x
Click to expand

larknok

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:6/02/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7681
Highest Content Rank:#5476
Highest Comment Rank:#1569
Content Thumbs: 126 total,  206 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 4115 total,  4937 ,  822
Content Level Progress: 40% (2/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 65% (65/100)
Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:20137
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:1015
FJ Points:3567

latest user's comments

#71 - The omnitool is supposedly able and does translate all languag…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Vidya Logic +2
User avatar #83 - civilizedwasteland (05/29/2015) [-]
possible reason is that Shepard knows what it means so it doesn't get translated.
#150 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As I recall, in one of their conversations Shepard has no clue what "loco" means, and James has to explicitly tell him/her what the translation into English is.
User avatar #74 - lotrfan (05/29/2015) [-]
ok haha I just started M3 and I haven't noticed that yet. Thanks for the answer
#300 - As a philosophy major, I can inform you that you are very conf…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom 0
User avatar #301 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
Universality is the only way to rationally prove anything through, as far as I understand it. I'm a math major with a minor in economics, so maybe it's just a difference in our ways of thinking.

If ethics cannot be universal, then doesn't that make ethics subjective? Or divinely inspired? If ethics are subjective, then you cannot, by any reasonable means, make any suggestion for somebody else to change their actions. If they are divinely inspired, then there's really no reason for discussion.

If mathematics did not have the principle of universality, 2+2 would mean whatever you wanted it to mean. There have to be rational, universal standards for the methodology to hold any weight. 2+2=4 under any circumstances. This allows us to rationally deduce so much more and explain our universe in concrete detail. Why can the same principle not be applied to human thought? Numbers are concepts, in the same way that ethics is, but it's the universality that makes it concrete, that makes it usable.

I'm not a philosophy major, but I've taken a couple courses and I've read a few books. You probably know a lot more about the subject than myself. However I can't see how eating is a moral behavior. It's just a rational decision. If I choose not to eat the peanut butter am I somehow acting immorally? Can I be held in contempt because I choose not to? Should I be held as virtuous because I chose to eat it? I don't think so.

I think this is important because I'm not trying to say that sexually promiscuous people are bad people (unless they bring a child into it). I know that correlation does not mean causation, but that does not mean that the statistics are not important. There's a reason for the correlation there, and it has an effect on people's lives.

I don't believe there should even be a state let alone a paternal state. If you want to make dangerous decisions, that's your deal as long as you are hurting anybody. But I can give you reason and evidence that shows why you shouldn't drink copious amounts of alcohol and drive or operate heavy machinery because I care about you and the human race in general, right? Just because some people can drive fine drunk doesn't mean drunk driving isn't dangerous. In the same way, some people are good at being promiscuous, and a lot of people are not. Though obviously not to the same degree as drunk driving.
#302 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Ethics is subjective. And you're right, that means that you cannot by any reasonable means make objective claims about ethics. At best you can preach your own set of values and ideals.

Sound dissatisfying? Well, it's because there are actually no good arguments for objective morality, so you're stuck with a subjective description of how and why people think ethics exists and why we use ethical language like good and bad -- and that's it.

Universality doesn't apply to values. Especially because it's hard to actually draw distinct categories among people for which you can universalize.

While it may not appear that eating is moral behavior -- a subjective ethics tells us that it becomes ethical for an individual when that individual decides. I.e. I can decide that eating meat is wrong because it is causally linked with killing animals and those animals leading poor factory farm lives. I can decide that only these foods are acceptable to eat for ethical religious reasons. I can decide that my peanut allergy makes it bad for me to eat peanut butter, and to force feed me it is basically murder. I hope I've made my case. I was talking about Kant's universality in which an action is only permissible if it can be rationally willed for every person (rational being) to follow through with that action.

I think we're on the same page about female promiscuity at this point. I'm glad to offer you whatever else you desire as concerns ethics and the history of ethics.
User avatar #304 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them.

Arguing against a set of ethics implies that there is an objective set of ethics to compare it to (even if it hasn't been discovered yet). You can't argue whether or not a certain flavor of ice cream tastes good, because taste is subjective.

In the same way taste is subjective, for ethics to be subjective you'd have to accept that you can't argue whether or not a certain action is ethical, because by arguing you are implying there is an objective ethical standard to compare the action to, no?

But there's a problem with that. Actions are objective, therefore humans' choices of action have an objective impact on the world around us. So while the choices themselves are subjective, the actions and consequences are not.

So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?

In that case, can't the objective effects of moral decisions be quantified, classified, and explained by a set of moral rules called ethics just like how the scientific method quantifies, classifies, and explains objective phenomena that occur in the universe?

If so, then is ethics not objective? Why not?
#305 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them."

You have a point, but it's not entirely true. There's no "just" argument for one ethics over another. That won't stop the social phenomenon of people converting others to their ethical standings.

Take a look at gay pride and rights, for example. Under subjective ethics, what's going on is one side is doing their absolute best to convince others to adopt the primary ethical view: "gay people deserve these benefits: marriage, equal treatment, protection from discrimination, etc." They go about doing so in two ways:

1) Social approbation. They do their best to make it shameful to disagree with them. This creates an atmosphere in which the average disagreeing human feels threatened, and this allows the threatened individuals to change their base values -- much how babies learn the values the parents instill in them.

2) Association. This is the learning sort of convincing. All that needs to be done is to create a powerful association between pre-existing values in the minds of America and the value that the Gay movement wants accepted. To do so isn't altogether very hard. It looks something like:

a) Gay people are human.
b) We allow humans these privileges and benefits to such a degree we call them rights.
c) Therefore, Gay people are allowed those same privileges and benefits.

Moreover, here's another reason to discuss subjective ethics: It entails really peculiar things. Things you wouldn't expect just at a glance. Stuff like I just wrote above about how "moral movements" must then function.

"So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?"

Clearly not. There don't seem to be contradictions whatsoever with the view that all human beings have their own sets of values that change under social conditions and are dependent in some way upon their genetics, and that we impose our values onto other people in order to achieve something like moral ubiquity (where everyone agrees on some moral lessons locally.)

Moreover, I can't think of any reason that an objective moral attribute would follow an objective action in the world. Let's say I put a bullet in Vladimir Putin's brain. Some people will say that's immoral (many Russians, people who hardline no killing, etc.) and some people will say that it's moral (some Americans, many people oppressed by Putin, etc.)

We always attribute values to objective actions, but don't be so confused as to think that the values are objectively there when the event happens. Morality is just how we react to events.

Also, how would you quantify objective morality? Ask everybody what they think and take the plurality to be objective morality? All you would have done is found out which moral attitude is most ubiquitous! These moral attitudes change with time. Slavery was fine thousands of years ago, and now it's one of the most heinous crimes of man. Morality can only be subjective.
User avatar #309 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
So ethics do not exist, ethics are simply a description of the values a person hold. Ethics do not hold truths, but hold opinions.

Good, evil, right, and wrong, in the moral realm are subject to a person's view, not subject to an objective standard. While something may be evil in the US, it may not be evil in Saudi Arabia.

It is impossible to tell whether or not something is right or wrong objectively speaking, since each individual holds their own ethical values separate from every other individual. Even though those ethical values may agree in the now, they are subject to change.

Morality does not ascribe an objective right, wrong, good, or bad to an action, but describes subjective human interaction and reaction with the objective actions that occur in the world.

That sound right?

Anyways, really good stuff. A lot more help than any philosophy professor I've ever talked to. A lot to think about. Thanks for taking your time man, always love philosophical discussion and it's kinda hard to find people with that kind of knowledge who have contrary viewpoints, especially in my field.
#311 - larknok (05/30/2015) [-]
No problem man. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it all.

The only thing I'd add is pretty small. While it's true that there are no objective facts to turn to so as to justify levying one's moral values on another in a complete sense, that moral war is still going to happen. That is -- there will always be moral values in competition for moral ubiquity. Just as you can't be inherently right when fighting one set of moral values with another, your moral values also can't be inherently bad. They just are.

The take-away is: You can keep arguing your moral values and feel fine about it. You can always just pick the one you feel most comfortable with, and en masse enforce that moral ubiquity. I.e. we arrest murderers because there's enough of us that disagree that we simply over-power their wills. That doesn't mean that might makes right. It just means that might / numbers entails the dominating moral value that will achieve ubiquity.

This conversation began quite heated, but the later bits were a great pleasure.
#255 - Despite our disagreements, I commend you for thumbing me up. I…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom +2
User avatar #264 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
You make good arguments.
#39 - It's hard to move stuff from PV and CH to the Camp Office, but… 05/29/2015 on Oh, well okay than. 0
#243 - "Sex feels good because it makes babies." F…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom -1
User avatar #284 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
That's what I mean. Sex feels good because sex makes babies. That's an evolutionary advantage. We developed very complex mechanisms in our bodies around sexuality for the same reason.

I'm talking about the theory of genes and memes. Memes are a sort of epigenetic gene that are passed down from parent to child. Having wild sex "confuses" the genetics into thinking that the human population is dwindling and rapid reproduction is needed over time and care. Epigenetics allows genes to adapt to their environment, rather than pre-programmed genetics, which is part of what makes humans so adaptable and able to survive in multiple different environments. This also effects sexuality of course. Kids born into single family households tend to produce more cortisol (anti-stress hormone), which makes them more aware of their surroundings (which allows them to better survive a dangerous environment), but damages the brain over time and causes them to be more prone to violent behavior (which again, helps in a dangerous environment). This is one example of memes in action. Not exactly the best for a peaceful society.

And I suppose we are talking about ethics when we bring children into it.

I have no objections to women having casual sex. However, it's potentially harmful to their future children.

