/lit/ - Literature

morality is a spook

he isn't, you can objectively save human life for less than a weeks worth of pay.

>>10325086
International aid organization only perpetuate and even generate suffering through facilitation of inherently unsustainable demographic and ecological trends.

Those people need to migrate to places where we help them take care of themselves.
We could supply them with farmland and they could grow their own food and drink their own fresh water.

>>10325093
If human life takes priority over your own personal spending, at what point do you draw the line?

Do you live and work solely for the sake of other people, becoming some kind of frugal monk subsisting on only the bare necessities, whose only purpose is to support the lives of others by diverting their pay towards them? Is this not slavery? You're still alive, and have the ability to keep others alive. Not doing so is tantamount to murder, so aren't you morally obligated to enslave yourself for the benefit of people half the world away -- according to your own principle?

There's this island in Scotland I think, that is uninhabited except for sheep. The sheep have no predators, and breed prolifically. Eventually the number of sheep grows too big for the island to support, and there is a mass die-off. Then the cycle starts again.

The story of this island reminds of of Africa somehow.

Charity will never prevent the problems that cause regular death in distant countries

>>10325096
This.

Same for corporations like Starbucks and Toms that claim to direct some portion of their profits towards such aid.

Really all you can do is try to be a good person in your day-to-day life and limit the damage your money does by supporting those entities causing suffering.

>>10325096
It's because people don't give enough. We only give the bare minimum to assuage our sense of guilt but the end result is only palliative care, enough to lessen the severity but never cure the problems of the 3rd world.

>>10325093
I'd rather have the week's worth of pay.

>>10325086
>about the ethics
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


another retarded liberal

>>10325176
No, it's because the biosphere is already extended beyond its limits.

>>10325215
>being a Malthusian
>1800 + XXXX
This has literally never been true once throughout all of human history.

>>10325086
>How is he wrong, /lit/?
He's not.

What he wants you to do is think "oh, because I would save the child in the pond I must save the children in Africa."

I did the opposite. I wouldn't save the children in Africa, so I no longer think I have to save the child in the pond either.

>>10325105
>Those people need to migrate to places where we help them take care of themselves.

>>10325086
Is the kid black?

>>10325307
of course since he argues that there is a moral obligation to save the child

>>10325119
this is the most retarded post I have ever seen on this website. "Doing nice things for people? Then you have to do more nice things! this makes you a slave!"

You are a fuckup, stop posting.

I would save the drowning child because it would make me feel very good, giving money wouldn't be the same.

>He believes in negative responsibility

>I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child?
i don't think so

>>10325259
What a badass.

>>10325385
I'd rather become a moral vacuum than allow a philosopher to impart a meaningful lesson on me, to be honest.

>>10325348
Who hurt you?

>>10325375
>>10325362
>>10325259
>it's a /lit/ blatantly lies on the internet to impress anonymous strangers with their edginess episode
I hate reruns

>>10325407
>the very concept of someone having a different answer to a moral question is so alien that you assume any who profess to do so are lying
I hate retards.

>>10325413
Anyone from a modern western society that suggests they are just going to casually walk away from a drowning child they could easily save is full of shit. Maybe 1% of the population are sociopathic enough to do such a thing, and even then it wouldn't be intuitive. I doubt anyone here is that special.

>>10325422
>that suggests they are just going to casually walk away from a drowning child they could easily save
I never said I wouldn't save the child. Simply that I didn't have to.

Read what is written and stop making assumptions.

>>10325192
?

>>10325086
>One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning
>Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?
In the first instance, there is immediacy and imminent peril without any other figure to secure the child. These alone can constitute a moral case for saving the child. It is further arguable that one could still continue to class if one really wanted to, so there is effectively no loss.
In the second instance, there is no immediacy, and in the mass distance there are numerous figures tasked with providing security for this child before the moral obligation gets to you. In fact, you do not even know whether your contribution is actually saving that child or whether it is simply being pocketed or at the worst going to the hands of militia groups that are part of the problem. It is not the same, morally speaking, and therefore it is still morally consistent to act in the first case and not the second.

>>10325422
I literally said I would save the child retard.

>>10325426
There's no effective difference, and I still don't believe you, because you don't believe yourself.

>>10325428
>In fact, you do not even know whether your contribution is actually saving that child or whether it is simply being pocketed or at the worst going to the hands of militia groups that are part of the problem.
This rebuttal has been debunked countless times, and anyway it's irrelevant. Assuming that the money actually finds and helps people, do you have the obligation? There are undoubtedly organizations that do function.

>>10325259
If you're chinese or have chinese genes this doesn't count.

If you're not chinese then congrats on walking the talk friend.

>>10325086
>would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps
Yes.

>>10325348
It's the logical conclusion of the described obligation, brainlet.

>>10325442
>There's no effective difference
You can personally save the child while believing there is no obligation.

>>10325442
>There's no effective difference
The question was "is there an obligation to do X"

You are effectively saying that there is no "effective" difference between a yes or no answer to that question. If you think that the answer is meaningless because the question is pointless then I would agree with you because philosophy is just feelgood wank pursued by cloistered academics whose frail, flabby bodies would fail to save a child regardless of how little effort is required to do so anyway - but the question now asked, the answer should be taken seriously in that context.

>>10325451
>congrats on walking the talk friend.
I wonder if you would be so congratulatory if you realised I'm a positivist.

>>10325457
Why then do you save them? And what's the reason for the reason? And so on. Eventually and inescapably you arrive at the obligation.

>>10325459
>positivist

>>10325464
>>10325362

>>10325244
>I have literally never died before
>guess I'm safe from that lmao

>>10325464
>Eventually and inescapably you arrive at the obligation.
No, you don't.

I will buy a stick of lollies every day before I catch the bus back from the city. Doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to do so. I will save drowning children. Doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to do so.

>>10325442
>Assuming that the money actually finds and helps people, do you have the obligation? There are undoubtedly organizations that do function.
You do not have an obligation because there is no immediacy, and you are not the only one capable of helping. The fact that these organizations do function mitigates the immediacy for your own personal involvement, which is what makes the first instance so morally persuasive. You are the only one to help the child and can only do so in that specific frame of time. This is not true in the second case.

>>10325426
Assuming that you would save the child why would you do so?

>>10325487
>why would you do so?
Literally for no other reason than pic related.

I am empathetic, like most humans, and so the bad feelings of others which they experience as a result of the death of their child would lead inevitably to bad feelings in me. This phenomenon is captured with other similar experiences in the concept of 'guilt'.

If I save the child and perform a service to my fellow man they will be grateful to me, and as mentioned above I am empathetic and their good feelings will probably lead to 'pride' in me.

But the root of all this motivation is simply because that is how I am. There is no conceivable way to transfer 'how I am' to 'how I ought to be' save invoking God - or worse, heathen
spirituality disguised as reason.

>>10325499
Do you think by your free will you could choose not to feel this way and simply walk away?

