Ask armati a question

[Metsfanmax]

This isn't a binary situation, where I am a moral saint if I give every single dollar I can to charity, and morally despicable if I give even one dollar less. The closer I get to the ideal the better, but I don't consider myself worthless as a person because I'm not all the way there. The correct response to the shame you perceive isn't to say "f*ck it, if Mets isn't giving every dollar he can then I'm not going to give anything to anyone who needs it."

I'm just trying to figure out how full knowing the morally correct thing(according to your own discoveries) and then deciding not to do it for "personal reasons" isn't actually rejecting the validity of the original moral argument.

Well this is because you're still trying to view morals through a classical deontological lens, where there's a "morally correct thing to do." In that perspective, an action is either right or wrong. That's not something I believe, because it implies that there is some either/or situation, a dichotomy where either you're acting morally or not. That is incompatible with utilitarianism. In utilitarianism you are acting more morally if you choose the action that does more good. The closest analogue might be to express the concept that there's some functional upper limit to the maximum amount of good you can possibly do as an individual, but that doesn't mean you're being immoral if you don't achieve that, because I don't think the concept of immorality really makes sense in this context.

It's not a matter of "potential good", it's a matter of decisiveness. If you're choosing to refuse what you think is ideal, if the ideal is doable, then what you're really saying is that it's not ideal, otherwise you would be doing it.
I don't think it's inconsistent if you want to spend half of your disposable income on leisure and the other half on charity but I do think it's inconsistent if you say that ideally you would spend all your disposable income on charity but decide not to.

You are just playing tricks with words. The obvious resolution to this alleged conflict is that what is ideal for society and what is ideal for me often are not the same thing. My own personal utility would be maximized if I had no reason to give my money away and could just play video games all day long. But as a utilitarian I believe it is important for me to sometimes sacrifice some of my own good for the good of others, because I am not the only important person in the world. So, it will often be the case that one has to give up things one wants in order to achieve what is best for society collectively. If I were an impartial observer without my own interests, then the good of society and my own good would be the same thing. But that is not true for selfish humans.

So it is quite coherent to suggest that being altruistic is what is ideal for society and also to admit that sometimes being altruistic means a little bit of self-sacrifice.

[waauw]

Imagine you discovered a wormhole the size of a full grown human in your garden. It leads to another planet with sustainable life conditions and a fully developed alien ecological system. You can safely cross back and forth. What do you do?

[Metsfanmax]

Imagine you discovered a wormhole the size of a full grown human in your garden. It leads to another planet with sustainable life conditions and a fully developed alien ecological system. You can safely cross back and forth. What do you do?

[nietzsche]

But your post is all honesty, and that's the type of discussion that I like. Stating your point of view, knowing it's weaknesses, and not trying to hide them under clever argumenting in order to win.

Earlier in this thread, you accused me of dishonesty by saying that I "know" that cows don't feel psychological pain the way humans do, and that I was leaving it out of the argument to win a point. I promptly responded by saying that, no, I completely believe that cows do feel psychological pain in a way very similar to the way humans do. Was your response to apologize to me for the accusation, or at least to admit that the accusation was incorrect? No, your response was to link me to a post saying that you think my argument is wrong. So until you apologize for things like that, your rhetoric is completely empty.

I'll concede you that, I gave you more credit than you deserved. I will not make the mistake this time of thinking you're being dishonest again, because I don't have the motivation to continue argumenting with you.

I'm quite glad though, that we went on this path, because it made Dukasaur make that post, which truly and honestly adresses the heart of this topic. It's a moral dilema like many others we humans face. He doesn't deny his feeling, he doesn't hide under the idea that he's right and the rest of the world is wrong.

In describing his position he reveals its weakness, and embraces it. He might change his mind in the future, evolving the status of the anxiety, but today he owns it that way.

Others, like me, don't have such a clear idea of why we don't adress the issue, we simply go on with the issue semi-hidden in our psyche.

And others claim a moral highground. That is one of my favourite psychological accurate cliches, "i'm perfect, but the world sucks, therefore my shortcomings".


And about the difference in our understanding of the mental world, firstly i will suggest you pick your favourite book on evolution, focus on the last chapters, where something like mental tools and cultural evolution is adressed. Second, I wil ask you learn something about psychology or psychiatry, I can recommend a few good books if you need. And thirdly, I will recommend that you try to meditate and succed for 1 second, so you can understand the difference of being lost in one own mental world all day long, and being in the here and now. If after this, you do continue to consider I'm wrong, then I'll gladly concede you're right because I'm truly done with this. I will also accept that you decide you know more than me about these subjects already, and gladly accept defeat.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Do you think it would be feasible for the world population to all be vegan? Is there even enough space to grow enough crops?

[Metsfanmax]

Others, like me, don't have such a clear idea of why we don't adress the issue, we simply go on with the issue semi-hidden in our psyche.

If you want to continue reveling in your own intentional ignorance, I can't stop you, but there sure as hell isn't any reason to get angry at me because of your own inadequacies. If you don't like that I'm exposing the issue and forcing you to deal with it rather than allow it to continue being buried, you're welcome to find another thread to participate in. The only thing forcing you to continue participating in this thread is your own obstinate obsession with saving me from my own ways of thinking.

