/tg/ - Traditional Games

>worth
>objectively
Value judgements can at most be intersubjective, dumbass.

>>18707909

ur a faget, OP.

More importantly, you're looking at this problem from the most pants-on-head retarded angle possible.

But besides that, who the fuck fights for humanity? You fight to protect the bits you care about. If we're perfectly willing to fight other humans over shit, we're damn well willing to fight aliens or nature or whatever.

Humans are animals and as such we value survival and reproduction. If we did not, we would not exist.

>opinion incoming
nope. as a species, we're an endlessly expanding and consuming entity. it would be advised to wipe us out from orbit, lest we advance and eventually enslave/extinctify the observes as we expand and consume the universe and it's resources.

yeah sure we're creative and shit, but that means in the grand scheme of things.


it's not "humanity, fuck yeah", it's "humanity, oh fuck"

>>18707932
observers*

We're a messed-up race, but we have the potential to be great, which shines through all the bad stuff from time to time. It depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist.

>>18707932
means little*

jesus i cant type a coherent sentence tonight.

>>18707909
>like if say you were an alien looking at humanity from a distance...

>Still worth it? Why?
The sex. Have you ever sexed a human? They're very adept at the process, regardless of the form of their partner.

>We Earthians can develop rosier prospects. We have been to the Moon. We have landed eyes and ears on Mars. We are discovering planets hundreds of light years close which are ripe for life. We are on a journey to endless wonder in the Cosmos and to realising our own remarkable potential.

>To give this vision security, we must get our own planet in order.

>We have to manage the terrifying facts that Earth's citizenry is already using one hundred and twenty percent of the planet's productivity capacity - its renewable living resources; that the last decade was the hottest in the last 1300 years (if not the last 9000 years); that we are extincting our fellow species faster than ever before in human history; and that to accommodate ten billion people at American, European or Australasian rates of consumption we will need two more planets to exploit within a few decades.

>It may be that the Earth's biosphere cannot tolerate ten billion of us big consuming mammals later this century. Or it may be that, given adroit and agreeable global management, it can. It's up to us.

>Once more the answer lies between the poles: between the narrow interests of the mega-rich and a surrender to the nihilist idea that the planet would be better off without us.

So us greenies say yes. Except in terms of actually doing stuff that will help ensure the survival of humanity in the long term, rather than making threads about raping dolphins and "You aliens just activated my Trap Card!"

>>18707909

>but if you just step outside that fact for a second and look at things objectively, like if say you were an alien looking at humanity from a distance...

From that angle, humanity is a bunch of (clever) critters. Would you ask a bacteria if the bacterial culture is worth fighting for?

Humans are better at short term survival than any mammal our size or larger. We are out-competing thousands of species in many different ecological niches, and digging up and sorting a lot of rocks and stuff. That is all just meaningless fact unless you specify a value system. At that point, you are no longer being objective.

In my opinion you've got a pretty fucking stupid value system if you think that humanity should go extinct because it is driving other plant and animal species extinct. The vast majority of species that ever existed are extinct, most driven extinct by competition with more successful species. That's how nature works. Only a moron thinks humans aren't a part of nature. We're rather a rather new and unprecedented part, sure, but a part nonetheless. If we manage shit poorly and drive ourselves and most of the rest of life on earth extinct, such is the course of nature.

we are a race of selfish consumers with little care to out own impact on everyone else.

But then again, all life is inherently like this. The altruistic predator gets no food, and the mindful herbivore is outcompeted by it's careless bretherin.

so a race looking down on us from the stars would see life lifeing away, doing what it always does, and would probably spare us. Not because humanity is special but simply because we're not special. we are of no importance or special interest.

Humans are kind of dicks. Nah.

Nah, it aint.

There is no such thing as an objective viewpoint. Value judgements are inherently based around personal context.

The only viewpoint which should matter to you as a human, then, is the human viewpoint. You don't answer to some other race and their thoughts on your race's worth, you are accountable to yourself and God and nobody else, and nothing else.

Humans as a species are pretty great. Thumbs, fairly quick on the uptake, sorta hardy, good eyes, can shit out babies like whoa.
As a society? Nooooope.
I for one would welcome new alien overlords.