>>10325469
Why would it make you feel good you dunderhead

I'm standing at the edge of an enormous pool, my basket of pool floats and noodles rests at my feet. Along the edges beginning at my shoulders and continuing on far into the distance stand other waders. My immediate neighbor tells me he's heard something terrible, there's kids drowning at the other end of the pool. Looking at the endless pool stretching towards the horizon I try to imagine these floundering children and how sad a situation that must be for my antipodal counterparts. Speaking up again he explains that he knows a guy who has a system and if I give him a pool noodle or perhaps a kick board they will be used to fish some of the children out.

>>10325503
I could perhaps deliberately expose myself to bad things and bad feelings over a length of time until I build up more of a tolerance to them than 4chan has given me and are no longer bothered at all by them, but short of this no. I don't think I can just decide to feel differently.

>>10325451
>If you're not chinese then congrats on walking the talk friend.
Tip top kek

>>10325504
>feel like a hero
>get a cool story
>maybe someone sees me saving the kid
>hold the life of another human being in my hands
Are you autistic or something, pretty sure our brains are programmed to feel good about saving a kid.
Tapping my credit card number in a website just doesn't feel the same.

>>10325515
All of these things are derived from the obligation in question.

>>10325519
How?

always glad to see threads like this, they keep dweebs out of the book threads

>>10325511
Don't you understand the relationship between quilt and responsibility?
So you would save the child because if you don't you would feel guilty. You also admit that you couldn't by your free will choose to not feel guilty. It means that you would feel "compelled" to save the child.
Even if you choose by your free will not to save the child you wouldn't be able by your free will to dispense with of the feeling that you "should have" saved the child.

>>10325105
What did he mean by this?

>>10325442
>there's no difference between doing X and having an obligation to do X
you have an obligation to kill yourself

>>10325086
That is a harsh NEGATIVE on that one Mr. Professor. What appears to be a child seemingly drowning in 'shallow pond' without anyone paying it any mind or any sort of guardian watching it is so outside the realm of possibilities which would face me on my walk to class that I would conclude it to be an elaborate trap. Nobody else noticing is another red flag, this means that on top of the likelihood that the child is actually an IED, I could simply be hallucinating. You know what, this is actually a great analogy for this kind of international aid, he's right.

>>10325525
So?

None of that proves that I have a moral obligation to save the child. It's accurate, but irrelevant. How I feel, and what I believe, and what you believe, and how you feel, are utterly meaningless. In seeking to understand the world we must embody not the participant but the observer.

I ask - what if you saw someone else saving a child in the pond. You see them saving the child. Afterwards you ask them why they did it and they said they did it because they felt like they should. When you write this event down in your scientific logbook to compile for your research, can you accurately write that you SAW any sign - at all - indicating that the saviour /should/ save the child? No. You can only write what you observed - that the saviour did save the child, and that he did it because he /felt/ he should.

Aha! you say. Then I have observed a force that makes people /feel/ like they should save children. Congratulations. This 'force' is called 'emotions' and it is known to exist already, and it is not the force you are looking for. You can write down what the saviour felt a thousand million times. It will never be what you need to observe to prove that this mysterious moral force exists. When I drop an apple from a balcony to see if gravity exists it falls to the ground and my hypothesis is proven. It also splatters when it hits the ground, but this is just noise - not part of my experiment. When I drop a child in a pond to see if morality exists I don't see anything at all. Sometimes the child drowns and sometimes the child gets saved but who cares? I'm not dropping children in ponds to observe how people feel about it. If I cared how people felt about it I wouldn't be dropping their children in the pond at all.

>>10325544
what the professor didn't explain to his kids is that the child "seemingly drowning" is actually an elite navy seal, waiting until you're in the water to take you out. The bushes by the side of the pond? Trained close-ranged killers.

>>10325550
So admit you would feel "compelled"?

>>10325464
>Why do the thing
>see? You obligated nao

Why does anybody do anything if we have no obligation to do everything?

>>10325558
Yes.

>>10325562
Please, explain in detail how feeling "compelled" is different than feeling "obligated".

>>10325564
It's not.

The operative word in that sentence is "feel."

I would feel compelled, or obligated, or whatever word you want to use. This is different from actually being compelled/obligated.

People with Murchinson's syndrome feel like they have diseases. That doesn't mean they do.

>>10325506
>wacky world hypotheticals
>logical

Pic none.

>>10325086
>Implying saving a life, regardless of the person in question, is always the moraly right answer

Well, from my point of view, a black child who is both young enough / physically weak enough that hes unable to save himself and is, at the same time, so utterly and soul crushingly alone in this word that theres no parental figure anywere near to prevent this situation from umfolding in the first place, is sorta destined to curse my name for saving his life instead of sparing him the cruel existance he has ahead of hymself.

Im not a determinist per se, but its kinda hard to draw some educated conclussion. I think he will probably have an extremely troubled chilhood in an orphanage and probably end up either dedicated to a life of pety crime, or in the worst of cases, as a BLM activist.

>>10325525
Big deal.

>>10325573
what is an actual obligation, to you?

>>10325573
The word "obligated" expresses an abstract relationship between the subject and the object. It's not something substantial. In this literal sense you can't "be" obligated.

From a utilitarian point of view shouldn't we just kill the African kid?

>>10325594
who said anything about africa?

>drown in a shallow pond
>drown in a
>shallow
>pond

>>10325589
Obligation is a subjective concept, it has no intrinsic value.

>>10325603
>Obligation is a subjective concept
Yes.
>it has no intrinsic value.
No.

>>10325603
God dammit. Meant for>>10325586

>>10325584
Is this meant for the child in the nearby pond, or for the one on the far away pond?

>>10325586
An obligation is something that you have to do. As >>10325589 ably points out a literal obligation doesn't exist because I don't have to do anything. There are consequences if I don't - some impractically severe - but I can always choose to bear them.

So I use the word in the way that it is used colloquially - i.e. that a legal obligation is something that I have to do for legal reasons, and that I have to do it because the consequences are severe if I don't. I also accept that an agreement by which I enter into a relationship making a promise to do some task also confers an expectation bordering on an obligation, so obligations can be acquired via promise even if the consequences for not doing them are mild.

Seeing as the question is being asked in a moral context (and it has to be, otherwise it is asking if we have a literal obligation which I have shown do not exist) then we are asking if I have a moral obligation. This means 'do I have to save the child because the moral consequences for not doing so are too much to bear'. The answer is no. The moral consequences for not saving the child are fucking nothing. You cannot observe a single consequence. It's the old thought experiment - if a child drowns in a pond and nobody but me knows, what are the consequences? There are none other than perhaps my guilt, but my guilt is merely a feeling.

The consequences that you will propose - that people will be disgusted with me and refuse to associate with me and castigate me and so forth - are certainly consequences, but they are social and not moral. They are born from people /feeling/ like there was a moral obligation. Such feelings are mistaken, because as I have shown no such obligation exists through consequence.

