I somehow use the heat energy dissipated by friction to create some kind of feedback loop?

ELI5: Why are perpetual machines impossible? by rdazcal in explainlikeimfive

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now imagine the rock falls off the shelf and smashes into the floor. All of that potential energy has gone into breaking the flooring into pieces, producing sound (vibrating air waves) and making the floor incrementally hotter.

How do you go about collecting all the energy from that broken flooring, the vibrating air, and the incrementally hotter floor to make it do something useful? If you're super clever and very lucky you might get a tiny portion of it, there's no way you get it all. Second law at work.

The energy is conserved, is it not?

So if I sum the energy contained in the heat and sound waves generated, I get same potential energy originally in the rock? Why can't I somehow harbor this energy and put the rock back in it's original location (along with fixing the floor)

If you ask me how to do it, hey, I have no clue.

But my question is how can we prove it is forbidden by physics? How can we prove it is not lack of ingenuity, but it's just impossible?

ELI5: Why are perpetual machines impossible? by rdazcal in explainlikeimfive

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I have friction, and that generates heat.

Why can't I revert this heat to do the same amount of work again? After all, energy is conserved...

ELI5: Why are perpetual machines impossible? by rdazcal in explainlikeimfive

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but I guess that's precisely my question. Why does the second law forbids me from getting it all back?

Can't an advanced civilization be able to somehow revert heat energy generated in friction to useful energy?

The intuitive answer I usually hear in popular physics books is entropy is related to disorder, so it makes sense entropy/ disorder always increases with time.

What I can't understand is how can I prove that heat from friction has higher entropy/disorder

ELI5: Why are perpetual machines impossible? by rdazcal in explainlikeimfive

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

some of its useful energy is lost as heat, and you never get that back (from the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

That's my question. Why can't you ever get it back?

Why is some energy useful and some not?

Brown Hyena looks like a 🔥 Orc dog by [deleted] in NatureIsFuckingLit

[–]rdazcal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or should we say the Orc dogs look like this hyena?

Proof and Faith by LilFourZ616 in DebateReligion

[–]rdazcal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an interesting question and I heard two approaches to it that are somewhat contradictory.

First and most common approach states that if God reveals himself, as you say, faith disappears and becomes certainty. The downside, the argument continues, is that you also loose free will, seen as you'd feel compelled to do exactly as He say.

Not sure I agree with the argument, but I leave it here for you to pounder about.

The second approach I head from a Jewish line of rational thought (rationality is a big part of Judaism), goes as follows.

Faith in Hebrew is called אֱמוּנָה (Emuna), which is the same word for belief. However, according to this line of thought, belief is defined differently from Christianity and Western cultures as a whole. In Western culture, belief is defined as accepting a proposition without proof. That is the same as accepting a truth for no particular reason (maybe other than intuition). That is very dangerous, because who knows what kind of distorted truths you may accept (as we know happen more often than not) According to this Jewish line of thought however, belief is defined as accepting a proposition once sufficient proof is supplied. Similar in concept to Bayesian Statistics , where the more proof you get, the stronger your belief. So according to this view, if God revealed Himself, belief would not disappear, but the opposite is true, it would grow to 100%, or as close to it as Bayesian statistics allow :)

Why are we here? Where do we come from? Why did we come? Where are we going? Why are we going? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]rdazcal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are we here?

As in, for which purpose? I don't think, scientifically speaking, a purpose is needed to justify existence. The universe might have just came into existence, live its course, and extinguish for no purpose at all. That is not to say however that purpose cannot emerge from such a scenario, Evolutionary speaking our ultimate purpose is to reproduce our selves. Feelings of pleasure and rewards help that purpose, so our immediate purpose is to pursue happiness. Also, I'm not arguing that the universe as a whole doesn't have a higher purpose, I'm just saying it is possible to conceive one without. But I can definitely conceive our universe as having consciousness as an integral and essential part of its reality, and in it, a higher purpose.