Aesthetics in morality refers to what "ought" to be, rather than what "is." For example, it's aesthetically better to be on time for an appointment (you ought to be on time), but it's moral behavior to not murder somebody (murder is immoral behavior). Moral behavior is something that can be proven (When you murder somebody, you are both affirming your right to life and denying another person of theirs, breaking universality), aesthetic behavior is something that is socially preferable.

You can't get an ought from an is. Hume's law. The instant you are suggesting how somebody SHOULD act, you are no longer talking morality, you're talking aesthetic behavior, because "should" implies an opinion, not a fact.

I can't tell anybody what to do with their bodies. Or I can, but they don't have to listen. I can only make an argument for it. This is why it's aesthetics.

And having a sexually attractive mother means nothing. I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother. And I already told you why it can be harmful. More likely to get divorced, more likely to have a child out of wedlock, more likely to be a single mother...

Maybe I'm wrong about the natural tendencies, but it's difficult to go against the grain, and there are usually unintended consequences. We have higher functioning brains. Not everything we do is decided by natural instinct, but reason and evidence.

And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people.

My main goal is to make people realize that these consequences are not something to be overlooked. That social pressures existed in the past for a reason. That just because we have better contraceptive techniques doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity is risk-less behavior.

I agree that promiscuity has no impact on the morality of a person, until they bring a child into it. That doesn't mean promiscuity is a good thing to do. Just because something isn't bad doesn't automatically make it good. There are morally neutral scenarios in the realm of ethics, and to me those go to the realm of aesthetic behaviors.
#300 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As a philosophy major, I can inform you that you are very confused about your popular use of terminology.

"Aesthetics" concerns art and beauty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

"Ought claims" concern normativity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

Normativity IS ethics. The distinction made in the philosophy of ethics is always between the descriptive (what physically exists and happens in the world), and the normative (what people ought to do.)

By invoking universality, you've invoked Kant's categorical imperative (that's where universality comes from.) Just one problem with all of that: Kant's categorical imperative totally commits the Appeal to Nature. It basically says that there are facts about rationality, and that from that, you somehow get ought statements. You demonstrated Hume's is/ought distinction quite well, so you know that you can't do that. Universality is a bad principle anyways. If I'm starving, I should probably eat the one source of food I have: Peanut Butter, but I can't universalize that to all rational agents. That's why universality isn't even a good principle, let alone does it have a proper foundation (rationality facts are shit, basically.)

"I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother."

That's all I've been talking about. I'm sorry if I lost you on that. Here's the important bit: Merely more likely to cause a bunch of other 'bad' stuff isn't a good enough argument. It's like saying we shouldn't ever leave our houses because we're more likely to meet a murderer and get stabbed. We don't need to live in a paternalistic state where we're not allowed to do anything that might harm us such as drive our own cars, talk to strangers, join the army, etc. What needs to be the case is a definite connection EVERY TIME between sexually promiscuous women and problems. Can't do that. It's merely a free choice that bears with it certain likelihoods.

As for natural instinct, I never talked about that. I just talked about this whole "nature" vs "unnatural" distinction you were putting on, as if "nature" was automatically better -- which was problematic in two ways as I argued -- first because Appeal to Nature, and second because everything is natural i.e. causal. If you mean to say rationality is non-natural in the vocabulary you intend to use, here's another problem: You can't reason your way into morals or values that will in any way conflict with your inherent values. That is -- you can't learn so much about anything that your basic values change. What you can do is have shifts in values -- a strange social phenomenon that happens often at young age during socialization and infrequently at every other age. You can also learn new information that appeals to your basic values such that your actions would change -- but your values do not. I.e. hearing that the bank teller at the bank you intend to rob is someone for which you very much respect.

"And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people."

You were just arguing that the natural tendencies entail that promiscuous behavior = horrible tendencies. Oh well. For this, I invoke the two arguments I've already laid out here:

1) No paternal states or societies please. I want to be able to do stuff that merely increases my risk of danger / harm such as drive, etc.
2) You can't derive an ought from an is, as you quoted David Hume. Rationality deals with facts and facts alone. You will never get a condemnation out of that.

User avatar #301 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
Universality is the only way to rationally prove anything through, as far as I understand it. I'm a math major with a minor in economics, so maybe it's just a difference in our ways of thinking.

If ethics cannot be universal, then doesn't that make ethics subjective? Or divinely inspired? If ethics are subjective, then you cannot, by any reasonable means, make any suggestion for somebody else to change their actions. If they are divinely inspired, then there's really no reason for discussion.

If mathematics did not have the principle of universality, 2+2 would mean whatever you wanted it to mean. There have to be rational, universal standards for the methodology to hold any weight. 2+2=4 under any circumstances. This allows us to rationally deduce so much more and explain our universe in concrete detail. Why can the same principle not be applied to human thought? Numbers are concepts, in the same way that ethics is, but it's the universality that makes it concrete, that makes it usable.

I'm not a philosophy major, but I've taken a couple courses and I've read a few books. You probably know a lot more about the subject than myself. However I can't see how eating is a moral behavior. It's just a rational decision. If I choose not to eat the peanut butter am I somehow acting immorally? Can I be held in contempt because I choose not to? Should I be held as virtuous because I chose to eat it? I don't think so.

I think this is important because I'm not trying to say that sexually promiscuous people are bad people (unless they bring a child into it). I know that correlation does not mean causation, but that does not mean that the statistics are not important. There's a reason for the correlation there, and it has an effect on people's lives.

I don't believe there should even be a state let alone a paternal state. If you want to make dangerous decisions, that's your deal as long as you are hurting anybody. But I can give you reason and evidence that shows why you shouldn't drink copious amounts of alcohol and drive or operate heavy machinery because I care about you and the human race in general, right? Just because some people can drive fine drunk doesn't mean drunk driving isn't dangerous. In the same way, some people are good at being promiscuous, and a lot of people are not. Though obviously not to the same degree as drunk driving.
#302 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Ethics is subjective. And you're right, that means that you cannot by any reasonable means make objective claims about ethics. At best you can preach your own set of values and ideals.

Sound dissatisfying? Well, it's because there are actually no good arguments for objective morality, so you're stuck with a subjective description of how and why people think ethics exists and why we use ethical language like good and bad -- and that's it.

Universality doesn't apply to values. Especially because it's hard to actually draw distinct categories among people for which you can universalize.

While it may not appear that eating is moral behavior -- a subjective ethics tells us that it becomes ethical for an individual when that individual decides. I.e. I can decide that eating meat is wrong because it is causally linked with killing animals and those animals leading poor factory farm lives. I can decide that only these foods are acceptable to eat for ethical religious reasons. I can decide that my peanut allergy makes it bad for me to eat peanut butter, and to force feed me it is basically murder. I hope I've made my case. I was talking about Kant's universality in which an action is only permissible if it can be rationally willed for every person (rational being) to follow through with that action.

I think we're on the same page about female promiscuity at this point. I'm glad to offer you whatever else you desire as concerns ethics and the history of ethics.
User avatar #304 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them.

Arguing against a set of ethics implies that there is an objective set of ethics to compare it to (even if it hasn't been discovered yet). You can't argue whether or not a certain flavor of ice cream tastes good, because taste is subjective.

In the same way taste is subjective, for ethics to be subjective you'd have to accept that you can't argue whether or not a certain action is ethical, because by arguing you are implying there is an objective ethical standard to compare the action to, no?

But there's a problem with that. Actions are objective, therefore humans' choices of action have an objective impact on the world around us. So while the choices themselves are subjective, the actions and consequences are not.

So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?

In that case, can't the objective effects of moral decisions be quantified, classified, and explained by a set of moral rules called ethics just like how the scientific method quantifies, classifies, and explains objective phenomena that occur in the universe?

If so, then is ethics not objective? Why not?
#305 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them."

You have a point, but it's not entirely true. There's no "just" argument for one ethics over another. That won't stop the social phenomenon of people converting others to their ethical standings.

Take a look at gay pride and rights, for example. Under subjective ethics, what's going on is one side is doing their absolute best to convince others to adopt the primary ethical view: "gay people deserve these benefits: marriage, equal treatment, protection from discrimination, etc." They go about doing so in two ways:

1) Social approbation. They do their best to make it shameful to disagree with them. This creates an atmosphere in which the average disagreeing human feels threatened, and this allows the threatened individuals to change their base values -- much how babies learn the values the parents instill in them.

2) Association. This is the learning sort of convincing. All that needs to be done is to create a powerful association between pre-existing values in the minds of America and the value that the Gay movement wants accepted. To do so isn't altogether very hard. It looks something like:

a) Gay people are human.
b) We allow humans these privileges and benefits to such a degree we call them rights.
c) Therefore, Gay people are allowed those same privileges and benefits.

Moreover, here's another reason to discuss subjective ethics: It entails really peculiar things. Things you wouldn't expect just at a glance. Stuff like I just wrote above about how "moral movements" must then function.

"So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?"

Clearly not. There don't seem to be contradictions whatsoever with the view that all human beings have their own sets of values that change under social conditions and are dependent in some way upon their genetics, and that we impose our values onto other people in order to achieve something like moral ubiquity (where everyone agrees on some moral lessons locally.)

Moreover, I can't think of any reason that an objective moral attribute would follow an objective action in the world. Let's say I put a bullet in Vladimir Putin's brain. Some people will say that's immoral (many Russians, people who hardline no killing, etc.) and some people will say that it's moral (some Americans, many people oppressed by Putin, etc.)

We always attribute values to objective actions, but don't be so confused as to think that the values are objectively there when the event happens. Morality is just how we react to events.

Also, how would you quantify objective morality? Ask everybody what they think and take the plurality to be objective morality? All you would have done is found out which moral attitude is most ubiquitous! These moral attitudes change with time. Slavery was fine thousands of years ago, and now it's one of the most heinous crimes of man. Morality can only be subjective.
User avatar #309 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
So ethics do not exist, ethics are simply a description of the values a person hold. Ethics do not hold truths, but hold opinions.