But what about obligation through promise? This is social contract theory. Even if a social contract does exist it is just that - a social contract. My obligation in respect to it would be a social obligation. The only way it would become a moral obligation would be to show that morality demands I honour my obligations. And then we're back to the fact that nobody so far has observed any such moral obligation in respect to honouring my obligations.

>>10325604
>>Obligation is a subjective concept
>Yes.
That's right. Yes, it is a subjective concept.
>>it has no intrinsic value.
>No.
That's right. No, it has no intrinsic value.

Glad we understand each other.

>>10325605
>>10325603
You said you would feel under obligation. So you would save the child under your own value system, because it is valuable for you and in accordance with your society's values to save the child. Is this correct?
You admitted it yourself you would be under obligation, which is to say you would feel obligation.

>>10325610
>As >>10325589 ably points out a literal obligation doesn't exist because I don't have to do anything.
I have pointed out no such thing.

>>10325616
I have misunderstood you then.

>>10325613
No, what I said was;
"Obligation is a subjective concept, it has no intrinsic value."

>>10325610
>There are none other than perhaps my guilt, but my guilt is merely a feeling.
It IS a moral consequence you dumbass.

>>10325616
Pretty sure you did.

>>10325609
Both, for its not as if they are going to stay by the kid's side to nurture him and make sure he is provided an educating, love and affection, its just the illusion of morality, a noxious form of charity as shallows as the aforementioned pond.

And is without a hint of irony that I say, im one of the few persons on this thread who is selfless enough to choose the right choice over the perherse self gratification of thinking oneself a here while st the same time, perpetuating anothers misery.

>>10325626
Pretty sure I didn't.

>>10325623
But what IS morality? Mankind might never know.

>>10325086
I don't understand how giving money to a child stops them from drowning.

>>10325621
but that doesn't mean it lacks value. The fact that you feeling obligation in this circumstance indicates that it is valuable to you to act, because it is in accordance to a system of symbols and values in which you were born, conditioned, and in which you now operate, whether you are conscious of it or not. The fact that it isn't intrinsically valuable does not mean it is complete devoid of all value.
I really don't understand what impact this semantic distinction has on the problem.

>>10325623
No, it's not.

If I were the observer and not the participant and I witnessed the drowning I could observe the following things.

1. the drowning
2. a man who says he feels guilty in relation to the drowning
3. (with the right technology) the biological process that causes the guilty feeling

What I could not observe is... anything else. No hint of morality anywhere.

>>10325631
Well, I mean, I hate to break it to you, kid. Maybe you did it unintentionally, but alas, you did it. You did it and that's that, yknow? I mean, it is what it is. And that's fine. It's alright, there's no problem here. You're not being attacked. It's just what it is.

>>10325637
I dont blame you, niggers in america have enough cash to buy 700$ Jordans and they still drown all the time.

>>10325639
What in the world are you talking about?
What exactly do you think that morality is?
What do observers have to do with it?

>be me
>encounter a rude piece of shit who I want to punch in the face
>he says to me:
>what if I told you there were other rude pieces of shit 50000000000 miles away, don't you have an obligation to punch them in the face?

Who am i supposed to punch, /lit/?

>>10325638
Theres no problem here. Just stating that it doesn't have intrinsic value. It might have emotional value or subjective value, but not intrinsic value. That's it, that's all. Mankind has no obligation to do anything. I don't know why you're trying to use unquantifiable abstracts as a basis for your argument on wether we should, or shouldn't save the child.

>>10325086
>>I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do.

>>10325086
>what if I construct an elaborate scenario where the only choices are to look like a callous individual or to give me money, what then?

It's almost like morality is rooted in vague process of empathy.

>>10325654
>What exactly do you think that morality is?
>What do observers have to do with it?

And THOSE, anon, are the questions everyone should be asking.

>>10325654
>What exactly do you think that morality is?
Why am I being asked to define your terms?

But so long as I am, let's go back to the original question asking whether or not a (moral) obligation exists to save the child. The question is asking for a moral obligation not just any obligation, so morality must be distinct from the other possible types of obligation. This means that morality is not legal, not social, not religious, etc. etc. Morality is a distinct thing all of its own - a force or other thing that imposes obligations, rights, duties, and other things on us.

I observe no such force or other thing, and I observe none of the obligations, rights, duties, or other things it is supposed to impose on me.

>What do observers have to do with it?
Because you have no basis to claim that morality exists if you cannot observe it.

>>10325348
In his defence, Singer argued a similar thought in the paper from which OP seems to have taken his quote

>>10325661
>Mankind has no obligation to do anything.
we earlier defined an obligation as an abstract relationship dependent on subjective, societal value system. You said you would have an obligation to save the child. It would grant you negative value, according to your own system of operating, to save the child.
We are not talking about some cold robotic scenario. Emotional and subjective value is value nonetheless. Newsflash dude, nothing has intrinsic value, but the human experience is filtered through sets of symbols and meaning-making values that produce profound moods and motivations. This is your obligation, that you yourself have admitted that you feel. If it wasn't impactul to the way you experience life, you would feel no obligation, but this is not the case as per your own words.
"no intrinsic value" is not a valid argument in a discussion of human ethics

>>10325669
It's not.

>>10325678
to not* save the child

>>10325665
It's a spook, it's all a spook. Mother, forgive me.

>>10325679
Yes it is. Derivations of morality without empathy is just sophistry.
The ought is from the feedback provided by empathy.

This questions dumb and gay and we all know I have my own question I was going to ask that philosopher call in show but I am too lazy.

Is the motivation behind the action relevant if the action is the same?

For some examples of same actions, there's the internet shill. Plenty of us will argue in favour of things we agree with on the internet, but so too will people accept money to argue on the internet, regardless of their personal stance. The end action is the same.

Or the prostitute, she has sex like normal girls but she receives money for it. She does the exact same thing but is scorned for it.

Or the mercenary and the hitman. Compared to the terrorist or the murderer, we don't really have as much hatred for those two. We tend to blame the person who hired the hitman moreso than the actual killer.

Or Doanld Trump and Bernie Sanders, they both dodged the draft, Donald with a medical waiver, and Bernie with an objector status. They both did the same thing, what difference does any of this make if they did it for money or fear or not?

>>10325676
So you are simply claiming that morality doesn't exist?
What is is then that you think people signify when they use the word?

>>10325086
>Hahaa, Not so fast! I activate my trap card, "Logical Extreme"!
>It allows me to pay 6 whole IQ points and a portion of my credibility as an intellectual figure to milk empaty out of these group of peer pressured students!
>Bet you weren't ready to tackle my rethorical device under these circunstances Yugi boy!

>>10325706
>So you are simply claiming that morality doesn't exist?
Yep.

>What is is then that you think people signify when they use the word?
They are attempting to disguise the fact that none of their opinions about what we should or should not do are more valid than anyone else's. Philosophers are frauds. They promise you complex ideas but if you keep asking why all you find at the core is "because I said so." It's a joke. The entire field is a joke.

