Message from @warmwaffles
Discord ID: 644350098993840148
And the closest you could get to saying a set of morals is objective is to prove that the goal that drives the morals has *always* and *always will be* the most desireable goal, and secondly that said morals are the best way to reach that goal and *have always been* the best way.
That is by no means an easy task.
But, if an omnicient entity exists, most of that work is handled by saying "the entity said this is the way to live".
And I would argue that you *can* look at morality from a utility standpoint and not miss the point.
You just have to start with the goal of said morals.
That has generally been the disagreement with utilitarians, people disagree with their metrics for utility and thus their end goal.
(Because they derive their metrics *from* the end goal.)
Honestly I think the evidence is pointing to biological imperatives being a bigger driver of behaviour than we give them credit for
TL;DR, don't try to argue that a certain set of morals is objective, at best it is an impossible task, at worst a task that has no benefit.
Instead argue the utility of a set of morals.
Utility in terms of what though
Society benefit? Individual benefit?
That's still too broad
Oh look. SciShow released a vid called "There are More Than Two Human Sexes"
I'm prejudicial to it already.
>marriage and parenthood is a consistent predictor of success
>married parents report highest satisfaction ratings
And then there's, you know, the baseline biological reality of it all
Kuja, I think you are stuck on the term utility as though it only comes from utilitarianism.
Anyone in the debate voice channel? It's really quiet for me
In order to argue the utility of a set of morals, you *have* to argue the goal of the morals. A part of that *is* arguing who does and should benefit from said morals.
@warmwaffles Try relaunching discord
Lots of chat in the Debate VC
lemme just reboot, probably something fucky in my linux
Pius and Find debated God earlier.
Fond let us unbelievers and damned (I'm the later) down, and hard.
Paranoid -- But probably not so paranoid thought -- YT has been planning to bury videos that show motherhood in a positive light to outflank the trads
Anybody have the audio of the debate?
I believe this is it - https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-49353702+gw8zvE1ZR
Be warned it's rather underwhelming
The discussion on the debate channel by the audience afterwards was much more productive... but that of course, isn't on the recording
The audio from the guy on camera doesn't work
Hey, does anyone know if Matt and Blonde still consider themselves pro-choice? I haven't heard them mention it in a while, and I know Matt was starting to become much more sympathetic to the pro-life side.
I'd kinda like to try my hand at changing their minds on the call-in show one evening if they are
I don't think either of them are pro-choice
Hmm, I swear I thought I'd heard them both admit to it on one of their podcast episodes....
I suppose I could email Matt and ask him
Yeah, Blonde is pro-life. Matt was pro-choice but with the increasing amount of pro-choice shenagigans from leftists he started to rethink it
Tbh association is a poor reason to pick one or the other
All of my PL arguments have come from just natural examination of PC positions
And with the artificial womb on the horizon theres nothing I can see in the PC bucket that isn't horrifying
@Legalize , what do you think about CA's attempt to get rid of plastic pens and instead manufacture paper pens.
Everyone will be using paper pens in a year or so