Good, evil, right, and wrong, in the moral realm are subject to a person's view, not subject to an objective standard. While something may be evil in the US, it may not be evil in Saudi Arabia.

It is impossible to tell whether or not something is right or wrong objectively speaking, since each individual holds their own ethical values separate from every other individual. Even though those ethical values may agree in the now, they are subject to change.

Morality does not ascribe an objective right, wrong, good, or bad to an action, but describes subjective human interaction and reaction with the objective actions that occur in the world.

That sound right?

Anyways, really good stuff. A lot more help than any philosophy professor I've ever talked to. A lot to think about. Thanks for taking your time man, always love philosophical discussion and it's kinda hard to find people with that kind of knowledge who have contrary viewpoints, especially in my field.
#311 - larknok (05/30/2015) [-]
No problem man. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it all.

The only thing I'd add is pretty small. While it's true that there are no objective facts to turn to so as to justify levying one's moral values on another in a complete sense, that moral war is still going to happen. That is -- there will always be moral values in competition for moral ubiquity. Just as you can't be inherently right when fighting one set of moral values with another, your moral values also can't be inherently bad. They just are.

The take-away is: You can keep arguing your moral values and feel fine about it. You can always just pick the one you feel most comfortable with, and en masse enforce that moral ubiquity. I.e. we arrest murderers because there's enough of us that disagree that we simply over-power their wills. That doesn't mean that might makes right. It just means that might / numbers entails the dominating moral value that will achieve ubiquity.

This conversation began quite heated, but the later bits were a great pleasure.
#35 - How to Survive a Long ******* Time in The Long Dark: …  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Oh, well okay than. +1
User avatar #38 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
This little guide implies that the camp office is the best place of a main base. Idk it seems like a pain in the ass to lug everything back there from elsewhere, but with the new way from the valley to the lake, it might be more viable.
#39 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
It's hard to move stuff from PV and CH to the Camp Office, but it is actually the best place for fast and consistent access to Deer, Wolves, and Fish alongside an indoor stove, an indoor crafting table, an indoor bed, and many containers for storage.
#230 - I've always said that there are six possible reasons to justif…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom +3
#297 - greenimp (05/29/2015) [-]
#33 - > Not sleeping all your days away in the Camping Office nea…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Oh, well okay than. 0
User avatar #34 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
Well that's what I was doing with my good friend Corner Corpse, but then I was beginning to run low on bullets, and had already looted the majority of the map, save the dam. So what I did was bugger off to the dam, killed the demon, then stayed a night with the food I got from it. From there, I just buggered off and made a beeline for the gas station. After which I changed my safe house to the house with the deck near the cabin on the hill, still in town. But what was nice about this place, is the bed and general heat of the place meant I could be naked and still not get cold. The location in the town also meant that all I had to do for food once I raided the map was walk outside, find a deer and herd it to a wolf, getting both their meat once wolf was shot. Or I could strut outside, blast an animal and eat forever. Or of course, live for years off my endless food supply of something like 50kg of wolf and deer meat, plus triple that in canned crap and such, plus 50kg of water.
#35 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
How to Survive a Long Fucking Time in The Long Dark:

1.) Locate all the items -- bullets, tools, guns, clothes, etc. you can. Efficiently bring them to the Camping Office.

2.) Kill Deer with minimum work / resources. This involves driving them into wolves, and then scaring the wolves off with a flare / torch, shooting the wolf in the head while he's eating, or moving in to knife the wolf with a nearly 100% knife for maximum damage and fear to the wolf. If knifing wolf, pray for no condition, and if you get no condition after the wolf runs, just extract meat from the deer and the wolf will immediately die of blood loss wherever he's standing due to the time lapse and knife injury.

3.) Make full set of Animal clothes. Maintain them with efficient kills like driving them into wolves or the knife+bleed out time lapse combo. Maintain non-animal clothes with whatever cloth you can salvage from non god-tier clothes you pick up.

4.) If you spot a bear that you can shoot from the nearest building to it, shoot the bear once, run into the house, sleep 12-15 hours, exit house. Bear dies instantly in front of you from time lapse blood loss, then you extract 30-50 kg of 900 calorie Bear Meat from the bear and dump it inside before moving it back to your main base.

5.) Maintain massive water and wood supply for when shit gets real.

6.) Now and then make voyages out to fringes of the map to pick up supplies you need for late game survival -- like the plants you can use for replacing antiseptic (Old Man's Beard Lichen bandages) and for replacing antibiotics (Reichi Tea made from Reichi mushrooms.)

7.) Sleep a metric fuck ton to use up all the resources you efficiently gain. No point doing something every day. Your meat density will get so high you'll have wasted bullets with no significant time gain.
User avatar #38 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
This little guide implies that the camp office is the best place of a main base. Idk it seems like a pain in the ass to lug everything back there from elsewhere, but with the new way from the valley to the lake, it might be more viable.
#39 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
It's hard to move stuff from PV and CH to the Camp Office, but it is actually the best place for fast and consistent access to Deer, Wolves, and Fish alongside an indoor stove, an indoor crafting table, an indoor bed, and many containers for storage.
#25 - lol, I'm a Philosophy and Astrophysics Major. I make questions my job. 05/29/2015 on larknok's profile 0
#31 - Since the last patch, there's a path from the Dam to PV. The p…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Oh, well okay than. 0
User avatar #32 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
I made it to 50 days personally, could've gone on for waaaayyyyy longer, but the patch before the bow and arrow one caused all the containers in my safe house in the costal town to reset, while no other house did. So I decided to waste my time with what little was on me to get to 50 days, and haven't played since.
#33 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
> Not sleeping all your days away in the Camping Office near Mystery Lake.
> Git gud scrub.
User avatar #34 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
Well that's what I was doing with my good friend Corner Corpse, but then I was beginning to run low on bullets, and had already looted the majority of the map, save the dam. So what I did was bugger off to the dam, killed the demon, then stayed a night with the food I got from it. From there, I just buggered off and made a beeline for the gas station. After which I changed my safe house to the house with the deck near the cabin on the hill, still in town. But what was nice about this place, is the bed and general heat of the place meant I could be naked and still not get cold. The location in the town also meant that all I had to do for food once I raided the map was walk outside, find a deer and herd it to a wolf, getting both their meat once wolf was shot. Or I could strut outside, blast an animal and eat forever. Or of course, live for years off my endless food supply of something like 50kg of wolf and deer meat, plus triple that in canned crap and such, plus 50kg of water.
#35 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
How to Survive a Long Fucking Time in The Long Dark:

1.) Locate all the items -- bullets, tools, guns, clothes, etc. you can. Efficiently bring them to the Camping Office.

2.) Kill Deer with minimum work / resources. This involves driving them into wolves, and then scaring the wolves off with a flare / torch, shooting the wolf in the head while he's eating, or moving in to knife the wolf with a nearly 100% knife for maximum damage and fear to the wolf. If knifing wolf, pray for no condition, and if you get no condition after the wolf runs, just extract meat from the deer and the wolf will immediately die of blood loss wherever he's standing due to the time lapse and knife injury.

3.) Make full set of Animal clothes. Maintain them with efficient kills like driving them into wolves or the knife+bleed out time lapse combo. Maintain non-animal clothes with whatever cloth you can salvage from non god-tier clothes you pick up.

4.) If you spot a bear that you can shoot from the nearest building to it, shoot the bear once, run into the house, sleep 12-15 hours, exit house. Bear dies instantly in front of you from time lapse blood loss, then you extract 30-50 kg of 900 calorie Bear Meat from the bear and dump it inside before moving it back to your main base.

5.) Maintain massive water and wood supply for when shit gets real.

6.) Now and then make voyages out to fringes of the map to pick up supplies you need for late game survival -- like the plants you can use for replacing antiseptic (Old Man's Beard Lichen bandages) and for replacing antibiotics (Reichi Tea made from Reichi mushrooms.)

7.) Sleep a metric fuck ton to use up all the resources you efficiently gain. No point doing something every day. Your meat density will get so high you'll have wasted bullets with no significant time gain.
User avatar #38 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
This little guide implies that the camp office is the best place of a main base. Idk it seems like a pain in the ass to lug everything back there from elsewhere, but with the new way from the valley to the lake, it might be more viable.
#39 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
It's hard to move stuff from PV and CH to the Camp Office, but it is actually the best place for fast and consistent access to Deer, Wolves, and Fish alongside an indoor stove, an indoor crafting table, an indoor bed, and many containers for storage.
#23 - But of course -- this doesn't mean there's any authority behin…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #24 - murrlogic (05/29/2015) [-]
You sound like a fucking edgy teenager with these questions

Allow me to redirect you to someone who can intellectually keep up with you mrpeep
#25 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
lol, I'm a Philosophy and Astrophysics Major. I make questions my job.
#21 - By the subjective ethics you subscribed to, "rights"…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #22 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Rights are made to help make your life more comfortable

this only applies to Humans who're the dominant race.
#23 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
But of course -- this doesn't mean there's any authority behind them. It technically applies to anything a thinking thing sets their minds to, because there's no authority in the first place.

Also, here's another question: There is no quality that every human has, that nothing that isn't human doesn't have, (no exclusive quality to all humans) so what's the justification for human beings existing as a group at all?
User avatar #24 - murrlogic (05/29/2015) [-]
You sound like a fucking edgy teenager with these questions

Allow me to redirect you to someone who can intellectually keep up with you mrpeep
#25 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
lol, I'm a Philosophy and Astrophysics Major. I make questions my job.
#29 - Fluffy is love. Fluffy is life.  [+] (8 new replies) 05/28/2015 on Oh, well okay than. +2
User avatar #30 - carlonord (05/28/2015) [-]
Fluffy's a prick, not so much an issue now that I know where he spawns and how to engage him, but he's still a jarring experience every time I have to go in there and he's there. Btw, you know the big cave in Pleasant Valley? Is it worth goin inside? It's quite dark and I've only been there once, just when I spawn at the mouth then had to leave. It's also been the only time I was in PV, other than walking from the highway just to unlock the place.
#31 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Since the last patch, there's a path from the Dam to PV. The path has tons of goodies in it now.