>>18708460
Out of curiousity, if the only view point that is important is the human one when it comes to ourselves, why then are you accountable also to God? Is God's viewpoint worth considering?

As others have pointed out, 'worth' is subjective. So perhaps the better question would be "Would you fight for humanity?"

Personally, I'm all in favour of pic related. Whether I'd have the convinction to go out and fight for it is another matter.

>>18707909
Yes.
Because, through tides of blood and tears, we are improving.
Slowly we conquer our tribal hatreds, gradually we embrace the Alien and the Stranger and see within them ourselves.
In tiny, awkward, tragedy-steeped steps we pay our penance and become a better people.
Some day we will all One, and on that day we will be worthy of growing into the view of the greater cosmos.

Yes. Yes, it is.
I'd die for my species a thousand times over.

>>18708616
God Made us so i'd say yeah it's opinion of us should matter to us. That said, as it trascends the world as we know it, It probably hasn't got "opinions" as we know them so... Let's just try.

Absolutely.

>>18708671
So is it only because God is the creator that you care about their viewpoint? I just find it difficult to reconcile the idea that we should only care about the viewpoint from our fellow man but, at the same time, we need to be concerned about how God views us, despite God's viewpoint being unknowable and his values being a bit... well, difficult to agree on.

If god created us he shouldnt have a judgemental viewpoint on what we re doing.
Thatd be like a dm getting pissed off at the imaginary lich in his homebrew setting for commiting evil acts.

>>18708722
See it on a pratical standpoint: you can't understand what it's plan is, exactly, but you can trust it on the fact that's beneficial on everyone in the long run (beacouse It's out of time) So you can either care about It's opinion and plan or try and make another plan on your own. Latter possibility probably won't work as intended (beacose you aren't out of time so you don't know all the variables) The former WILL but you'll probably not be' here to See it to fruition.What's your choice?

>>18707909
What makes you think aliens are any different that us?

>>18707932
>endlessly expanding and consuming

But that's any species, ever. The only reason other ones don't do it is because, unlike us, they don't have the means.

Any "observer" species would be no different. You don't get to the stars by going "yeah, nah, this is enough."

You do it by screaming "MORE!"

Morals are not something you can really define with objectivity, at least not in the way you're trying to define them.
Objectively we can define human suffering which we know is bad.
However you can not give me a non-subjective definition of good and evil.
Compare people to an evil society and we will appear good, compare people to a good society and we will appear evil.

Humanity not worht fightning for. We're doomed, as I see all the people around me. Ignorat bastards, and everyone care about money, but noone about basic human values that's been around for a while. I'm the kind of person who'd like to watch the world burn.

>>18708906
I would like to inform you that you are just like everyone else.

>>18708820
>but you can trust it on the fact that's beneficial on everyone in the long run (beacouse It's out of time)

This is one of the parts I have difficulty understanding; why is it beneficial to everyone in the long run? God's viewpoint is unknowable, and his values are at best very difficult to agree on.

I can ask my fellow man what their values and viewpoints are and, should they change, or should I act against them, they are capable of clearly telling me that they're not okay with what I'm doing in clear terms.

We can't know what the viewpoint and values are of an alien culture we're not aware of, so there's not really much need to worry about it. We can't know what the viewpoint and values are of an unknowable creator, so there's not really much need to worry about that either.

>>18708906
I would like to inform you that you are just like everyone else

Evolutinarily we are a freak run amok. Growing like a disease. Killing everything in our path. Contaminating the environment.

Philosophically we are without compare. There is no purpose, no direction, no idea behind it all. There is no goal, just a dirty self destructive endgame sacrificing the entire biosphere.

Ethically we are a toddler traipsing around the nursery with a burning torch.

>>18708806
You forget that God (if scripture is to be believed) gave us free will. Which means we're more like an entire planet of PCs.

That's right, /tg/. God is the DM for every THAT GUY ever.

I think we're doing just fine. We've had civilizations for 10,000 years, and in that time we've gone to the moon, discovered other worlds, and we're constantly trying to go further and faster.

We just need one final push and we can work toward the real goal.

Developing an endless tube of pringles through quantum mechanics.

