Empty Mind

Operating System Test

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@JeezyisBACK @ReavesSeed Is morality subjective

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@Dlembry93 @mymomcare Would you resurrect her if you had the power to.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@Giselle29941974 @TheBritishIntel Mentally well or unwell, any person actively threatening officers with a knife represents an imminent threat of serious injury or death, legally justifying the use of deadly force.

De-escalation and non-lethal force was attempted by these cops. She refused, threatening to kill.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@ManicUCW The point isn't that you deserve to die.

It's that despite the deaths caused by cars, you believe the benefit of not banning cars outweighs the unfortunate deaths.

Kirk made the same point, but with guns.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 Is: "helping other humans is a baseline instinct"

Ought: "It should be a basic ass part of you to not want to steal and assault and rape ... that's being a normal human being that isn't mentally fucked up"

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 Motte-and-bailey. These statements would be entirely irrelevant to our disagreement.

Why? Because the conflict is if bringing up Hume is a non-sequitur. OP didn't appeal to their own personal feelings, but to a generalized evolutionary fact to justify a moral "should" lol

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 Unexpectedly funny. You conflated "subjective" with "biological truth". In evolutionary biology, instincts are "objective facts".

Objective as in observable or measurable, not the "independent of sentient minds" objective.

There is no way you are consistently tripping this way.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 Wow, so you concede OP did make an ought claim. You also conceded that objective facts can't be the sole consideration.

OP cited evolutionary facts to justify why we shouldn't assault people, failing Hume's test. You literally just conceded your entire point here to me.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 OP made an "ought" claim. It doesn't matter if it were objective or subjective.

That makes Hume's Guillotine not a non-sequitur in the context of this conversation.

Can you define non-sequitur then apply it to this conversation...? I have got to see what you see.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@Dulloldguy @AgainstAtheismX How can you say murder is objectively wrong if whether it's wrong or not depends on us, like you said, making our own rules collectively?

That's subjective, making murder not objectively wrong.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 There's simply no nice way to put it. You are confused about your own position.

Remember, you said it was a non-sequitur to mention Hume's Guillotine and your reasoning was that OP didn't say impulses were objective.

We are talking about "ought", not objective measures.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 What??? It's not a non-sequitur when the OP quite literally prescribed an "ought" in their reply to this same post.

Are you not confused?

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 That's not a conflation.

If you believe morality is subjective and that there is no objective right or wrong, like David Hume, then why did you contest the "Humebot" earlier when you yourself agree you can't derive an "ought" from an "is"?

You called it a non-sequitur.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 That's still an "is".

Post hoc rationalization is just that. It's a psychological phenomenon, not an objective axiom for morality.

Post hoc rationalization is quite literally subjective. So the distinction Hume draws isn't false at all.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@bumbaclotbuddy @HMorrisfac22384 I'm not fully sure yet, I'll admit that, but that's not my position. Theists say God is morality itself, thus acting as the axiom, but I must do more research for that topic.

However, what I am sure about is that non-theists certainly have no objective morality. Disagree?

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@thicc_gandalf @HadesUndead @HMorrisfac22384 It's not a non-sequitur.

Hume is correct. You can describe what *is*, but that does not mean you have derived an "ought".

Things like empathy or evolutionary psychology describe the "what", not the "should".

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@HMorrisfac22384 That's evolutionary psychology which is not the same as morality.

You're describing what *is*, but not what *should* be. By that logic, a severely mentally handicapped individual lacking the cognitive capacity to help others would be immoral.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@garfsvu1 It's about morality.

If you use "gross" as a moral argument, that same thing can be used to justify putting down gay people due to finding homosexuality "gross". Or to justify racism.

So the ick can't be used as a proper axiom for morality, that's why it's incorrect.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@cooloration @cmoney1516735 @RexMr1 @Ranting_Trans You think "ethical obligation" was used philosophically here instead of legally when he literally followed it up with "informed consent" which is a 20th century legal doctrine?

Since that's not a timeless philosophical concept, his use is still legal as I said, you're kidding.

[Empty Mind @TwoEmptyMinds]

@NorthernNesher @___mithrandir_ @Ranting_Trans First you use pain as an axiom then justify the pain, thus no longer making it an axiom, to assert that whether pain is good/bad is context-dependent, just like you did with harm.

This can lead to an infinite regress.

Why is it immoral to inflict pain for self pleasure?