I've actually never been to PV. I'm 80 days into my Voyager run, and I'm thinking about going once I run out of resources. I shouldn't have to go for another 100 days tho, lol.
User avatar #32 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
I made it to 50 days personally, could've gone on for waaaayyyyy longer, but the patch before the bow and arrow one caused all the containers in my safe house in the costal town to reset, while no other house did. So I decided to waste my time with what little was on me to get to 50 days, and haven't played since.
#33 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
> Not sleeping all your days away in the Camping Office near Mystery Lake.
> Git gud scrub.
User avatar #34 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
Well that's what I was doing with my good friend Corner Corpse, but then I was beginning to run low on bullets, and had already looted the majority of the map, save the dam. So what I did was bugger off to the dam, killed the demon, then stayed a night with the food I got from it. From there, I just buggered off and made a beeline for the gas station. After which I changed my safe house to the house with the deck near the cabin on the hill, still in town. But what was nice about this place, is the bed and general heat of the place meant I could be naked and still not get cold. The location in the town also meant that all I had to do for food once I raided the map was walk outside, find a deer and herd it to a wolf, getting both their meat once wolf was shot. Or I could strut outside, blast an animal and eat forever. Or of course, live for years off my endless food supply of something like 50kg of wolf and deer meat, plus triple that in canned crap and such, plus 50kg of water.
#35 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
How to Survive a Long Fucking Time in The Long Dark:

1.) Locate all the items -- bullets, tools, guns, clothes, etc. you can. Efficiently bring them to the Camping Office.

2.) Kill Deer with minimum work / resources. This involves driving them into wolves, and then scaring the wolves off with a flare / torch, shooting the wolf in the head while he's eating, or moving in to knife the wolf with a nearly 100% knife for maximum damage and fear to the wolf. If knifing wolf, pray for no condition, and if you get no condition after the wolf runs, just extract meat from the deer and the wolf will immediately die of blood loss wherever he's standing due to the time lapse and knife injury.

3.) Make full set of Animal clothes. Maintain them with efficient kills like driving them into wolves or the knife+bleed out time lapse combo. Maintain non-animal clothes with whatever cloth you can salvage from non god-tier clothes you pick up.

4.) If you spot a bear that you can shoot from the nearest building to it, shoot the bear once, run into the house, sleep 12-15 hours, exit house. Bear dies instantly in front of you from time lapse blood loss, then you extract 30-50 kg of 900 calorie Bear Meat from the bear and dump it inside before moving it back to your main base.

5.) Maintain massive water and wood supply for when shit gets real.

6.) Now and then make voyages out to fringes of the map to pick up supplies you need for late game survival -- like the plants you can use for replacing antiseptic (Old Man's Beard Lichen bandages) and for replacing antibiotics (Reichi Tea made from Reichi mushrooms.)

7.) Sleep a metric fuck ton to use up all the resources you efficiently gain. No point doing something every day. Your meat density will get so high you'll have wasted bullets with no significant time gain.
User avatar #38 - carlonord (05/29/2015) [-]
This little guide implies that the camp office is the best place of a main base. Idk it seems like a pain in the ass to lug everything back there from elsewhere, but with the new way from the valley to the lake, it might be more viable.
#39 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
It's hard to move stuff from PV and CH to the Camp Office, but it is actually the best place for fast and consistent access to Deer, Wolves, and Fish alongside an indoor stove, an indoor crafting table, an indoor bed, and many containers for storage.
#19 - Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a differe… 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
#218 - "Your dick or pussy is not a plaything that nature invent…  [+] (15 new replies) 05/28/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom -4
User avatar #239 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
For somebody who just told off somebody else for not understanding the difference between words and concepts, you sure do the same thing quite a bit.

When I said Nature I was talking about Evolution and all other factors that play into the formation of complex biological systems, since Evolution is a force of Nature.

Sex feels good because it makes babies. Using sex for a different purpose leads to confusion in the body. (This is just theory, but I think it's the best theory of human reproduction we have) Memes are switched from K (Care and investment) to R (Spray and pray) reproductive strategies. Both have their uses, R when times are tough and people are dying left and right (which is not the case) and K when times are better and long-term investments become more important (which is the case now).

We're not talking about ethics, this is a morally neutral ground. We're talking aesthetics. I never said it was evil, I simply made the case that it's stupid.

If you want to parade yourself around, fine, but the moment you bring kids into it you can be ruining somebody's entire life.

Again, not talking about ethics, this is aesthetics. Sexual satisfaction is not a moral category, and trying to make it one is kinda ridiculous since it's mostly based on opinions.

And somebody IS worse when a woman wants to put 20 dicks insider of her. Her kids. You're implying that women who have constant casual sex are not having kids, which is just not true. They are. They're having a lot of kids.

over 40% of children are born out of wedlock. I get that some people cohabitate and don't get married, which is fine, but that's definitely not a majority of the 40%. That's not good.

And I never said it wasn't natural, I said it goes against natural tendencies. There you go confusing concepts again.
#255 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Despite our disagreements, I commend you for thumbing me up. It shows that you're a very good sport. It is clear to me that you obviously don't smile upon those who down vote people they argue with.
User avatar #264 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
You make good arguments.
#243 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"Sex feels good because it makes babies."

False. Sex feels good because people hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago were overwhelmingly more likely to have sex and proliferate if it felt good.

Confusion in the body? The fuck? I don't think you understand that evolution has no intention for us. Sex feels good first as a genetic mutation, which is successful so there are more babies and people for which sex feels good. Evolution isn't a parent giving their kid candy so he'll study harder. It doesn't fucking work like that.

Are you serious? Of course we're talking about goddamn ethics! We're talking about what people (men and women) SHOULD do. You write: "And somebody IS worse when a woman ... " Worse is inherently ethical. SHOULD is an inherently ethical word, except in hypothetical imperatives of the form: "if you want to die, you should kill yourself" which are descriptive instead of normative (moral and action-guiding.)

Aesthetics? Where oh where did we start talking about the beauty of anything? We're dealing with sexual ethics here. You want to tell men and women what they can and can't do with their private parts. That's ethics, bud.

Kids don't have to be a part of the equation. Like, at all. Nowhere have I fucking worshiped wedlock. In fact, I have stated I am pro-abortions. And by the way -- how does having a sexually active mother harm you? The ONLY way I can think of is by social shame. Which is precisely what I'm trying to deconstruct right now.

Natural? Natural tendencies? Are you fucking serious? This is precisely what I meant. Once again, everything is natural. The woman had a natural inclination to put tons of dick into her pussy. She didn't suddenly defy the laws of causality to do so. You literally can't not be natural. Now if what you mean by "natural tendencies" is what most people feel and want -- so fucking what? Most people aren't intelligent enough to do Rocket Science, so now Rocket Science is not a natural tendency and unethical? Give me a fucking break.

Please, educate yourself.
User avatar #284 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
That's what I mean. Sex feels good because sex makes babies. That's an evolutionary advantage. We developed very complex mechanisms in our bodies around sexuality for the same reason.

I'm talking about the theory of genes and memes. Memes are a sort of epigenetic gene that are passed down from parent to child. Having wild sex "confuses" the genetics into thinking that the human population is dwindling and rapid reproduction is needed over time and care. Epigenetics allows genes to adapt to their environment, rather than pre-programmed genetics, which is part of what makes humans so adaptable and able to survive in multiple different environments. This also effects sexuality of course. Kids born into single family households tend to produce more cortisol (anti-stress hormone), which makes them more aware of their surroundings (which allows them to better survive a dangerous environment), but damages the brain over time and causes them to be more prone to violent behavior (which again, helps in a dangerous environment). This is one example of memes in action. Not exactly the best for a peaceful society.

And I suppose we are talking about ethics when we bring children into it.

I have no objections to women having casual sex. However, it's potentially harmful to their future children.

Aesthetics in morality refers to what "ought" to be, rather than what "is." For example, it's aesthetically better to be on time for an appointment (you ought to be on time), but it's moral behavior to not murder somebody (murder is immoral behavior). Moral behavior is something that can be proven (When you murder somebody, you are both affirming your right to life and denying another person of theirs, breaking universality), aesthetic behavior is something that is socially preferable.

You can't get an ought from an is. Hume's law. The instant you are suggesting how somebody SHOULD act, you are no longer talking morality, you're talking aesthetic behavior, because "should" implies an opinion, not a fact.

I can't tell anybody what to do with their bodies. Or I can, but they don't have to listen. I can only make an argument for it. This is why it's aesthetics.

And having a sexually attractive mother means nothing. I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother. And I already told you why it can be harmful. More likely to get divorced, more likely to have a child out of wedlock, more likely to be a single mother...

Maybe I'm wrong about the natural tendencies, but it's difficult to go against the grain, and there are usually unintended consequences. We have higher functioning brains. Not everything we do is decided by natural instinct, but reason and evidence.

And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people.

My main goal is to make people realize that these consequences are not something to be overlooked. That social pressures existed in the past for a reason. That just because we have better contraceptive techniques doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity is risk-less behavior.

I agree that promiscuity has no impact on the morality of a person, until they bring a child into it. That doesn't mean promiscuity is a good thing to do. Just because something isn't bad doesn't automatically make it good. There are morally neutral scenarios in the realm of ethics, and to me those go to the realm of aesthetic behaviors.
#300 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As a philosophy major, I can inform you that you are very confused about your popular use of terminology.