>>10325693
You ought to wash your socks.
How is this related to empathy?

He's wrong because no kid would get drown in a shallow pond. I mean, it's a shallow pond so the water would only reach their knees at most. If a kid is retarded enough to drown in that he should die anyway

>>10325711
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUW_pip1J5g

thread theme

My friend had a few lectures by Peter Singer and didn't realise he was an >important guy. dork lol

>>10325714
Where did I claim all oughts derive from empathy? We're speaking about morality.

>>10325712
>They are attempting to disguise the fact that none of their opinions about what we should or should not do are more valid than anyone else's.
Would you please stop projecting for a while?
Morality has nothing to do with whether your opinions are more or less valid?
If you think morality is "other people's opinions" then by claiming that morality doesn't actually exist are you trying to say that people don't "actually" have different opinions?

>>10325678
>You said you would have an obligation to save the child. It would grant you negative value, according to your own system of operating, to save the child.
Never said that
>nothing has intrinsic value
Wrong
>This is your obligation, that you yourself have admitted that you feel. If it wasn't impactul to the way you experience life, you would feel no obligation, but this is not the case as per your own words.
Never said any of that shit
>"no intrinsic value" is not a valid argument in a discussion of human ethics
What makes you an authority on what is and isn't a valid arguement in a discussion of human ethics?

>>10325711
heh, nice try, but you just activated my trap card: Hyperbole's Edge, which allows me to pretend I lack even basic human impulses and subverts moral expectations when boxed into any hypothetical moral decision. That's 12 shock damage to your "Argument"
looks like someone's going to the shadow realm, kid...

>>10325693
Sophistry is just you shitposting.

>>10325727
>being willfully obtuse to spring le logic trap
We both know what anon meant.

>>10325727
You are both equaly as dense and write exactly the same way a paki I know does, its a regretable trait in both of you.

>>10325724
It's a moral imperative to wash your socks, anon. Are you a pig?

>>10325717
Maybe it's a todler wrapped in some seaweed face down.

>>10325728
So are you a different poster or are you backpedaling on whether or not you would save the child?
>>nothing has intrinsic value
>Wrong
I almost don't want to ask at this point, but what has intrinsic value, to you?
>What makes you an authority on what is and isn't a valid argument in a discussion of human ethics?
negating everything human as subjective - and someone thinking that means it is not worth discussion - misses the point of societal ethics. Are you saying that we are not governed by symbols of meaning which produces motivations in men? You would have to ignore the existence of society, which is a quite tenuous position.

>>10325734
I don't.
>>10325736
If you intended to hurt my feelings I'm afraid you have failed. What part of what I wrote did you fail to understand?

>>10325727
>If you think morality is "other people's opinions" then by claiming that morality doesn't actually exist are you trying to say that people don't "actually" have different opinions?
No, I'm saying that other people do have different opinions, and some of them dishonestly attempt to inflate the perceived value/importance of their opinions by pretending they are more than mere opinions and are actually moral dictates. They do this by making arguments that appear compelling but are actually just obscuritan nonsense designed to hide the fact that at their core is a mere difference of opinion and nothing more.

>>10325737
The only reason you believe I ought to wash my socks is because you assume my desires align with yours.

>>10325749
Anon claiming morality is "people's opinions" was just reiterating his belief that morality does not exist.
He was not claiming people's opinions do not exist.

>>10325752
No. I don't. In fact I don't care in the least about washing my socks but some people seem to find it pretty important which has led me to believe it's their moral conviction.
You seem to assume that if people's convictions differ from yours that makes them not valid.

>>10325760
>You seem to assume that if people's convictions differ from yours that makes them not valid.
They're no more correct than mine or anyone else's.
What evidence or argument do you have for the validity of any moral theory without falling back on intuition which derives from empathy?

>>10325759
If people use the word "morality" they must to it to designate a particular concept that is distinct from others.
I asked anon to tell me what he thinks that concept is and he answered that people use the word morality to describe their personal opinions.
Don't opinions objectively exist or does this anon believe that people only imagine to have opinions?

>>10325766
If I felt no empathy I'd have no reason to believe that my own moral theory is not objectively valid.

>>10325787
you're retarded

>>10325787
Your point being?

>>10325790
In what way?

>>10325791
Well, to begin with that morality and empathy are not related.

>>10325781
You're being obtuse again.
Imagine if anon claimed UFOs didn't exist and that they're just weather balloons. He's not claiming weather balloons don't exist or that people don't in fact call things UFOs. He's claiming that a commonly held meaning for UFO, i.e., an alien craft is not accurate and is in truth merely a weather balloon.

In the same way he's claiming that the commonly held idea of Morality as being more than just opinion is incorrect.

>>10325797
The fact that lack of empathy leads to justification of any arbitrary morality seems to imply they are in fact linked.

>>10325804
Empathy does not originate from morality and morality doesn't originate from empathy. Like any two mental functions they work parallelly and modify each other.
Empathy simply helps us to adopt the moral outlooks of others.

>>10325739
>what has intrinsic value, to you?
Elements, atoms, things of that nature.
>Are you saying that we are not governed by symbols of meaning which produces motivations in men?
Sometimes
>You would have to ignore the existence of society, which is a quite tenuous position.
Nah. Just saying we're not obligated to save the kid. In a pond or in some shithole country. Don't have to do shit. If we did, we'd be doing it it. But we don't, because we don't.
>So are you a different poster or are you backpedaling on whether or not you would save the child?
Yes, what the fuck do you think I'm saying? I'm not your guy. As for the kid, idk. I'd have to cross that bridge when/if I get there.

>>10325781
Jesus fucking christ, I'll just tell myself you are not a native english speaker and move on.

>>10325751
Yeah, that's good.

>>10325795
In the extra chromosomes way.

>>10325804
>>10325797
Correlation =/= causation.

>>10325813
>Empathy simply helps us to adopt the moral outlooks of others.
Without this function morality is simply the expression of preferences.
Empathy evolved in homo sapiens leading to morality.

>>10325798
It you can't identify it as weather ballon than it's a UFO.

>>10325798
I asked him about his definition of morality.
If he claimed that UFO don't exist and I asked him about his definition of UFO he would still have to say "unidentified flying object" regardless of whether he believed it exists or not.
On what basis can I agree or disagree with your judgement of whether something is moral or not if I don't know your definition of morality?
If he says quilt is not a moral feeling on what basis does he judge that it isn't?
If I showed him a flying saucer and he said that's not UFO don't I have the right to ask what his definition of UFO is?

>>10325822
Whatever helps you evade defeat, anon.

>>10325849
>>10325846
I thought we were talking about a kid in a pond and now you guys are talking about aliens and shit. How long before we get to arguing about the holocaust? Monkeys on a typewriter. God, I miss old /lit/

>>10325845
No.