Life is the right of all sentient beings.

>>18707909
See pic. No, seriously. Humanity isn't worth fighting for.

Fight for your friends, fight for your family, fight for yourself. You don't care about the others and they don't care about you, so just remove them from the equation and do what you feel/believe/think has to be done.

rolled 8 = 8

>>18708926
Fuck it. If we don't burn it down, it'll try to kill us anyway. If we don't realize the danger we're in, we'll never get out of the deathtrap we're already in.

I mean, shit. There are so many little ticking time bombs in nature, that if the right set of circumstances arrive, could completely screw over Humanity, that it's almost a better to just say fuck it all, and ride off into the dark of space in a few self-sustaining ships.

>>18707909
>>18707909
We create more than we destroy, we show affection more than we show hate, and even our trained soldiers of a standing army during a war show acts of spontaneous mercy more than acts of spontaneous violence.

Yeah, humanity, we are kind of destructive dicks, but our net affect on each other and everywhere we have been so far has been positive.

We are Humanity, look upon our works and tremble!

Perhaps, when you consider the scale of space and time then finding an alien civilization would be an extremely rare occurrence. Earth is 4.5 billion years old but it has only had something resembling a civilization for 10,000 or so years, so the aliens might just want to keep earth as a case study as they are unlikely to ever encounter another alien civilization again.

>>18707909
When in doubt, doubt your doubt.

>>18708926
> Evolutinarily we are a freak run amok.
Not really. We developed a successful strategy, but we are no 'a freak running amok' than any number of other, equally successful species.
> Growing like a disease.
Firstly, bacteria and viruses, diseases as you call them, are just as much a part of nature as anything else. There isn't anything inherrently bad about them.
> Killing everything in our path.
Firstly, hyperbole. We really don't. Secondly, all creatures naturally drive out competition. It has happened countless times throughout the history of the earth.
> Contaminating the environment.
Again, numerous species have done this, and continue to do so. The 'enviroment' isn't a stable, static thing, it is a net result of countless species attempting to shape it. Oxygen is just a result of plant life 'contaminating' the atmosphere with their waste products. Topsoil is just a result of life 'contaminating' the ground with it's digested food. It is natural for life to change it's environment.

> Philosophically we are without compare.
Since we are the only ones with philosophy? There is no other species to to compare too!

> There is no purpose, no direction, no idea behind it all.
Yes, we call that 'life'. Did you think birds had purpose?

> There is no goal, just a dirty self destructive endgame sacrificing the entire biosphere.
Yes, we call that 'life'. The biosphere changes, new evolutionary strategies are developed to fill the niche. Oxygen 'pollution' forced life to adapt, certain plants changing their silicon composition forced new forms of creatures to develop, etc. That is how life works.

> Ethically we are a toddler traipsing around the nursery with a burning torch.
And so is every other creature ever made.

I sat yes it is.

Humanity is great. We've done, are doing, and will be doing awful things, but as much as we have capacity for atrocities, we all have equal, if not greater capacity for good.

I'm an idealist, and I believe humanity is great.

Pic unrelated.

It's impossible to say if humanity is worth it.

We have no modicum of comparison, nothing to measure ourselves against. Until we meet another sapient species out there in the black expanse of space, we could be the universe's most horrific monsters, or its most noble saints.

To be honest, either one terrifies me. Honestly, humanity IS and that's good enough reason for me to fight. If we're flawed, broken, ignorant, barbaric and evil, it's nothing we can't fix, or else we would not be conscious of it as a species.

>>18707919
Humans lack even knowledge of true morality, but they can be taught it, so there is hope for them yet.

>>18709322
We can know humans are good without needing something else to compare them to.

>>18711924
>true morality
Which is what, yours?

>>18714873
The problem is that "good" is subjective. Ever read "The Baby-Eating Aliens"?

>>18707961
>already using one hundred and twenty percent
i don't think you know how percentages work

>>18707909
Yes.
The way I see it, I have two prime biological imperatives; to pass on my genes to my offspring, and to ensure they have the same opportunity. Fighting for your species very much falls under the latter.

>>18714986
Don't feed the hippies, son.

Is there any other species or race with as much of the potential for doing good as us? Within our worldview; aliens don't count.