"Aesthetics" concerns art and beauty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

"Ought claims" concern normativity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

Normativity IS ethics. The distinction made in the philosophy of ethics is always between the descriptive (what physically exists and happens in the world), and the normative (what people ought to do.)

By invoking universality, you've invoked Kant's categorical imperative (that's where universality comes from.) Just one problem with all of that: Kant's categorical imperative totally commits the Appeal to Nature. It basically says that there are facts about rationality, and that from that, you somehow get ought statements. You demonstrated Hume's is/ought distinction quite well, so you know that you can't do that. Universality is a bad principle anyways. If I'm starving, I should probably eat the one source of food I have: Peanut Butter, but I can't universalize that to all rational agents. That's why universality isn't even a good principle, let alone does it have a proper foundation (rationality facts are shit, basically.)

"I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother."

That's all I've been talking about. I'm sorry if I lost you on that. Here's the important bit: Merely more likely to cause a bunch of other 'bad' stuff isn't a good enough argument. It's like saying we shouldn't ever leave our houses because we're more likely to meet a murderer and get stabbed. We don't need to live in a paternalistic state where we're not allowed to do anything that might harm us such as drive our own cars, talk to strangers, join the army, etc. What needs to be the case is a definite connection EVERY TIME between sexually promiscuous women and problems. Can't do that. It's merely a free choice that bears with it certain likelihoods.

As for natural instinct, I never talked about that. I just talked about this whole "nature" vs "unnatural" distinction you were putting on, as if "nature" was automatically better -- which was problematic in two ways as I argued -- first because Appeal to Nature, and second because everything is natural i.e. causal. If you mean to say rationality is non-natural in the vocabulary you intend to use, here's another problem: You can't reason your way into morals or values that will in any way conflict with your inherent values. That is -- you can't learn so much about anything that your basic values change. What you can do is have shifts in values -- a strange social phenomenon that happens often at young age during socialization and infrequently at every other age. You can also learn new information that appeals to your basic values such that your actions would change -- but your values do not. I.e. hearing that the bank teller at the bank you intend to rob is someone for which you very much respect.

"And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people."

You were just arguing that the natural tendencies entail that promiscuous behavior = horrible tendencies. Oh well. For this, I invoke the two arguments I've already laid out here:

1) No paternal states or societies please. I want to be able to do stuff that merely increases my risk of danger / harm such as drive, etc.
2) You can't derive an ought from an is, as you quoted David Hume. Rationality deals with facts and facts alone. You will never get a condemnation out of that.

User avatar #301 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
Universality is the only way to rationally prove anything through, as far as I understand it. I'm a math major with a minor in economics, so maybe it's just a difference in our ways of thinking.

If ethics cannot be universal, then doesn't that make ethics subjective? Or divinely inspired? If ethics are subjective, then you cannot, by any reasonable means, make any suggestion for somebody else to change their actions. If they are divinely inspired, then there's really no reason for discussion.

If mathematics did not have the principle of universality, 2+2 would mean whatever you wanted it to mean. There have to be rational, universal standards for the methodology to hold any weight. 2+2=4 under any circumstances. This allows us to rationally deduce so much more and explain our universe in concrete detail. Why can the same principle not be applied to human thought? Numbers are concepts, in the same way that ethics is, but it's the universality that makes it concrete, that makes it usable.

I'm not a philosophy major, but I've taken a couple courses and I've read a few books. You probably know a lot more about the subject than myself. However I can't see how eating is a moral behavior. It's just a rational decision. If I choose not to eat the peanut butter am I somehow acting immorally? Can I be held in contempt because I choose not to? Should I be held as virtuous because I chose to eat it? I don't think so.

I think this is important because I'm not trying to say that sexually promiscuous people are bad people (unless they bring a child into it). I know that correlation does not mean causation, but that does not mean that the statistics are not important. There's a reason for the correlation there, and it has an effect on people's lives.

I don't believe there should even be a state let alone a paternal state. If you want to make dangerous decisions, that's your deal as long as you are hurting anybody. But I can give you reason and evidence that shows why you shouldn't drink copious amounts of alcohol and drive or operate heavy machinery because I care about you and the human race in general, right? Just because some people can drive fine drunk doesn't mean drunk driving isn't dangerous. In the same way, some people are good at being promiscuous, and a lot of people are not. Though obviously not to the same degree as drunk driving.
#302 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Ethics is subjective. And you're right, that means that you cannot by any reasonable means make objective claims about ethics. At best you can preach your own set of values and ideals.

Sound dissatisfying? Well, it's because there are actually no good arguments for objective morality, so you're stuck with a subjective description of how and why people think ethics exists and why we use ethical language like good and bad -- and that's it.

Universality doesn't apply to values. Especially because it's hard to actually draw distinct categories among people for which you can universalize.

While it may not appear that eating is moral behavior -- a subjective ethics tells us that it becomes ethical for an individual when that individual decides. I.e. I can decide that eating meat is wrong because it is causally linked with killing animals and those animals leading poor factory farm lives. I can decide that only these foods are acceptable to eat for ethical religious reasons. I can decide that my peanut allergy makes it bad for me to eat peanut butter, and to force feed me it is basically murder. I hope I've made my case. I was talking about Kant's universality in which an action is only permissible if it can be rationally willed for every person (rational being) to follow through with that action.

I think we're on the same page about female promiscuity at this point. I'm glad to offer you whatever else you desire as concerns ethics and the history of ethics.
User avatar #304 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them.

Arguing against a set of ethics implies that there is an objective set of ethics to compare it to (even if it hasn't been discovered yet). You can't argue whether or not a certain flavor of ice cream tastes good, because taste is subjective.

In the same way taste is subjective, for ethics to be subjective you'd have to accept that you can't argue whether or not a certain action is ethical, because by arguing you are implying there is an objective ethical standard to compare the action to, no?

But there's a problem with that. Actions are objective, therefore humans' choices of action have an objective impact on the world around us. So while the choices themselves are subjective, the actions and consequences are not.

So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?

In that case, can't the objective effects of moral decisions be quantified, classified, and explained by a set of moral rules called ethics just like how the scientific method quantifies, classifies, and explains objective phenomena that occur in the universe?

If so, then is ethics not objective? Why not?
#305 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them."

You have a point, but it's not entirely true. There's no "just" argument for one ethics over another. That won't stop the social phenomenon of people converting others to their ethical standings.

Take a look at gay pride and rights, for example. Under subjective ethics, what's going on is one side is doing their absolute best to convince others to adopt the primary ethical view: "gay people deserve these benefits: marriage, equal treatment, protection from discrimination, etc." They go about doing so in two ways:

1) Social approbation. They do their best to make it shameful to disagree with them. This creates an atmosphere in which the average disagreeing human feels threatened, and this allows the threatened individuals to change their base values -- much how babies learn the values the parents instill in them.

2) Association. This is the learning sort of convincing. All that needs to be done is to create a powerful association between pre-existing values in the minds of America and the value that the Gay movement wants accepted. To do so isn't altogether very hard. It looks something like:

a) Gay people are human.
b) We allow humans these privileges and benefits to such a degree we call them rights.
c) Therefore, Gay people are allowed those same privileges and benefits.

Moreover, here's another reason to discuss subjective ethics: It entails really peculiar things. Things you wouldn't expect just at a glance. Stuff like I just wrote above about how "moral movements" must then function.

"So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?"

Clearly not. There don't seem to be contradictions whatsoever with the view that all human beings have their own sets of values that change under social conditions and are dependent in some way upon their genetics, and that we impose our values onto other people in order to achieve something like moral ubiquity (where everyone agrees on some moral lessons locally.)

Moreover, I can't think of any reason that an objective moral attribute would follow an objective action in the world. Let's say I put a bullet in Vladimir Putin's brain. Some people will say that's immoral (many Russians, people who hardline no killing, etc.) and some people will say that it's moral (some Americans, many people oppressed by Putin, etc.)

We always attribute values to objective actions, but don't be so confused as to think that the values are objectively there when the event happens. Morality is just how we react to events.

Also, how would you quantify objective morality? Ask everybody what they think and take the plurality to be objective morality? All you would have done is found out which moral attitude is most ubiquitous! These moral attitudes change with time. Slavery was fine thousands of years ago, and now it's one of the most heinous crimes of man. Morality can only be subjective.
User avatar #309 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
So ethics do not exist, ethics are simply a description of the values a person hold. Ethics do not hold truths, but hold opinions.

Good, evil, right, and wrong, in the moral realm are subject to a person's view, not subject to an objective standard. While something may be evil in the US, it may not be evil in Saudi Arabia.

It is impossible to tell whether or not something is right or wrong objectively speaking, since each individual holds their own ethical values separate from every other individual. Even though those ethical values may agree in the now, they are subject to change.

Morality does not ascribe an objective right, wrong, good, or bad to an action, but describes subjective human interaction and reaction with the objective actions that occur in the world.

That sound right?

Anyways, really good stuff. A lot more help than any philosophy professor I've ever talked to. A lot to think about. Thanks for taking your time man, always love philosophical discussion and it's kinda hard to find people with that kind of knowledge who have contrary viewpoints, especially in my field.
#311 - larknok (05/30/2015) [-]
No problem man. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it all.

The only thing I'd add is pretty small. While it's true that there are no objective facts to turn to so as to justify levying one's moral values on another in a complete sense, that moral war is still going to happen. That is -- there will always be moral values in competition for moral ubiquity. Just as you can't be inherently right when fighting one set of moral values with another, your moral values also can't be inherently bad. They just are.

The take-away is: You can keep arguing your moral values and feel fine about it. You can always just pick the one you feel most comfortable with, and en masse enforce that moral ubiquity. I.e. we arrest murderers because there's enough of us that disagree that we simply over-power their wills. That doesn't mean that might makes right. It just means that might / numbers entails the dominating moral value that will achieve ubiquity.