Do you think it would be feasible for the world population to all be vegan? Is there even enough space to grow enough crops?

We grow many more crops now than we would in an all-vegan world. Remember that the animals we breed need to eat. They eat plants. A good fraction of that, up to 90% in some cases, is completely wasted on just keeping the animal live until we slaughter it.

[mrswdk]

Is it possible for a human to impregnate any kind of monkey, or vice versa?

[Metsfanmax]

Is it possible for a human to impregnate any kind of monkey, or vice versa?

It seems remotely possible based on what I have seen, but is quite unlikely and I think has never been done in modern humans.

[notyou2]

What are quasars made of?

[Metsfanmax]

We astronomers think that essentially every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its core. That black hole is constantly pulling on the gas nearby it, and trying to suck it inside, which heats up the gas during the process. There are certain periods during a galaxy's evolution when this is happening very violently, and lots of mass is being heated by the supermassive black hole. We can see it from far away as a much brighter source than a normal galaxy like ours is when its black hole is quiet.

[Army of GOD]

who is your friend that likes to play?

[mrswdk]

Why do you play Civ V and not Civ IV?

[Army of GOD]

Civ IV > Civ II > Civ III > Civ I > Civ V

[Dukasaur]

Civ IV > Civ II > Civ III > Civ I > Civ V

[waauw]

Civ IV > Civ II > Civ III > Civ I > Civ V

loooool, that list is utter bullshit. Did you even take expansions into account? Seems a lot like you didn't.

PS: stacking sucks

[notyou2]

We astronomers think that essentially every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its core. That black hole is constantly pulling on the gas nearby it, and trying to suck it inside, which heats up the gas during the process. There are certain periods during a galaxy's evolution when this is happening very violently, and lots of mass is being heated by the supermassive black hole. We can see it from far away as a much brighter source than a normal galaxy like ours is when its black hole is quiet.

I asked what was in a quasar, not some rambling about black holes,or pink holes, or yellow holes, or any other holes.

[mrswdk]

Civ IV > Civ II > Civ III > Civ I > Civ V

loooool, that list is utter bullshit. Did you even take expansions into account? Seems a lot like you didn't.

PS: stacking sucks

Civ II beats Civ III for the WW2 in Europe scenario alone.

One of my happiest Civ II moments was successfully conquering everywhere on the map as the Axis.

[mrswdk]

Mets, does it make you feel guilty that your helping this thread get lots and lots of replies is giving nietzsche an ego trip that he has finally made a thread that people actually want to post in?

[waauw]

Civ IV > Civ II > Civ III > Civ I > Civ V

loooool, that list is utter bullshit. Did you even take expansions into account? Seems a lot like you didn't.

PS: stacking sucks

Civ II beats Civ III for the WW2 in Europe scenario alone.

One of my happiest Civ II moments was successfully conquering everywhere on the map as the Axis.

I've never played Civ II so I can't argue on that point. But how the f*ck do you place Civ V in last place?
Sure, it might have started off with a disappointment, but most problems were largely patched with following expansions.

[Army of GOD]

The only expansion I've ever played is Civ II gold

[Metsfanmax]

We astronomers think that essentially every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its core. That black hole is constantly pulling on the gas nearby it, and trying to suck it inside, which heats up the gas during the process. There are certain periods during a galaxy's evolution when this is happening very violently, and lots of mass is being heated by the supermassive black hole. We can see it from far away as a much brighter source than a normal galaxy like ours is when its black hole is quiet.

I asked what was in a quasar, not some rambling about black holes,or pink holes, or yellow holes, or any other holes.

A quasar is the name for the light produced by the black hole inside a galaxy that we're seeing. It's not a unique object, it's just a really bright galaxy. I am uncertain as to why you think I didn't answer your question, but your response was sufficiently dickish that this is the last of yours I'll be answering.

Why do you play Civ V and not Civ IV?

Civ V is the one I own.

Mets, does it make you feel guilty that your helping this thread get lots and lots of replies is giving nietzsche an ego trip that he has finally made a thread that people actually want to post in?

I don't care about nietzsche.

[Funkyterrance]

Mets, do you think astronomy is important to human beings or do you just find it interesting? I remember reading something about Stephen Hawking and how he was torn between focusing on the very large and the very small and decided to go with the very large and I was like " f*ck, he could have cured cancer by now!!!".

[nietzsche]

ROUND 2

Ask mrs wdk a question!


I'll start:

Where do you prefer to live, in filthy China or in clean London?

[Funkyterrance]

Wow, you managed to spoil your best attempt at a thread ever!

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, do you think astronomy is important to human beings or do you just find it interesting? I remember reading something about Stephen Hawking and how he was torn between focusing on the very large and the very small and decided to go with the very large and I was like " f*ck, he could have cured cancer by now!!!".

I think astrophysics is very interesting and also not particularly important to human beings compared to other fields. There's a very good chance I'll leave the field within the next couple of years so I can do something with more practical applications, perhaps in the energy industry or working on science or energy policy for the government.