>>10325820
>Elements, atoms, things of that nature.
these have no intrinsic value. Atoms are not better than other atoms. Plants are not better than other plants simply for their existence. That's laughable, surely you do not mean this. Perhaps I miss-understand.
>Sometimes
What are these times? Do you mean in some instances, we have impulses generated from social conditioning, from human culture, and in part due to biological impulse, but at other times we completely lack a value system and internal set of motivations? This is an underlying filter of experience that is always present, even when we are not conscious.
You see what I am getting at. Even if you say you have no morals, you have unconscious cultural conditioning wherein emotional/motivational responses are provoked in certain situations, wherein meaning is subconsciously crafted for the individual. This is further compounded with whatever ideology you are exposed to, where certain behaviors are understood to be preferential. These have no intrinsic value, I agree, but to the individual they are valuable. To someone of a certain moral system, allowing the child to drown could possibly evoke an intense feeling of guilt which could develop into trauma. So not saving the child is an obligation with negative repercussions in that example.
Sociopaths I believe may lack a certain sense of empathy, yet nevertheless still maintain and operate within this taught system, so although they may not see it imperative to save the child, they may still do so in acknowledging that it is the moral thing to be done in that situation within their social framework.

>>10325846
>>10325849
You miss the point, if it was common for people to believe in alien crafts anon claiming UFOs are just weather balloons is understood to be disagreeing with the existence of alien crafts not a rejection of the concept of flying object being unidentified or the existence of the term UFO.
In the same way he was disagreeing with the common belief in moral realism by asserting that moral beliefs are simply opinions or expressions of preferences. Clearly he is not claiming opinions don't exist.

>>10325820
>Nah. Just saying we're not obligated to save the kid.
>Don't have to do shit. If we did, we'd be doing it it. But we don't, because we don't.
An obligation can be failed. I can be obligated to buy my family a gift when I am on a trip, but I can choose not to because I would not want to spend money. I may feel obligated to vote, but decide against it for whatever reason. It is the same in this case. You seem to think that an obligation is something that must be attended to for survival or everyday life. It is not.
It is still an obligation to save the child, whether or not you decide to act upon it.

A typical case of kafkatrapping aside this preposterous premise establish itself by downplaying the most important factor in this supposed dilemma , that is the person being there and not . By doing so it presupposes a monotheistic univeralism , making the notion of individual sovereignty it's vehicle . In a sense this "ethics" of sadomasochism is all too christian , in a perverted liberal sense , my indifference to such narrative might be cultural .

>>10325869
You miss the point. I asked him about a definition of morality. If he said something absurd in response of that he is the one who should correct his statement.

>>10325869
So what you're saying is, it's immoral to deny the existence of UFOs, and we have an obligation to uphold regarding the existence/non existence of certain opinions or expressions?

>>10325889
>Burden of proof meme

>>10325894
>you should argue with someone who refuses to define their terms

>>10325889
The only absurd thing was your tortured interpretation of his easily understood post.
If someone says morals are "just opinions" then it's pretty obvious his definition of morality no? The fact that he also claimed "morality does not exist" is a red herring, you should be able to infer he means moral realism. Responding with a smart-ass post claiming he implied opinions don't exist was dumb.
>>10325891
Not sure how you think I made any moral claims whatsoever.
I'm merely attempting to explain how anon's position was easily understood if you're not a spastic.

>>10325910
>then it's pretty obvious his definition of morality no?
That was my assumption and I based my arguments on it.
>you should be able to infer he means moral realism
No, he claimed that morality can't exist outside of moral realism i.e. that it doesn't exist at all.

>>10325919
>No, he claimed that morality can't exist outside of moral realism i.e. that it doesn't exist at all.
And instead of inferring that he's a moral anti-realist you assumed he meant opinions didn't exist. Bravo.

>>10325899
Why would I do that?

>>10325940
I didn't assume anything. I asked him about his definition of morality because it happens to be an integral part of this argument and he gave me this dumb shit.
All I did was draw the natural conclusions from it. They are obviously absurd but if he insists on his definition he will have to accept them. If not I'm still waiting for a definition that is not stupid.

>>10325949
You know, my old english teacher always used to say, "When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME."

The life of some african third worlder is not equivelant to that of a child of my country. I wouldn't know if one died and I likely wouldn't care, their death is in no way related to me but by some supposed common humanity. Their life is not in my hands, and even if I were to subscribe to the backwards logic this old rhetorician supposes there is no guarantee that my money would be well spent, and it's certainly not quantifiable in its "life-saving"

>>10325949
his definition of morality being just opinions does not lead to onions not existing unless you take his statement of morality not existing on face value like an autistic pedant.

>>10325980
His whole argument is grounded on the assumption that morality doesn't exist "objectively" and that it could exist in no other way than "objectively".
In this particular case I think that my line of reasoning is quite justified.

>>10325086
Lads read David Oderberg for a systematic btfo of this pseud.

yes, mr. shekelbergsteinowitz, i'll give up my hard earned cash to save nignogs across the globe!

>>10325849
>if I don't know your definition of morality?
Why are you pretending he didn't give a definition of morality?

"Morality is a distinct thing all of its own - a force or other thing that imposes obligations, rights, duties, and other things on us." (>>10325676).

>>10325086
For those interested, I have solved it. He is a deceptive man indeed, and the problem bothered me like it bothered all of you. He presents it as though the students are hypocritical, when they are in fact not because the two scenarios differ. This is obvious when you break them down.

Scenario One:

You see a child in distress and if you were to save it would cost you nothing.

Scenario Two:

You do not actually see a child in distress, and if you save it, it will cost you financially.

He conflates the two scenarios as identical and tries to pressure you by pitting your own moral code against itself. He either wins and you capitulate and hand over money, or he gains moral superiority by forcing you to admit that you don't care about the second child. But it is not the same situation, so you are not hypocritical for saying your obligation to save the first child does not extend to the second.

That's why he does ethics, brainlet. Actually read Stirner, he believes in ethics based on egoist (i.e. democratic) consensus, removed from grandiose ideas.

>>10325989
>His whole argument is grounded on the assumption that morality doesn't exist "objectively" and that it could exist in no other way than "objectively".
But that's not an assumption that is a requirement. There is no such thing in all of creation that only exists subjectively. You cannot name a single thing.

>beauty
Beauty exists objectively. Whether or not I see beauty in a particular work may vary, but the concept of some things being beautiful to people objectively exists.

If morality only exists for some people and not for others then morality is just the shared delusion of a few idiots.

>>10325092 meant for
>>10326111
Utilitarianism would be what egoism would strive for.

>>10325176

This is simply wrong. Countries get out of poverty by developing industry. By providing everything to a country, it becomes impossible for them to allocate economic activity in ways that would result in the development of industry. There are many amounts of local garment manufacture being destroyed by clothing aid, ensuring unemployment among the very people who would be developing artisinal or industrial clothing production capabilities. Multiply this by all the types of aid we provide and no industry ever develops, all while otherwise unsustainable population growth occurs. Because economic development is the strongest force against poverty, there is literally no more immoral act that contributing to direct aid charities. They are in many cases more destructive than full-on wars.