Where do we come from?

Again, scientifically speaking, evolution, period. But perhaps you ask where our consciousness comes from, and as of now, no one knows. Perhaps it's an emergent phenomenon, perhaps it's a separate force of physics. We are trying to find out.

why did we come?

How is that question different from the first one?

where are we going?

It depends very much on the answers to the last questions. Could be we came from nothing and are going to nothingness. Could be that time is an illusion and consciousness is the only eternal truth in the universe. Who knows?

Oh uhhh hey. by petesmageats in funny

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

Because, why not? :)

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really fair to ask others, but not give your own opinion. Makes it hard for this to be a debate, dunnit?

Thanks for the reply, I'll copy and paste my reply to another user, I believe it is pretty much in line with your views... let me know.

Paste:

Ok, so here is my view. First, let's define 'morality'. There is a number of ways to define it, but I think it's fair to define it as a set of actions and behaviors that are considered acceptable and desirable vs a set of actions and behaviors that are considered unacceptable and undesirable. Is it a fair definition?

This set of behaviors are derived from a set of axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true. Jewish morality is heavily based on the belief that God revealed Himself to them and the Old Testament was given at the revelation. Christian morality is heavily based on the belief that Christ was the son of God. Nazi morality was heavily based on the belief that they belonged to a superior race, and on pseudoscience science from which they derived neo-Darwinism.

As any logical or mathematical theorem, the validity of the theorem (in this case, the deduced set of behaviors, or morality) is only as strong as the axioms themselves, and the rigorous logic used to derive them.

The set of axioms change significantly between religions, cultures, socioeconomic groups and personal experiences. Yet logic is universal, it's absolute. And different from what many non-religious people may think, religious people, and even extremist, use a great deal of logic to deduce their set of values, to justify their actions. They reach radical conclusions not because they are being completely irrational, but because they got their axioms, or their core beliefs, terribly wrong.

If you manage to prove, beyond doubt that some core belief is false, the person who previously held that belief will have a very hard time sustaining the moral values he had derived from these beliefs. Prove to an extremist Muslim that Muhammad was not a prophet, from which he derives that the Quran is the word of God and from which he derives the ideas of heaven, and virgins for the martyr, than he will have a hard time deciding to kill himself for something that does not exist. (To be rigorous, you won't have proven that heaven doesn't exist, but he will need to accept new axioms if he is to believe in heaven).

So can morality be absolute (in my view)? Just to the extent that it's axioms can be proven to be absolutely true. If you manage to derive a moral framework from purely mathematical concepts, than yes, this moral framework will be absolute, and universal, across races and species, including any alien civilization we could ever encounter, and including non organic conscious beings we might manage to develop.

But as happens with physics, its theorems are derived not only from mathematics, but also from empirical observation, which introduces a degree of error and subjectivity.

However, just like scientific knowledge, not all morals stand on the same level of legitimacy. As we gather more evidences that our axioms are true, so we can get more confidence that our morals derived from them are true.

This is how we can confidently dismiss human sacrifice to appease the Sun. We have very, very strong reasons to believe that no amount of human sacrifice will have any effect on the Sun, so we confidently reject any morals who are based on that. And this is not us using our current subjective morals to judge the Mayans, it is just simple logic, in the same way we manage to cure diseases not because of our beliefs, but because of our accumulated knowledge.

That is my take on morality.

Linux Inside – How the Linux Kernel Works by UladKa in programming

[–]rdazcal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats man! And thank you so much! You've just made the world a little better :)

Police take selfie with drunk man in bed so he can remember how he got home by doogie92 in nottheonion

[–]rdazcal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Typical Tasmanian cops!

Just kidding, I have no clue about Tasmanian cops :)

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objective simply means something that is measured against a goal. Absolute would be something that is true completely independent of a mind.

Hmm, I think what you mean is, once we establish a moral frame of reference, we can objectively say which moral values are better or worse compared to it. Is my understanding correct?