This conversation began quite heated, but the later bits were a great pleasure.
User avatar #228 - trivdiego (05/29/2015) [-]
you make some good fucking points. even if you're getting reds, I want you to know that I agree with what you're saying
#230 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
I've always said that there are six possible reasons to justify engaging in any argument or heated discussion.

1) That you'll learn something from it.
2) That you'll enjoy it.
3) That the opposition will learn something from it.
4) That the opposition will enjoy it.
5) That a spectator will learn something from it.
6) That a spectator will enjoy it.

I'm always happy to justify my argumentation with 5 and 6.
#297 - greenimp (05/29/2015) [-]
#17 - Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we … 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
#16 - If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irr…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #18 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#14 - What about other people? We often apply ethics (probably more …  [+] (5 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #15 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
It applies to anyone with a functioning brain.
#16 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irreducibly simple (that is, no other facts not about you entail that you value what you do), why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Self-interest is inherently a value, and because it's irreducibly simple, an AI could never find Humans to be a threat worth exterminating.

What do you think?
User avatar #18 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#12 - Does morality exist objectively? That is, does morality exist …  [+] (7 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #13 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morality is an illusion design to comfort your brain and to judge you as an individual.
#14 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
What about other people? We often apply ethics (probably more often than we do to ourselves) to others.
User avatar #15 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
It applies to anyone with a functioning brain.
#16 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irreducibly simple (that is, no other facts not about you entail that you value what you do), why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Self-interest is inherently a value, and because it's irreducibly simple, an AI could never find Humans to be a threat worth exterminating.

What do you think?
User avatar #18 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#10 - how are you doing, bud? What did I do to bring you to my abode?  [+] (9 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #11 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morbid curiosity. I'm bored as fuck

Ask me anything.
#12 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Does morality exist objectively? That is, does morality exist without people in such a way that some actions are good or bad as a fact about reality? If yes, provide an unobjectionable reason for believing this. If not, provide a short description of what follows without an objective morality.
User avatar #13 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morality is an illusion design to comfort your brain and to judge you as an individual.
#14 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
What about other people? We often apply ethics (probably more often than we do to ourselves) to others.
User avatar #15 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
It applies to anyone with a functioning brain.
#16 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irreducibly simple (that is, no other facts not about you entail that you value what you do), why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Self-interest is inherently a value, and because it's irreducibly simple, an AI could never find Humans to be a threat worth exterminating.

What do you think?
User avatar #18 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#8 - hola  [+] (17 new replies) 05/28/2015 on larknok's profile 0
User avatar #20 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Technology doesn't deserve to have the right to think

This is why Transhumanism is the biggest mental illness plauging the high elite.
#21 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
By the subjective ethics you subscribed to, "rights" don't really exist. Nothing has a "right" to anything in such a way that it objectively obligates you to some action.

The question is not whether or not technology has a right to be like us, but whether or not AI would destroy us or help us (towards whatever ends we have.)
User avatar #22 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Rights are made to help make your life more comfortable

this only applies to Humans who're the dominant race.
#23 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
But of course -- this doesn't mean there's any authority behind them. It technically applies to anything a thinking thing sets their minds to, because there's no authority in the first place.

Also, here's another question: There is no quality that every human has, that nothing that isn't human doesn't have, (no exclusive quality to all humans) so what's the justification for human beings existing as a group at all?
User avatar #24 - murrlogic (05/29/2015) [-]
You sound like a fucking edgy teenager with these questions

Allow me to redirect you to someone who can intellectually keep up with you mrpeep
#25 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
lol, I'm a Philosophy and Astrophysics Major. I make questions my job.
User avatar #9 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Evening.
#10 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
how are you doing, bud? What did I do to bring you to my abode?
User avatar #11 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morbid curiosity. I'm bored as fuck

Ask me anything.
#12 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Does morality exist objectively? That is, does morality exist without people in such a way that some actions are good or bad as a fact about reality? If yes, provide an unobjectionable reason for believing this. If not, provide a short description of what follows without an objective morality.
User avatar #13 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morality is an illusion design to comfort your brain and to judge you as an individual.
#14 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
What about other people? We often apply ethics (probably more often than we do to ourselves) to others.
User avatar #15 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
It applies to anyone with a functioning brain.
#16 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irreducibly simple (that is, no other facts not about you entail that you value what you do), why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Self-interest is inherently a value, and because it's irreducibly simple, an AI could never find Humans to be a threat worth exterminating.

What do you think?
User avatar #18 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#31 - Ah yes, the Omnitool. Capable of translating every known langu…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/28/2015 on Vidya Logic +14
User avatar #67 - lotrfan (05/29/2015) [-]
care to explain, I've played Mass Effect, and I have no idea why everyone is bringing up spanish
#71 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
The omnitool is supposedly able and does translate all languages into a language they choose. I'm sure Turians hear a Turian language, Shepard hears English, etc.

The joke is that the omnitool works on all these alien languages, but when James Vega speaks Spanish in Mass Effect 3, it stays Spanish -- as if Spanish was untranslatable.
User avatar #83 - civilizedwasteland (05/29/2015) [-]
possible reason is that Shepard knows what it means so it doesn't get translated.
#150 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As I recall, in one of their conversations Shepard has no clue what "loco" means, and James has to explicitly tell him/her what the translation into English is.
User avatar #74 - lotrfan (05/29/2015) [-]
ok haha I just started M3 and I haven't noticed that yet. Thanks for the answer
#30 - Translators that translate literally everything besides Spanis…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/28/2015 on Vidya Logic +19
#141 - viscerys (05/29/2015) [-]
You buy things to translate the languages spoken by the other alien races (Krogan, Salarians, etc.), but you don't buy a Spanish translator.
#148 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As I recall from one of the darkhorse comics, they use a universal translator that is free and available to all.
User avatar #149 - viscerys (05/29/2015) [-]
Huh, well that's that then. I was wrong.

#139 - anonymous (05/29/2015) [-]

I'd imagine there'd be no point translating that if Shepard as a character already speaks Spanish.
#138 - cancerlobster has deleted their comment.
#181 - Wow dude. Yeah, sure, by definition "slut" …  [+] (17 new replies) 05/28/2015 on Based Kid, Degenerate Mom -10
User avatar #214 - Yardie (05/28/2015) [-]
Women who have sex with multiple women have significantly higher chances of getting divorced (the statistics for men have not been studied as far as I know). Divorce is a traumatic experience for children, and is obviously not optimal as far as relationships go.

Sex is a big person's game that makes real people. Your dick or pussy is not a plaything that nature invented so people could have fun. Most people who sleep around do not practice safe sex, and a lot of children are born out of wedlock, which is not a good environment to be raised in. Single parenthood is the worst predictor for success, beating out poverty and even abusive dual parent households.

Men are programmed to spray and pray due to high sperm counts while women are programmed to find a guy with a lot of resources and lock him down due to lower egg counts and the fact that women are generally incapacitated for months at a time while pregnant and a few years after since they need to care for the child generally until they're 5.

That's not a bad thing. It's why we have such big brains and can even think about things like Feminism or Politics.

I'm all for equal rights, but the idea of radical equality in which women are the same as men and there are absolutely zero differences is just retarded to the point of being intentionally misleading for ulterior motives. Women and men are different. Our skeletons are different, our organs work differently, and we think differently. There have been countless studies on this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal rights, but you have to deal with reality at the same time. You can't change biology. Women are not men. Stop saying that women can act like men and there will be no repercussions. It's like pushing for men to stay home and breastfeed instead of going out and working. It doesn't work and just causes a shitload of confusion when things turn out for the worse.
#218 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
"Your dick or pussy is not a plaything that nature invented so people could have fun."

By the same token: your tongue is not a plaything that nature invented so people could have fun. Your arms is not a plaything that nature invented so people could have fun, etc.

Nature doesn't design. Evolution just does. Sometimes things give us pleasure, because they're hooked up on nerve signals. Stable, self-proliferating systems self-proliferate on the lines of efficiency. It makes no claim on ethics, or right and wrong actions. Diseases are all natural. Viruses that kill you are all natural. Nature doesn't entail morally correct, in any sense. This is known as the "Appeal to Nature" -- an informal fallacy.

Yes, single parenthood sucks. Wear a condom, abort that little shit if you think he'll lead a fucking shit life. That said, we literally know just about nothing about this kid's life or his mom.

Dude, I'm literally the first person to say men and women are biologically different. This means that we should EXCEPT differences. Differences in political representation, job distribution, etc. However, this does not entail that our biological dispositions are morally correct. Once again, you've Appealed to Nature for ethics, which is fucking stupid.

As it is often said, Darwinism describes what happens naturally: the weak perish, the strong survive. It does not in any way provide a normative ethics: that the weak SHOULD perish, that the strong SHOULD survive. The prior is science. The latter is social darwinism and is the foundation of political movements like Nazism. -- All because an Appeal to Nature fallacy was made.

I'm not trying to change biology. I'm literally saying that nobody is worse for the wear when a woman wants to put 20 dicks inside her for fun. She chooses freely. You literally can't tell her that what she's doing isn't natural, because literally everything that happens is natural.
User avatar #239 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
For somebody who just told off somebody else for not understanding the difference between words and concepts, you sure do the same thing quite a bit.

When I said Nature I was talking about Evolution and all other factors that play into the formation of complex biological systems, since Evolution is a force of Nature.

Sex feels good because it makes babies. Using sex for a different purpose leads to confusion in the body. (This is just theory, but I think it's the best theory of human reproduction we have) Memes are switched from K (Care and investment) to R (Spray and pray) reproductive strategies. Both have their uses, R when times are tough and people are dying left and right (which is not the case) and K when times are better and long-term investments become more important (which is the case now).

We're not talking about ethics, this is a morally neutral ground. We're talking aesthetics. I never said it was evil, I simply made the case that it's stupid.