>>10325092
first post best post

>>10325348
>bro people are suffering save this guy from death
>OK
>bro what about this other guy, he's dying too!
>nah man 1(one) person per month
Your behavior is way more arbitrary than his.

>>10326168
Well you've already exhausted my good will, which is in limited supply. I was willing to save one life but now due to your incessant greediness to always demand more, I will save zero lives and you are now basically a murderer and I sentence you to death.

>>10325086
>do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do.

Students are retards

correct response is "no I don't, but fuck the rules I do what I want"

And likewise his guilt tripping attempt just falls on my deaf ears. kids are too far away to bother helping and they're not even remotely related to me, I don't give a fuck

Is this guy a jew by chance

>>10326194
if he is old and shriveling, and trying to guilt you into spending money, there are good chances that he is a jew

>>10326194
The correct response is that there is no such thing as a duty for the utilitarian and that he shouldn't base his arguments in rethorical propaganda.

>>10325086
>shallow pond
>child is drowning analogy
>don't you have an obligation to help?

Yet he thinks abortions are moral.
This is your brain on grass and soy.

>>10326324
https://youtu.be/Wfc4uS3HBSw
Watch this

>>10326324
This so much.

>>10325086
These organizations often have to pay the government of these countries to be able to act on them. These governments often are corrupt, incompetent and tyrannical. So by giving them money, you actually help propagate misery for these people in the long term.

I give money and food for poeple on the street and I know they'll either eat it or spend it on something else.Who knows what's happening with my money if I give it to some international charity.

The Dictator's Handbook has a whole chapter on how much foreign aid can undermine poor countries and help tyrannies.

>>10325158
tfw you finally find a philosophy that lets you be yourself - a turd

>>10325086

you side step everything when you say "no I don't have an obligation to help this child" from the outset. You don't, really.

>>10325086
> How is he wrong, /lit/?
Money can't solve problems, it only creates new ones.

>>10326443
dude

>>10326324
>>10326356
>likes freedom
>puts people in prison

>likes freedom
>makes laws that limit people's freedoms

it's almost like when you remove any nuance you can "analyze" anything in this way

>>10325086
>would it make any difference if the child were far away
>but equally within your means to save
This description is so stupid that I don't understand what it means.

Look at this soyboy, can't even keep his back straight due to malnutrition from his vegan diet.

>>10326561
it probably means "donate to charity" or some shit like that

>lol if you just give away some money you will save lives in shitplaces like Somalia

>>10326187
Actually, you are the greedy one since you're not spending all your money for other people;-)

>>10325362
absolutely this. there is physical contact with the drowning child, the gratitude of his parents, endorphins from the rush of confronting danger... and so on. there is a difference for some people on saving human life based on nearness and similarity. if i save my neighbor's friend's child, his life will almost certainly be different than that poor fucked up african who will probably go back to eating mosquito pies and die of sickle-cell anemia.

plus, some charity sends me a postcard with this kid's picture on it. how do i know they aren't faking it? i don't have unlimited resources or energy to investigate how my money is spent, nor do i trust non-local charities. there is a gap between maybe having made a slight difference somewhere and actually saving a life with your own two hands.

speaking of hands, does my $5 go directly to this one kid? does oxfam just wire it over to BFE? if not, his analogy becomes that millions of people are offering the drowning child a pinky each, whereby the child is still not able to stop drowning.

>>10325086
Our moral intuition about saving a child from the lake on one individual occasion (analogous to donating once to charity for example) is not the same as our intuition about saving multiple children every instant of every day for the rest of our lives (analogous to what singer wants us to do, to sacrifice our quality of life significantly to help reduce poverty)

Not saying he's wrong, but his argument relies on this intuition that it's *obvious* that our moral intuition tells us to act in this way, when it actually isn't at all obvious and he's got more legwork to do to convince us otherwise

>>10327227
He is relaying on hiding his own moral system as in it letting the child drown is perfectly fine if it is younger than a month and hasn't had an arbitrary becoming human ceremony and the fact that simply genociding Africans could be easily excused by the utilitarian calculus, just like for the elderly, disabled and the unwanted. If we killed all the starving Africans there would be more happiness in the world and it could develop faster as the utilitarian genocide cometee would make a big organ selling market (making Africa rich) and would save lives worth living by that, while getting rid of those that aren't worth living.

>>10325265
no refugees though reeeeeeeeeeee

>>10325348
nice strawman, brainlet.

>>10325532
dat azz

>>10325464
Nigga you're too stupid to live, you need to stop breathing now.

>>10326107
>literally see no evil, be no evil

>>10326114
Literally everything you experience is subjective because you, the subject, are experiencing it, and unless you assume things exist independently of you, nothing can be objective

>beauty exists objectively because some people find some things beautiful
Ok, you're baiting

>>10325092
Why?

>>10325086
Is this from theology?

Fuck you, kid. I don't know who you are but fuck you

>>10325092
*murders your entire family in front of you* just a spook brah, nobody actually desires to live anywhere with a coherent legal system

>>10325086
What I do is tell everyone I ever meet that if you were to suck one dick you aren't thinking about every other dick that is left unsucked in the world. Therefore if you suck one dick you are morally obligated to suck every dick or at least give them a nice handy.

>>10325086
>How is he wrong, /lit/?
It's hard to believe that students at Princeton would be willing to dirty their clothes for any reason.

>>10328064
>Literally everything you experience is subjective
"Rocks don't exist unless there's someone around to call them a rock."
This line of thinking has always been dumb.

>>10325086
I'd save the kid because he is a part of my community, that being the reason I have a social obligation to save them. If it is in a different country then they are competition (outsourcing).

i agree, professor. in fact, i'll help you liquidate the entirety of your assets so you can give them away to third worlders

While 5% might go to poor kids in Africa the rest is paid so the corrupt warlord can get a gold-colored Ak-47 or new uniforms for his presidential guard.

>>10325086
i lack object permanence

>>10325086
no one is going to answer virilio? knowing about the child elsewhere on the planet is fucked up

>>10325096
not to mention it mostly benefits a rich, exploitative ruling class in those countries and doesn't go to the people.

How can I have a moral obligation to do anything if there is no God?

>>10325086
This is an utterly retarded argument.
Based on this, anyone taking a vacation or any form of rest would be immoral because there is always some suffering around.
Also this "argument" would result in the complete condemnation of any form of solitude. It's like the Unabomber oversocialization meme, servile morality on overdrive. The claim "proves" far too much. It runs on good feeling without realizing that a consistent application of these principles would be a complete hell. In practice, this implies the totalitarian control of every single second of your life towards "well being of everyone" or "public good" or other fairy tales.

Then there are other bizarre claims.
>Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation.
>Implying
These people are truly lost, trying to claim that it's the same helping your literal brother and some random nigger from 3rd world shithole #23.

>>10328717
No, please, not this meme again!