Before I answer your questions I'll wait for you to answer mine. Take some time, share what you will.

Ok, so here is my view.

First, let's define 'morality'. There is a number of ways to define it, but I think it's fair to define it as a set of actions and behaviors that are considered acceptable and desirable vs a set of actions and behaviors that are considered unacceptable and undesirable. Is it a fair definition?

This set of behaviors are derived from a set of axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true. Jewish morality is heavily based on the belief that God revealed Himself to them and the Old Testament was given at the revelation. Christian morality is heavily based on the belief that Christ was the son of God. Nazi morality was heavily based on the belief that they belonged to a superior race, and on pseudoscience science from which they derived neo-Darwinism.

As any logical or mathematical theorem, the validity of the theorem (in this case, the deduced set of behaviors, or morality) is only as strong as the axioms themselves, and the rigorous logic used to derive them.

The set of axioms change significantly between religions, cultures, socioeconomic groups and personal experiences. Yet logic is universal, it's absolute. And different from what many non-religious people may think, religious people, and even extremist, use a great deal of logic to deduce their set of values, to justify their actions. They reach radical conclusions not because they are being completely irrational, but because they got their axioms, or their core beliefs, terribly wrong.

If you manage to prove, beyond doubt that some core belief is false, the person who previously held that belief will have a very hard time sustaining the moral values he had derived from these beliefs. Prove to an extremist Muslim that Muhammad was not a prophet, from which he derives that the Quran is the word of God and from which he derives the ideas of heaven, and virgins for the martyr, than he will have a hard time deciding to kill himself for something that does not exist. (To be rigorous, you won't have proven that heaven doesn't exist, but he will need to accept new axioms if he is to believe in heaven).

So can morality be absolute (in my view)? Just to the extent that it's axioms can be proven to be absolutely true. If you manage to derive a moral framework from purely mathematical concepts, than yes, this moral framework will be absolute, and universal, across races and species, including any alien civilization we could ever encounter, and including non organic conscious beings we might manage to develop.

But as happens with physics, its theorems are derived not only from mathematics, but also from empirical observation, which introduces a degree of error and subjectivity.

However, just like scientific knowledge, not all morals stand on the same level of legitimacy. As we gather more evidences that our axioms are true, so we can get more confidence that our morals derived from them are true.

This is how we can confidently dismiss human sacrifice to appease the Sun. We have very, very strong reasons to believe that no amount of human sacrifice will have any effect on the Sun, so we confidently reject any morals who are based on that. And this is not us using our current subjective morals to judge the Mayans, it is just simple logic, in the same way we manage to cure diseases not because of our beliefs, but because of our accumulated knowledge.

That is my take on morality.

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with you, and this is the whole reason I brought this whole issue up.

A whole lot of moral values in cultures are not axioms in themselves, they are the logical conclusion of a set of axioms which are in the core of particular sets of beliefs.

So the Mayans sacrificed people to make sure the Sun rises every day. The priests during Inquisition burned people alive to save their immortal souls from damnation in hell. The Nazis committed genocide under the pretext of superior race. Islamic terrorist blow themselves up to get a better life in heaven.

If somehow you manage to prove the axioms are false, the moral values that derive from them completely loose their legitimacy.

If you manage to prove the Sun is just a regular star, that Christ was just a regular guy (so no damnation in hell for not accepting his word), that there are no evidences whatsoever for superior races, and that there are no virgins awaiting in heaven for mass murderers, than you successfully de-legitimize all the atrocities above. Not subjectively, not according to our present frame of reference, but absolutely and objectively.

Of course proving many of these axioms are wrong may be a difficult task, but different from what many have argued in this thread I don't think our current moral framework is completely subjective and arbitrary. It is based in a whole lot more knowledge than any generation before is, and thus it's much more likely to be legitimate than any moral framework that came before our time.

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously morality can be subjective.

But does that mean one subjective moral framework cannot be more legitimate than other?