If you want to parade yourself around, fine, but the moment you bring kids into it you can be ruining somebody's entire life.

Again, not talking about ethics, this is aesthetics. Sexual satisfaction is not a moral category, and trying to make it one is kinda ridiculous since it's mostly based on opinions.

And somebody IS worse when a woman wants to put 20 dicks insider of her. Her kids. You're implying that women who have constant casual sex are not having kids, which is just not true. They are. They're having a lot of kids.

over 40% of children are born out of wedlock. I get that some people cohabitate and don't get married, which is fine, but that's definitely not a majority of the 40%. That's not good.

And I never said it wasn't natural, I said it goes against natural tendencies. There you go confusing concepts again.
#255 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Despite our disagreements, I commend you for thumbing me up. It shows that you're a very good sport. It is clear to me that you obviously don't smile upon those who down vote people they argue with.
User avatar #264 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
You make good arguments.
#243 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"Sex feels good because it makes babies."

False. Sex feels good because people hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago were overwhelmingly more likely to have sex and proliferate if it felt good.

Confusion in the body? The fuck? I don't think you understand that evolution has no intention for us. Sex feels good first as a genetic mutation, which is successful so there are more babies and people for which sex feels good. Evolution isn't a parent giving their kid candy so he'll study harder. It doesn't fucking work like that.

Are you serious? Of course we're talking about goddamn ethics! We're talking about what people (men and women) SHOULD do. You write: "And somebody IS worse when a woman ... " Worse is inherently ethical. SHOULD is an inherently ethical word, except in hypothetical imperatives of the form: "if you want to die, you should kill yourself" which are descriptive instead of normative (moral and action-guiding.)

Aesthetics? Where oh where did we start talking about the beauty of anything? We're dealing with sexual ethics here. You want to tell men and women what they can and can't do with their private parts. That's ethics, bud.

Kids don't have to be a part of the equation. Like, at all. Nowhere have I fucking worshiped wedlock. In fact, I have stated I am pro-abortions. And by the way -- how does having a sexually active mother harm you? The ONLY way I can think of is by social shame. Which is precisely what I'm trying to deconstruct right now.

Natural? Natural tendencies? Are you fucking serious? This is precisely what I meant. Once again, everything is natural. The woman had a natural inclination to put tons of dick into her pussy. She didn't suddenly defy the laws of causality to do so. You literally can't not be natural. Now if what you mean by "natural tendencies" is what most people feel and want -- so fucking what? Most people aren't intelligent enough to do Rocket Science, so now Rocket Science is not a natural tendency and unethical? Give me a fucking break.

Please, educate yourself.
User avatar #284 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
That's what I mean. Sex feels good because sex makes babies. That's an evolutionary advantage. We developed very complex mechanisms in our bodies around sexuality for the same reason.

I'm talking about the theory of genes and memes. Memes are a sort of epigenetic gene that are passed down from parent to child. Having wild sex "confuses" the genetics into thinking that the human population is dwindling and rapid reproduction is needed over time and care. Epigenetics allows genes to adapt to their environment, rather than pre-programmed genetics, which is part of what makes humans so adaptable and able to survive in multiple different environments. This also effects sexuality of course. Kids born into single family households tend to produce more cortisol (anti-stress hormone), which makes them more aware of their surroundings (which allows them to better survive a dangerous environment), but damages the brain over time and causes them to be more prone to violent behavior (which again, helps in a dangerous environment). This is one example of memes in action. Not exactly the best for a peaceful society.

And I suppose we are talking about ethics when we bring children into it.

I have no objections to women having casual sex. However, it's potentially harmful to their future children.

Aesthetics in morality refers to what "ought" to be, rather than what "is." For example, it's aesthetically better to be on time for an appointment (you ought to be on time), but it's moral behavior to not murder somebody (murder is immoral behavior). Moral behavior is something that can be proven (When you murder somebody, you are both affirming your right to life and denying another person of theirs, breaking universality), aesthetic behavior is something that is socially preferable.

You can't get an ought from an is. Hume's law. The instant you are suggesting how somebody SHOULD act, you are no longer talking morality, you're talking aesthetic behavior, because "should" implies an opinion, not a fact.

I can't tell anybody what to do with their bodies. Or I can, but they don't have to listen. I can only make an argument for it. This is why it's aesthetics.

And having a sexually attractive mother means nothing. I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother. And I already told you why it can be harmful. More likely to get divorced, more likely to have a child out of wedlock, more likely to be a single mother...

Maybe I'm wrong about the natural tendencies, but it's difficult to go against the grain, and there are usually unintended consequences. We have higher functioning brains. Not everything we do is decided by natural instinct, but reason and evidence.

And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people.

My main goal is to make people realize that these consequences are not something to be overlooked. That social pressures existed in the past for a reason. That just because we have better contraceptive techniques doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity is risk-less behavior.

I agree that promiscuity has no impact on the morality of a person, until they bring a child into it. That doesn't mean promiscuity is a good thing to do. Just because something isn't bad doesn't automatically make it good. There are morally neutral scenarios in the realm of ethics, and to me those go to the realm of aesthetic behaviors.
#300 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
As a philosophy major, I can inform you that you are very confused about your popular use of terminology.

"Aesthetics" concerns art and beauty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

"Ought claims" concern normativity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

Normativity IS ethics. The distinction made in the philosophy of ethics is always between the descriptive (what physically exists and happens in the world), and the normative (what people ought to do.)

By invoking universality, you've invoked Kant's categorical imperative (that's where universality comes from.) Just one problem with all of that: Kant's categorical imperative totally commits the Appeal to Nature. It basically says that there are facts about rationality, and that from that, you somehow get ought statements. You demonstrated Hume's is/ought distinction quite well, so you know that you can't do that. Universality is a bad principle anyways. If I'm starving, I should probably eat the one source of food I have: Peanut Butter, but I can't universalize that to all rational agents. That's why universality isn't even a good principle, let alone does it have a proper foundation (rationality facts are shit, basically.)

"I'm talking about a sexually promiscuous mother."

That's all I've been talking about. I'm sorry if I lost you on that. Here's the important bit: Merely more likely to cause a bunch of other 'bad' stuff isn't a good enough argument. It's like saying we shouldn't ever leave our houses because we're more likely to meet a murderer and get stabbed. We don't need to live in a paternalistic state where we're not allowed to do anything that might harm us such as drive our own cars, talk to strangers, join the army, etc. What needs to be the case is a definite connection EVERY TIME between sexually promiscuous women and problems. Can't do that. It's merely a free choice that bears with it certain likelihoods.

As for natural instinct, I never talked about that. I just talked about this whole "nature" vs "unnatural" distinction you were putting on, as if "nature" was automatically better -- which was problematic in two ways as I argued -- first because Appeal to Nature, and second because everything is natural i.e. causal. If you mean to say rationality is non-natural in the vocabulary you intend to use, here's another problem: You can't reason your way into morals or values that will in any way conflict with your inherent values. That is -- you can't learn so much about anything that your basic values change. What you can do is have shifts in values -- a strange social phenomenon that happens often at young age during socialization and infrequently at every other age. You can also learn new information that appeals to your basic values such that your actions would change -- but your values do not. I.e. hearing that the bank teller at the bank you intend to rob is someone for which you very much respect.

"And reason and evidence in this case seem to show, at least to me, that promiscuous behavior will inevitably lead to pretty horrible consequences for a lot of people."

You were just arguing that the natural tendencies entail that promiscuous behavior = horrible tendencies. Oh well. For this, I invoke the two arguments I've already laid out here:

1) No paternal states or societies please. I want to be able to do stuff that merely increases my risk of danger / harm such as drive, etc.
2) You can't derive an ought from an is, as you quoted David Hume. Rationality deals with facts and facts alone. You will never get a condemnation out of that.

User avatar #301 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
Universality is the only way to rationally prove anything through, as far as I understand it. I'm a math major with a minor in economics, so maybe it's just a difference in our ways of thinking.

If ethics cannot be universal, then doesn't that make ethics subjective? Or divinely inspired? If ethics are subjective, then you cannot, by any reasonable means, make any suggestion for somebody else to change their actions. If they are divinely inspired, then there's really no reason for discussion.

If mathematics did not have the principle of universality, 2+2 would mean whatever you wanted it to mean. There have to be rational, universal standards for the methodology to hold any weight. 2+2=4 under any circumstances. This allows us to rationally deduce so much more and explain our universe in concrete detail. Why can the same principle not be applied to human thought? Numbers are concepts, in the same way that ethics is, but it's the universality that makes it concrete, that makes it usable.

I'm not a philosophy major, but I've taken a couple courses and I've read a few books. You probably know a lot more about the subject than myself. However I can't see how eating is a moral behavior. It's just a rational decision. If I choose not to eat the peanut butter am I somehow acting immorally? Can I be held in contempt because I choose not to? Should I be held as virtuous because I chose to eat it? I don't think so.

I think this is important because I'm not trying to say that sexually promiscuous people are bad people (unless they bring a child into it). I know that correlation does not mean causation, but that does not mean that the statistics are not important. There's a reason for the correlation there, and it has an effect on people's lives.

I don't believe there should even be a state let alone a paternal state. If you want to make dangerous decisions, that's your deal as long as you are hurting anybody. But I can give you reason and evidence that shows why you shouldn't drink copious amounts of alcohol and drive or operate heavy machinery because I care about you and the human race in general, right? Just because some people can drive fine drunk doesn't mean drunk driving isn't dangerous. In the same way, some people are good at being promiscuous, and a lot of people are not. Though obviously not to the same degree as drunk driving.
#302 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
Ethics is subjective. And you're right, that means that you cannot by any reasonable means make objective claims about ethics. At best you can preach your own set of values and ideals.

Sound dissatisfying? Well, it's because there are actually no good arguments for objective morality, so you're stuck with a subjective description of how and why people think ethics exists and why we use ethical language like good and bad -- and that's it.

