I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
I have the right to wipe my ass with a pinecone.
You have the right to tell me that’s not the right thing to do.
So, which of us is right? 🤔
💩
If you want to hurt yourself, you’re definitely taking the proper actions to do so, acting logically consistent. Morally, is it right for you to wipe your ass with a pinecone? Not really, and that’s extrapolating from God’s words, not mine, but I’m not gonna stop you because I have enough on my plate and bigger issues deserve more consideration, like the genocides in Sudan and Gaza. 🤷
1: No it isn’t. 2: Don’t bring religion into this
The Bible has a lot of nonsense but if “thou shalt not kill”, then “thou shalt not hurt unnecessarily” is definitely there too, which includes the pinecone. And how can I talk about objective morality without God? How can anyone? Without that objective “POV” all you have are perspectives, and the is-ought problem remains a thing.
Here it is! Here it fucking is! The single most overused thought-terminating fallacy that Jesus nuts like to pull out!
The answer to your question is that we don’t need a deity to declare what objective right and wrong are. We can use game theory. If you want to watch an admittedly better explanation of it, Veritasium made a video on it last year, but I’ll recap it below.
Decades ago, researchers set up an experiment where they paired various algorithms against each other, with each algorithm having different rules for approaching the prisoner dillema. And each pairing went on for hundreds of turns. Then the researchers tallied up all the scores. Thry noticed that almost all of the “nice” algorithms scored higher then almost all of the “mean” algorithms. And they redid the experiment multiple times with tweaks to the experiment, like randomizing the length of interactions between algorithms.
The overall rules that caused this highest scores were:
Essentially it boils dowm to being polite, treating others how you wish to be treated, and being forgiving past transgressions. Strangely similar to what religions tend to teach, right?
It turns out, these are actually emergent properties that appear in any system where you have series of interactions between individuals. It’s not divine provenance, it’s natural selection.
Roman Catholicism and all its offshoots is all Europe has known since their pagan days and it’s less of a religion and more of state imposed propaganda. It means nothing because it’s NOT the religion of Jesus, who was a righteous monotheist Jew, and divorces actions and faith. This is why the Crusades to megachurches are all European “religious” nonsense, while poor Gazans get bombed by the West from all angles and they get together for iftar, lol. What you mean by “religious” and what the outside world means are two very different things. But listen, epistemologically, you’ll encounter the is-ought problem, and without taking an “objective judge” into consideration morality will always be fought by corrupt scholars. Sure, God made us all baseline good, of course, our fitra is pure, but without the handrails of ideology people make mistakes or go through negative paths. As long as all you have are perspectives and flimsy recommendations, society will continue being tits up. One day the Western man will have to stand for something, maybe post American hegemony collapse and the Anglo-European wars coming soon, idk. 🤷
You literally ignored the entire point behind my previous comment. You don’t need to establish an “objective judge” because the traditional ideas of morality are already observable as an optimal strategy to go through life, and we can observe it via experimentation.
I don’t get why you insist on a nonsensical rant instead of just letting the other person have the last word when they prove you wrong. And at this point, I don’t care. You’re not worth wasting anymore time on. If you insist on sticming your head in the sand and ignore reality, then go ahead, but you’re not going to be bothering me with it because you’re getting blocked. Tata