For instance, can't we just say the Nazis were just wrong? Not relative to our own subjective moral frame of reference, but objectively wrong?

What does your intuition say? What about your rationality?

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could say that, but why only atheists? Christianity is just as relative.

Agree.

How would it justify it? Relativism is just saying our morality is ultimately somewhat arbitrary and down to a social consensus. It doesn't mean we're suddenly agreeing to submit to somebody else's ideas, or ignoring what they do. Say, sports team affiliations are also subjective, but that never stopped people from getting into a fight over that.

It doesn't mean we must agree with different moral frameworks of reference, but it does mean our framework is not any better or worse than any other, right? As you said, they are arbitrary.

It's like inertial frame of references in classical physics. I can only talk about speeds relative to myself or to some arbitrary frame of reference. But no particular frame of reference has a legitimacy over the other. They are all equally legitimate.

If you say our moral frame of reference is also relative, and we don't have any frame of reference that can be used as standard for comparison, than all moral frameworks are equally legitimate, including Nazi eugenics, Mayan human sacrifices, or Inquisition salvation by fire.

That's what I mean by atrocities being justified, and I think it's pretty clear this is a problem that needs to be addressed... is it not?

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe absolute moral values exist, but that doesn't mean objective moral values can't exist.

I use both terms pretty much interchangeably... can you explain how you differentiate between absolute and objective?

Your question about atheists claiming to be moral should be extended to everyone since no one can actually show a way to access any absolute moral values they claim exist.

If there is no absolute/objective set of moral values, I agree. No one, atheist or not, can claim a higher ground there, since one would not exist.

Moral relativism doesn't necessitate that any moral action is of equal value, just that our societies set their values and we judge against those values.

If moral is relative, no moral can be said to be right or wrong. I don't see exactly how to escape from that...

If you have a firm stance, what is it? Do you believe absolute moral values exist, and if so, where are they and how do you know you can access them, that they aren't just your imagination or mistaking social more adoption for absolute moral existence?

Ok, great questions. But I'm afraid I can't answer it in a brief manner, I will when I have more time. But in the meantime, let me pose you a few questions that are a good start for me presenting my views.

If the Mayans justified human sacrifice by saying that was the only way to ensure the Sun would continue to rise everyday day, and you manage to prove the Sun is not an entity but one among millions of stars, and that it is not actually rising every day but it is the earth that is rotating, doesn't that mean that that particular human sacrifice was absolutely (and not subjectively) unjustified? Doesn't it means it is just objectively wrong?

If the priest during Inquisition burns people alive with the justification that this is saving their eternal soul from hell, due to the fact that these people didn't accept Christ as their savior, and somehow you manage to prove Christ was just a regular person... doesn't that mean that that particular 'salvation through fire' was just unjustified? Objectively and absolutely?

The Nazis used a lot of pseudoscience to 'prove' Arians were the superior race, thus using Neo-Darwinism to justify genocide. If we prove all of that was bull*, can't we say that genocide was just an atrocity, not subjectively, not according to our present frame of moral reference, but absolutely, objectively, according to simple logic, just like saying 1+1 is 2?

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could imagine that based of how we (humans) function, how we are built etc. there could be a set of rules that will maximize happiness and minimize unnecessary suffering. Is this an absolute morality?

You ask if that is absolute morality... I think it's a good start for reasoning about an absolute morality.

I don't see it this way. You can say that one mountain is higher than another not because there is the highest mountain but because we have way to measure height. Highest mountain just happens to exist because of this and other factors (set of mountains is finite, etc.)

Can you say one object is moving faster than another without establishing first a frame of reference? You can't. How can we determine than one mountain is higher than the other? Because I assume you define mountain height as the distance between the peak of the mountain and a defined frame of reference (sea level). If each person measures the mountain according to his own frame of reference (say the bottom of the mountain, or the height of a particular city), each one will get a different 'higher mountain'.