>students agreed about some stupid shit
wow

>>10325086
The reason we save the child is because not because we care about the child's fate. Rather we do it because it is our civic duty.
Saving children halfway across the world en masse is not.

>>10328865
It's okay; I know there's no answer.

>>10325176
>>10326137

When asked, between the left-wing anarchist and right-wing revisionist deviations from the party line, which was the worse for revolution, Stalin replied "both are worse."

>>10325086
In the first case (child in pond), I can reasonably believe that the child is in a limited state of need, i.e. that when I rescue him from the pond, he will then be able to live his life fulfilling without the need for others.

The second case (starving children) does not have this pseudo-guarantee. The context of the need is lost. I put money in and lives are saved, but I don't know anything about the situation. Will the individual go on to a fulfilling life without need of others? Or am I just enabling his degrading existence? Is the money pulling him from his own pond or just throwing him a floatie?

>>10328717
You can't.

>>10325119
Yes, you absolutely should.
Recognising that psychologically you cannot do this should fill you with righteous guilt.
Drawing the line at any amount of charity is still better then giving none, though.

I would answer "no" to his first question and be done. I still would save the child.

>>10325086
>Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation.

This is where he lost me. Distance makes it a lot harder to care.

>>10325096
Go get the axe Linkola!!!

So...if he is right, why do I still not care about helping others at a distance? If he is right, shouldn't I inherently care?

>>10325086
>would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation

Virtually all his students failed the first test of critical thinking

>>10325086
Okay prof, then how about this, I will help the people in need near me, and the people in Africa can help the people in need around them.

Deal? Oh wait no Africans slaughter each other because Debwamba *click* Batenggo was cursed with HIV for raping a little girl, so the girl needs to die along with her family.

>>10325086
Professor, are you still willing to save the child when you realize that the "shallow pond" is a metaphor for the womb?

Professor, why are you willing to allow parents to kill even born children?

Professor, why do you murderously obfuscate about the meaning of the word 'person'?

Professor, in light of your dubious ethical stances, do you at long last admit that those among your critics who call you a Nazi are in fact correct?

>>10325093
Why save it ?

If a child was drowning every time you walked across the pond, then clearly there are problems with the placement of the pond or how the children are being raised. You can save the child every time, but that won't change the problem. Simply helping someone whenever they are in trouble will not get rid of the trouble, you must tackle the thing causing trouble.

Extremely shallow moralizing. Reductionist utilitarian nonsense.
It amazes me how these idiots continue to get attention.

>>10325093

Well...do you?

If the child dies in the pond, maybe people will stop going near the pond.

You idiots, like all of modernity, have missed the point.
>>10325086
His point is that the students would be inconsistent in their beliefs if they didn't help the kid that's far away. He's not wrong in that. However, he does not provide any principle on the basis of which one can derive the conclusion that one should indeed save the kid that's near or the one that's far.

Answer this question brainlets:

Why should you save the kind that's near?

>>10329957

This person is basically asking us to imagine that all people in need are like the drowning kid, and that helping any of them would be as simple as this one instance

Now if we had to do it once, we all would. But if was a thing that constantly had to be done, then clearly there is a problem with the overarching system in place. If a kid was drowning in a pond every minute of every day, you would either try to change the system, or just plain stop caring. If it really happened so much you would probably just view it as inevitable and thus the obligation is gone.

>>10325086
Peter Singer is the guy who devised a 'Life Unworthy of Life' argument that's highly persuasive to post-Hitler liberal elites who purport to despise Nazism.

And he's a Jew, to boot.

It's a beautiful thing, really.

>>10325086
If its a child within my reach I'm assuming they are a part of MY community, culture, people.

Put them half way round the world it now costs me money and is someone that's life not only do I not care about but I encourage to depopulate as they are a drain especially when they immigrate to my community and make me miss a class just to find out I rescued a leech in child's clothes.

There you go mr professor, btw the bitch with the hijab looking at me and texting what I imagine is a angry post, want to argue with my logic instead? That's right you class of cucks, I just ass blasted you. I don't even go to this school, peace out smugASS.

>>10325086
This argument is pretty retarded if we go more in-depth. There's a fundamental difference between simply doing physical effort to save someone and actually giving money to Oxfam on a weekly or monthly basis.

Furthermore, what if one doesn't agree with the way Oxfam helps the children in Africa? Not only that, but giving $5 a month to help the poor doesn't make you a hero or even particularly selfless or empathetic -- it simply makes you someone who's patting themselves on the back by giving away an amount of money they feel comfortable giving away.

So, unless you give a really good chunk of your income to those in need, simply keeping what's necessary for your basic necessities and very luxuries, I'd argue that you don't really give much of a serious shit about starving kids on Africa. You only care about being morally correct at that point.

>>10325086
>Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation.

Of course they'll say that but they all know that's really not true. In our hearts we are all tribal and care more about our group. You cannot make people viscerally care about a group of people totally unrelated to them.

>>10325657
>there are people this stupid
Everyone, obviously. Get it together, anon.

>>10329989
That's not the problem. The problem is that Singer doesn't establish why there's a moral obligation to help even the first drowning kid. He only cites that all his students thought that they were obligated, and moves on from there. Whether that obligation exists as a matter of fact is not established.

If the question was whether letting the kid drown was legal or not, one would need A LEGAL NORM (i.e., some kind of law that says this sort of thing is legal or not), then to determine the facts of the case, and then figure out what the legal norm has to say about this particular case. Is it LEGAL or ILLEGAL.

In the realm of ethics, to arrive at a moral evaluation, i.e., a moral verdict, you need a MORAL NORM, some reason to believe that THAT is the right moral norm, then you need to figure out the facts of the case, and then see if the moral norm renders a GOOD or BAD verdict.

>>10325086
>do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do
They're retarded then

>>10325086
Little known fact. Singer got the idea for this from a story he was told by his grandfather. On his way to work one day, his grandfather saw a child who appeared to be drowning in a shallow pond, and saved him. The boy's name: Adolf Hitler.

>>10330187
That was a good episode of the Outer Limits.

>>10325086

>>10325086
The categorical imperative supports killing all utilitarians.

>>10325092
agreed lmaoooooo

>>10325092
Spooks are a spook

>>10325422
MUH SOCIETY MUHFUGGA
kys

>>10325578
Tell anal autistics to stop doing it, then.

>>10328250
Your embarrassing yourself

>>10328489
I doubt this but if it keeps me from feeling bad about not donating money to them I'll believe it. Thanks.

>>10328339
Okay same scenario except you're visiting a foreign country. You still let the child drown because he's competition?

>>10326345
54:34
>'freedom of speech' is different from 'freedom to a public platform'
>he can speak as long as we can stop anyone from hearing him, even if they came to listen

wow...

>>10331098
Yes, advocating the slaughter of unwanted invalids should be banned. The American concept of freedom of speech believe it or not is different than the scholastic one.

>>10325086
>How is he wrong, /lit/?
No-one is responsible for anyone else.

