From: fedora@fea.st
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 04:46:05 +0000, Creon wrote:
>At Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:26:37 -0500, Wilson wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2026 12:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:43:07 -0500, Wilson
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/10/2026 11:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 22:59:09 -0500, Noah Sombrero
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:12:36 -0800, Dude wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2/10/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:49:10 -0800, Dude
wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in
the
>> >>>>>>> belief that life is meaningless. YMMV.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That's the thing. Moral principles need not be meaningful. It is
>> >>>>>> enough to have them and understand their worth to a meaningless human
>> >>>>>> being.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> We studied this at the community college: Political Science (a
required
>> >>>>> course).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Natural law proponents, from Aristotle to John Locke, have argued that
>> >>>>> laws enacted by governments are only valid if they conform to a
higher,
>> >>>>> natural, and moral law. It's the basis for inalienable rights such as
>> >>>>> life, liberty, and property.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You snuck that last one in yourself, didn't you?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think that statement is far too idealistic. Social structures need
>> >>>> laws that detail what happens if I kill your dog or you kill my cat,
>> >>>> metaphorically.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Happenings that are too trivial to require a natural law, but for
>> >>>> which there must be consequences.
>> >>>
>> >>> Because social structures can arbitrarily be anything at all. And,
>> >>> when in rome...
>> >>>
>> >>> So social structures cannot be the basis for natural law or any
>> >>> universal principle.
>> >>
>> >> You have it backwards. Natural law is the basis for useful well working
>> >> social structures that actually benefit people.
>> >
>> > Social structure cannot be the basis because they are random. While
>> > natural law would, of course be unchangeable.
>>
>> That is once again the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
>
>I was confused by that as well -- Noah seems to have not read
>your paragraph accurately.
>
>Regarding objective ethics, I submit that study of Game Theory
>(part of Information Theory, part of Mathematics) can be used
>to develop a system of ethics.
Game theory is a basis for objectivity? Is not whatever makes a good
game?
This abolishes the universal idea and confirms the idea that morality
is relative to culture. This is where it becomes so hard for us to
know that social structure is not a priori. It breaks to much of what
we want to know about ourselves.
Soldiers often come back from war broken inside. My suspicion is that
has a lot to do with destroying social structure, which is what
happens when a moral person goes around killing people I think.
>And:
>"Morals are the ethics of conscience." -Anon
>
>Just as we have "God-given" Rights to Life, Liberty, and the
>Pursuit of Happiness; we also have "God-given" reason, conscience,
>and a sense of justice.
First visible in young children. It is expressed as, I believe myself
to be innocent and demand justice. That idea in adulthood becomes, I
know myself to be guilty and plead for mercy.
Since we are adults, the second part of that is so much harder for us
to see. So it is that some of us never really grow up. Growing up is
hard to do.
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<>> to <<>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