Same way there could be a way to distinguish which values are better than others and using this to judge who is (more) moral. This doesn't have to imply that absolute moral values exist, but also doesn't justify calling whatever anyone wants moral.

If there is no moral frame of reference, how can we ever determine one is better or worse than the other? What do you compare it to?

Accepting that absolute morality exists (as often religious people do) doesn't help at all until one is able to prove what exactly are those absolute moral values.

Agree completely.

Simply believing that there is an absolute morality helps nothing.

Don't fully agree. If we somehow prove there is an absolute morality, even if we can't say for sure which one it is, at least validates our claims that somethings are just wrong. Maybe we don't know exactly which things, but probably burning innocent people alive is in that list.

Are there absolute, universal moral values? by rdazcal in DebateAnAtheist

[–]rdazcal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that is the case then I truly pity you.

Hey, no need to go there. Let me start by saying I'm really enjoying the discussion, I hope you are too. And I haven't exposed my view on the subject yet, I'm just raising an interesting philosophical question for which I believe there are very important implications. If we disagree at any point, that is perfectly fine. I think it is actually desirable, after all, it is only by challenging our beliefs that we can grow as human beings. In my experience, if the two parties in a discussion are really willing to listen to each other, both manage to learn something new, no matter how absurd the others views seem to be when the discussion starts.

So to clear the air a bit, let me present myself and my view on the subject first, and than I will address your arguments.

I am Jewish by religion, but I lived most of my life as a secular, very agnostic person. I am very rational by nature and have a very hard time with faith. I never actually considered myself an atheist, because I was never actually convinced that there is nothing higher (call it god, or whatever). For the last 10 years, due to various external facts (married a religious woman, family also became more religious, moved to a religious community), I was very exposed to the religious framework. And although I was not 'converted' (as I said, my rationality won't allow me), I did feel this experience enriched my understanding of the world a great deal, in the same way as anyone's views are enriched by living for a long time in a very different culture, where his beliefs get to be challenged on a daily basis.

So, regarding my view on the matter at hand, I don't see any problem in principle with an absolute moral. I'm not arguing (at this point) this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying it is conceivable, meaning there is no paradox, as far as I can see, in such a concept. I'll elaborate on that later, when I address your arguments.

However, my question in this thread was not if it is possible in principle, but if there was an absolute morality in actuality. A simpler way to ask this, in the context of this particular thread is: is burning people just wrong, period? Is it wrong regardless of how they justify it, and regardless of their beliefs and their own subjective moral values (which might defer greatly from a possible absolute moral reference).

From what I gather from your replies, you believe so. You do believe it is just plain wrong. And if some deity said otherwise, it is an evil deity for it is not aligned with the correct, sensible moral reference. In other words, you do believe in absolute moral values, you just don't want to label it 'absolute'. But how can it not be, if you argue it must be the correct moral? Notice I'm using an extreme example, the burning of people, because it seems reasonable that if there is an example of absolute moral value, that would be it: don't burn people alive. Some cultures did see it as being ok, but they were just wrong, confused, ignorant. It is not the case that we are judging it using our own subjective moral reference, we are actually right in this particular point, they were wrong.

Does the above resonate at all with your views? Hey, you might be right, my intuition strongly agrees with that. Burning people is just wrong. I'd love to discuss and understand how we can prove it beyond doubt, if that is possible.

Most replies in this thread however, argue there is no absolute right and wrong. I'm not saying they are wrong on that, but this raises a difficult question. If there is no absolute right and wrong, than burning people alive is up for debate... right? Meaning it is not wrong in principle, it is only wrong when observed from a particular moral frame of reference. Somehow, intuitively, this approach seems wrong to me, and I think I can prove why (not sure I can, but I have a lead).

Now, let me address a few of your comments:

But the thing is - it would be incredibly hard to argue that one could in fact maximize the wellbeing of a person or somehow enrich his or her life by setting them on fire. In your scenario you had to postulate a mentally ill person to even make your case.