>>10325086
>listening to Peter "I want to fuck and marry animals" Singer as some kind of moral guide

Every utilitarian belongs in a mass grave.

>>10325086
>obligation

>>10330717
no I let him drown to prevent myself from violating an unspoken social rule. If there are other people around not saving him, why would I as a foreigner impose?

>>10325623
>I feel like doing things
>If I don't do the things I feel like doing I feel bad
>this feeling is the result of a moral obligation to do what I feel like doing
>more generally how things make us feel determines their moral quality.
Would you(or singer) commit to this line of reasoning?

ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE
>ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE
ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE
>ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE
ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE
>ETHICS IS NOT LITERATURE

That's why there is a HUMANITIES board. Why do the mods refuse to do their jobs?

>listen to this guy's moral conclusions

>he seems like a nutcase completely disentangled from the human condition and occupying the same mental realm as stalin or pol pot

>he's some kind of moral authority or something

>your average 12 year old kid has a more logical morality than this guy who dedicated his life to it or something

the fetishization of "logical" thinking was a mistake. the guy spends 50 years chasing his tail and at the end his conclusion is it's OK to kill children. jesus fucking christ.

>>10332063
Singer has written countless books you dunce.

>>10331126
>ban people from saying things I don't agree with

>>10332227
Yes, how is that a strange concept?

>>10332248
How is it not a different concept from freedom of speech.

I can be relatively certain that my actions, absent of any unusal events, on that given day will save the life of the child in the pond. I have no certainty whatsoever that my $5 donation monthly is going to save a life, it could just as easily find its way into the charity organiser's expenses account, or turn into supplies in the hands of a warlord.

If I save this child in this pond its life will be saved and it will likely not need saving from the pond again. If my charity donation saves a child in Africa tomorrow - great, only hundreds of millions left to go, and infinitely more so long as we keep propping up these nations that can not or will not sort themselves out. The proposes case is a problem I can solve, the implicit case is a well into which I could pour my life and not make a dent.

He's conflating two very different situations.

>>10331126
How is your speech free if no-one is allowed to hear it?

>>10332248
Most people would agree that their own speech shouldn't be limited as a basic right. It's a contradiction you see.

>utilitarism

>>10328236
>Hasn't even deconstructed morality yet
We're way past postmodernism my man this stuff isn't new

>>10328324
People misinterpreting post-structural thinking always makes me laugh. The existence of the "rock" may be an objective truth, but the fact that we consider it to be a "rock" in the first place is based on our subjective perspective.

>>10328487
It's a hypothetical situation to show the limits of utilitarianism. He's not saying it's anyone's moral obligation to sell the close of their back to help someone "in need"

>>10328840
>Doesn't understand that this is a hypothetical situation
>Doesn't understand it's meant to show how moral duty is bullshit

>>10330246
the categorical imperative supports sucking dick. The only reason why Kant is even remotely relevant is because he could summarized what everyone already knew during the enlightenment

>>10326324
to play devil's advocate one could say the following.
>are you thinking of getting an abortion because you think it'd make your life easier? then you should probably get one, the fact you accidentally got pregnant shows you're too irresponsible to raise a kid and give it a decent childhood, this shitty childhood will likely result in the rest of his or her life being shitty. it's more moral of you to simply end it now before it's birthed and then grows up to become smart enough to realize how shitty it's life is.

>>10332370
It's not. Free speech is a dumb term, either absurd because it doesn't allow a society to protect itself or it has an arbitrary line for what is free.

>>10328324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N9xARPfJYY&t=2s
prove the man in this video wrong. all is just appearance, end of story.

>>10332499
I wonder how much your subjective perspective of a rock will differ from mine when I use it to concave your skull.

>>10325422
>The bodies of two drowned Roma children lay covered by towels on an Italian beach while "indifferent" holidaymakers carried on enjoying the sun.

>Cristina Ibramovitc, 12, and Viola Ibramovitc, 11, were left on the sand for an hour among the holidaymakers after being caught in rough seas.

>The two, who are related but not sisters, were among four children who had gone onto the beach and beg and their deaths highlighted the treatment of Roma gipsy youngsters in Italy.

>>10332739
This is implying that gypsies are human

We should continue going to war for the profit of the 1%. Hyuck.

>>10332739
I wouldn't touch a living gypsy, I'm certainly not going to touch a dead one

What difference is this to saying there are aliens, possibly, out there that is suffering? Or in the other universe?

I say fuck them, if I am to worry about everything and everyone then everyone will be suffering. I am despaired by your suffering but at least let me enjoy my cigar, so that there is at least 1 person enjoying his life.

>>10325455
>the logical conclusion

The fact that you're thinking about it in terms of absolute logic and going "hey, the most extreme interpretation seems to imply this, and I don't like that, so I'll use this as an excuse to ignore the whole thing altogether" is what's stupid.

>>10334751
If you weren't a moron you'd understand that the extremes of a logical relation are still within the relation. Lmao, you can't even speak properly without contradicting yourself.

>>10325086
he’s just lying lol, and he’s emotionally extorting people using a fake and unlikely scenario. why are there kids on my campus and why are they not with adults? and why am i near a pond?

>>10325086
I am not obligated to save the drowning nigglet

>just give money to charities lmao
>never mind the logistics of actually putting food/clothes/medicine/whatever in the hands of those dying children are immensely complicated and totally obscure to you and you have absolutely no way to guarantee your aid is even going to the people you want it to
>just give your money away lmao

>>10332583
>it doesn't allow a society to protect itself
>ascribing human qualities to a "society"
behold: the most spooked man in existence

>>10331402
What are parents and children?

>>10332117
not children, babies, they have no agency or concept of self
that's why we (the west) allow abortion and don't consider it murder

>>10335035
the government (as the representative agent of society) is responsible for children within it's borders - and has taken that responsibility on often against the wishes of parents who believe they themselves should be the ones responsible

>>10335035
The former is an entity that fills up orphanages with the latter.

>>10325086
>laughing law students.jpg

>>10325086
saying you'd save the child and actually doing it are very different things, no one but King of the Edgelords is going to say "no" in class, but seeing it on your way is a different story.

the drowning child is imagined as white and part of ones community

the dying unknown person is imagined as some starvo nigga whose thought processes are basically alien, like an animal

this way we conceptualize these moral scenarios has a big effect on how we actually act in the real world.

>>10325623
If I were a sadist I might derive pleasure from watching a child drown. Does it mean I would have an objective moral obligation to him die?

>>10336360
>implying

>Implying your moral implication in an isolated accidental incident you have direct control and power over is the same as a moral implication of helping a constant societal evil that will continue if you give money or not

yes

>ctrl+f "mencius" and "mengzi"
>0 results
all of you ought to be hanged

If saving children is the ultimate good why don't we knuckle these people under and lay waste to their cultures until they stop throwing their children in ponds? Why pussyfoot around the issue with ineffectual charities?

>>10325086
>both children and adults
Slow that role of yours, friendo. Adults can take care of themselves.