Universality doesn't apply to values. Especially because it's hard to actually draw distinct categories among people for which you can universalize.

While it may not appear that eating is moral behavior -- a subjective ethics tells us that it becomes ethical for an individual when that individual decides. I.e. I can decide that eating meat is wrong because it is causally linked with killing animals and those animals leading poor factory farm lives. I can decide that only these foods are acceptable to eat for ethical religious reasons. I can decide that my peanut allergy makes it bad for me to eat peanut butter, and to force feed me it is basically murder. I hope I've made my case. I was talking about Kant's universality in which an action is only permissible if it can be rationally willed for every person (rational being) to follow through with that action.

I think we're on the same page about female promiscuity at this point. I'm glad to offer you whatever else you desire as concerns ethics and the history of ethics.
User avatar #304 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them.

Arguing against a set of ethics implies that there is an objective set of ethics to compare it to (even if it hasn't been discovered yet). You can't argue whether or not a certain flavor of ice cream tastes good, because taste is subjective.

In the same way taste is subjective, for ethics to be subjective you'd have to accept that you can't argue whether or not a certain action is ethical, because by arguing you are implying there is an objective ethical standard to compare the action to, no?

But there's a problem with that. Actions are objective, therefore humans' choices of action have an objective impact on the world around us. So while the choices themselves are subjective, the actions and consequences are not.

So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?

In that case, can't the objective effects of moral decisions be quantified, classified, and explained by a set of moral rules called ethics just like how the scientific method quantifies, classifies, and explains objective phenomena that occur in the universe?

If so, then is ethics not objective? Why not?
#305 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
"But if ethics are subjective, then there's no reason to discuss them."

You have a point, but it's not entirely true. There's no "just" argument for one ethics over another. That won't stop the social phenomenon of people converting others to their ethical standings.

Take a look at gay pride and rights, for example. Under subjective ethics, what's going on is one side is doing their absolute best to convince others to adopt the primary ethical view: "gay people deserve these benefits: marriage, equal treatment, protection from discrimination, etc." They go about doing so in two ways:

1) Social approbation. They do their best to make it shameful to disagree with them. This creates an atmosphere in which the average disagreeing human feels threatened, and this allows the threatened individuals to change their base values -- much how babies learn the values the parents instill in them.

2) Association. This is the learning sort of convincing. All that needs to be done is to create a powerful association between pre-existing values in the minds of America and the value that the Gay movement wants accepted. To do so isn't altogether very hard. It looks something like:

a) Gay people are human.
b) We allow humans these privileges and benefits to such a degree we call them rights.
c) Therefore, Gay people are allowed those same privileges and benefits.

Moreover, here's another reason to discuss subjective ethics: It entails really peculiar things. Things you wouldn't expect just at a glance. Stuff like I just wrote above about how "moral movements" must then function.

"So even though somebody doesn't have to follow ethics like they have to follow the objective law of gravity, ethical choices still have an impact on objective reality. So does it not follow that a moral theory has to adhere to objective reality in order to be valid?"

Clearly not. There don't seem to be contradictions whatsoever with the view that all human beings have their own sets of values that change under social conditions and are dependent in some way upon their genetics, and that we impose our values onto other people in order to achieve something like moral ubiquity (where everyone agrees on some moral lessons locally.)

Moreover, I can't think of any reason that an objective moral attribute would follow an objective action in the world. Let's say I put a bullet in Vladimir Putin's brain. Some people will say that's immoral (many Russians, people who hardline no killing, etc.) and some people will say that it's moral (some Americans, many people oppressed by Putin, etc.)

We always attribute values to objective actions, but don't be so confused as to think that the values are objectively there when the event happens. Morality is just how we react to events.

Also, how would you quantify objective morality? Ask everybody what they think and take the plurality to be objective morality? All you would have done is found out which moral attitude is most ubiquitous! These moral attitudes change with time. Slavery was fine thousands of years ago, and now it's one of the most heinous crimes of man. Morality can only be subjective.
User avatar #309 - Yardie (05/29/2015) [-]
So ethics do not exist, ethics are simply a description of the values a person hold. Ethics do not hold truths, but hold opinions.

Good, evil, right, and wrong, in the moral realm are subject to a person's view, not subject to an objective standard. While something may be evil in the US, it may not be evil in Saudi Arabia.

It is impossible to tell whether or not something is right or wrong objectively speaking, since each individual holds their own ethical values separate from every other individual. Even though those ethical values may agree in the now, they are subject to change.

Morality does not ascribe an objective right, wrong, good, or bad to an action, but describes subjective human interaction and reaction with the objective actions that occur in the world.

That sound right?

Anyways, really good stuff. A lot more help than any philosophy professor I've ever talked to. A lot to think about. Thanks for taking your time man, always love philosophical discussion and it's kinda hard to find people with that kind of knowledge who have contrary viewpoints, especially in my field.
#311 - larknok (05/30/2015) [-]
No problem man. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it all.

The only thing I'd add is pretty small. While it's true that there are no objective facts to turn to so as to justify levying one's moral values on another in a complete sense, that moral war is still going to happen. That is -- there will always be moral values in competition for moral ubiquity. Just as you can't be inherently right when fighting one set of moral values with another, your moral values also can't be inherently bad. They just are.

The take-away is: You can keep arguing your moral values and feel fine about it. You can always just pick the one you feel most comfortable with, and en masse enforce that moral ubiquity. I.e. we arrest murderers because there's enough of us that disagree that we simply over-power their wills. That doesn't mean that might makes right. It just means that might / numbers entails the dominating moral value that will achieve ubiquity.

This conversation began quite heated, but the later bits were a great pleasure.
User avatar #228 - trivdiego (05/29/2015) [-]
you make some good fucking points. even if you're getting reds, I want you to know that I agree with what you're saying
#230 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
I've always said that there are six possible reasons to justify engaging in any argument or heated discussion.

1) That you'll learn something from it.
2) That you'll enjoy it.
3) That the opposition will learn something from it.
4) That the opposition will enjoy it.
5) That a spectator will learn something from it.
6) That a spectator will enjoy it.

I'm always happy to justify my argumentation with 5 and 6.
#297 - greenimp (05/29/2015) [-]
#18 - ya gotta wait until they slow down in front of you, and then t… 05/28/2015 on Oh, well okay than. +2
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Comment Picture
#8 to #7 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
hola
User avatar #20 to #8 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Technology doesn't deserve to have the right to think

This is why Transhumanism is the biggest mental illness plauging the high elite.
#21 to #20 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
By the subjective ethics you subscribed to, "rights" don't really exist. Nothing has a "right" to anything in such a way that it objectively obligates you to some action.

The question is not whether or not technology has a right to be like us, but whether or not AI would destroy us or help us (towards whatever ends we have.)
User avatar #22 to #21 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Rights are made to help make your life more comfortable

this only applies to Humans who're the dominant race.
#23 to #22 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
But of course -- this doesn't mean there's any authority behind them. It technically applies to anything a thinking thing sets their minds to, because there's no authority in the first place.

Also, here's another question: There is no quality that every human has, that nothing that isn't human doesn't have, (no exclusive quality to all humans) so what's the justification for human beings existing as a group at all?
User avatar #24 to #23 - murrlogic (05/29/2015) [-]
You sound like a ******* edgy teenager with these questions

Allow me to redirect you to someone who can intellectually keep up with you mrpeep
#25 to #24 - larknok (05/29/2015) [-]
lol, I'm a Philosophy and Astrophysics Major. I make questions my job.
User avatar #9 to #8 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Evening.
#10 to #9 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
how are you doing, bud? What did I do to bring you to my abode?
User avatar #11 to #10 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morbid curiosity. I'm bored as ****

Ask me anything.
#12 to #11 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Does morality exist objectively? That is, does morality exist without people in such a way that some actions are good or bad as a fact about reality? If yes, provide an unobjectionable reason for believing this. If not, provide a short description of what follows without an objective morality.
User avatar #13 to #12 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
Morality is an illusion design to comfort your brain and to judge you as an individual.
#14 to #13 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
What about other people? We often apply ethics (probably more often than we do to ourselves) to others.
User avatar #15 to #14 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
It applies to anyone with a functioning brain.
#16 to #15 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
If moral judgments are derived from values, and values are irreducibly simple (that is, no other facts not about you entail that you value what you do), why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Self-interest is inherently a value, and because it's irreducibly simple, an AI could never find Humans to be a threat worth exterminating.

What do you think?
User avatar #18 to #16 - murrlogic (05/28/2015) [-]
>why do people fear the idea of Artificial Intelligence?

Its self aware

It learns. It thinks at a speed most normal humans can't comprehend

it no longer makes it a benefit it makes it a weapon and weapons are designed to kill
#19 to #18 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Only if you program a military AI. That's inherently a different thing than an AI as an artificial person or something. See my qualification above for some more stuff.
#17 to #16 - larknok (05/28/2015) [-]
Forgot to qualify: It couldn't find Humans a threat unless we specifically program self-interest into the AI. The point is that because values are irreducibly simple, it doesn't matter whatever the AI knows about reality, it could at no point "learn" self-interest and self-preservation unless these values were programmed in.
#2 - dashgamer (01/22/2015) [-]
Who are you?
#3 to #2 - larknok (01/22/2015) [-]
A giant faggot who likes tiny horses, Philosophy, Astrophysics, and Sid Meier games.
#4 to #3 - dashgamer (01/22/2015) [-]
Sid Meier ******* sucks.
You should try Total War games.
#5 to #4 - larknok (01/22/2015) [-]
Doant b ghey - total war is cool, but wargame: red dragon is better.
#6 to #5 - dashgamer (01/22/2015) [-]
NOTHING IS BETTER THAN TOTAL WAR!!!
 Friends (0)