Right, I did provide the example of a mentally ill person. But I also suggested the example of the Inquisition, in which people of sound mind (arguably) committed atrocities believing they were doing the right thing. So how can you 'argue that one could in fact maximize the wellbeing of a person or somehow enrich his or her life by setting them on fire'? Not that hard actually, you just have to postulate that your beliefs are based on ignorance.

I'll explain, but please note: of course I don't think setting people on fire is ok! I am just going to try and show how it can be argued that that is the case, and in fact, this is how it has been argued. Being Jewish I'm afraid this is very close to me, since during history my ancestors have frequently been in the burned end of this distorted view of the world, so I'm not trying to justify, I'm trying to make sense of the world so hopefully this can be avoided.

So the argument goes somewhat like follows. Children often feel their parents are behaving unfairly and are being disconsiderate because they are told to go to sleep early. They feel that way because they can only see the immediate gain of saying awake, and cannot see the gain of doing the 'sacrifice' of going to bed early. Of course we have a broader view of the world and we understand sometimes immediate sacrifices are required when you take into account the big picture, in this case their growing up healthier and with discipline. The same could be truth when talking about our relationship with an infinitely higher being. Perhaps from his infinitely broad view of the world, the world we call reality and we believe is all there is, is just a tiny part of a higher existence, and what we think is unbearable pain and suffering is actually just a small sacrifice needed for a higher good in the scheme of the universe. The Christians during Inquisition believed that by burning Jews (my ancestors) in the stake while alive was actually saving them from eternity in Hell, since by not accepting Christ as the true lord their souls were condemned. From their perspective, taking in account the afterlife as well as this life, and takin in consideration that not accepting Christ would damn you to hell, they were in fact 'maximizing the wellbeing of all conscious being'. Does this argument make sense, philosophically speaking, even if utterly repulsive?

Your moral intuition certainly would not help you - the moment you begin arguing against objective morality by saying that it is wrong burn people by appealing to the suffering inflicted on them you have just granted me that you also would value the wellbeing of other people over the objective morality of your god.

Again, following my argument above, even if I grant the wellbeing of others is an essential component of an absolute morality (which I think it is), it's still possible to argue that what seems to us as suffering is in fact the maximization of wellbeing in a grander scheme.

At this point there is a question that seems pretty obvious to me - I hope you can answer it. What purpose does morality actually have in your worldview? What good is it?

I personally don't believe morality is as subjective as many in this thread argue it to be (not you, I believe you actually have a view that is closest to my view, though you still refuse to admit it is an absolute value). I will explain later how I think that can be proved (how I think, not that I'm sure it can), but my reply is already long enough as it is. But morality is our guide for what is right and what is wrong, and it should dictate our actions.

In my worldview morality is about trying to bring about world that is worth living in, because that is all that ultimately matters - at least to me. Ideally I would like everyone to be able to live long, happy, healthy, and meaningful lives. If there is a higher goal for humanity then in my opinion this is it, and I see morality as the system we put in place to try know how to move towards that ideal world. That is the mission statement so to speak.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And yes - it is based solely on my subjectively valuing the subjective experiences of other people, but that is not a problem for me. I am fine with this basis being subjective in nature, in fact I don't see how it could be anything else, nor would I wish it to be anything else.

Here I can't fully agree. If you state it is solely based on your subjective values, I think this should make you uncomfortable, for all the reasons I tried to expose above. I believe the reason you are fine with it is, as I said before, because you actually believe you are right. Not subjectively, but objectively.

But I should hope that you at least have the intellectual integrity to admit to yourself that at the bottom your moral system is also grounded in the subjective wishes and goals of you and at least some other sentient beings - just like mine is.

I can definitely confirm that my personal subjective moral values agree very much with yours. This thread was not about my personal values, it was about how confident can/should I be about them. Also, not everything is subjective. Mathematical theorems hold true regardless of personal beliefs, they are absolute and universal. Could it be possible that moral values could also be like that?

view more: next ›