(I'd be willing to state the answer is no.)

>>18715036
but.. its just.... SO STUPID

>>18715130
>hippies
Arguing with a hippie only makes you look stupid as well, friend.

I want to stick it in a star.

>>18715201
NATIONAL HERO

>>18715201
I want to stick it in a black hole.
Get on my level, lightweight.

>>18708689
>>18708621
People ask, "Is Humanity worth fighting for, and why?"
A better question, instead of "Is it worth it?" is "What can I do to make it worth it?"

And the fact that we can ask that question, ponder it and act upon if we so choose, is all the answer we need. Because there are people who say "Yes. I can make it worth fighting for."

And even if these people don't radically change the world, even if they're not a great inventor, or artist or poet, they still do their best to do what they can.

It may not be much, but every little bit helps. It may not even be enough, but it's far better to say, "I did what I could, while I could, instead of nothing."

>>18715230
But you won't feel a thing.

>>18715242
Worth it for the glory.
I also wanna bone Luna. Dem craters.

I have learned two things in this thread.

1. That several commenters on TG think extinct is a verb.

2. That several commenters on TG will discuss God as if it's a real thing.

I am disappointed.

>>18715430
Being a nerd doesn't have intelligence and education as prerequisites.

>>18715430
As an atheist, I say that believing in a god is far more interesting than being content with nothing. Animals don't believe in anything, rocks don't believe in anything. The belief in something completely intangible is something totally unique to mankind, and I say let humans believe in it, because while the universe belongs to nobody, God belongs to us.

>>18708943

Not spreading far and wide into space *will* kill us sooner or later, and nature - in the sense of Earth - has little to do with it. there is so much shit out in the universe that can ruin us in an instant it makes doomsday scenarios like 2012 sound laughable.

A stray gamma ray burst, with no rhyme or reason to it, could sterilize this place quite handily.

I imagine that should we ever become a regularly space-faring race, we'll build up a catalog of dead races, the ones who never thought to leave their homeworld - or never got the chance.

Of course, if we're unlucky or foolish, we'll be counted among them.

>>18715646

I dunno, I don't find the believe in God/gods all that interesting. It's an exercise in imagination, belief, and wishful thinking.

In short: not much fucking different from what we do on /tg/ and in our /tg/ hobbies.

>>18708689
I was going to make a statement about how the world wasnt worth fighting for and the only reason we would fight is because we all want to live not caring about anything else . Then I saw this picture . Maybe humanity isn't worth fighting for .But I'll try

>>18715646
What utter bollocks. Most religions and creation myths are incredibly shitty stories made up by backwards ass people who all ripped eachother off. The actual physical nature of the universe being far more interesting and mysterious. Animals don't use science to try and rationally understand the universe.

Cats don't write books either, be happy with fiction staying fiction. Religion is a negative influence on mankind.

>>18717615
dat troll. If it wasnt religion it would be another power that controlled simpletons. people will always abuse power over others, even if they have to make something new up.

2/10, but only 2 because i responded

>>18717615
What's next, "morality impedes scientific advancement"?

I find the logic in this thread insufficient.

To perceive humanity through the eyes of an alien race you must specify the characteristics of the alien, in broad strokes of course for instance: if we encountered a race identical to us in respects to enviornmental tolerance and warlike temperament most certainly there wouldnd be great conflict over the resources we both need to live and grow.

But say we encounter space planarians that populate gas and consume chemicals and minerals for sustinence. I seriously doubt that we would war with such creatures because we won't compete for living space or basic life resources, indeed, an alliance would be mutually beneficial as we would both colonize different parts of the same solar systems.

So my answer would be that a trait common to all living beings is the desire to fill the space around you with more you, and anything that gets in the way better defend itself.

>objectively
>value

Either way;
Why the fuck not. We're the only sentient life that's this intelligence that we know of so far.

The Doctor says yes, and who are we to argue with the guy who completely wiped out the Time Lords?

>>18717787
Yes, it does.

But giving up our humanity to advance technology is not an acceptable sacrifice.

Unless you find something more exciting to fight for, sure.

>>18717787
Of course it does, morality is entirely culturally relative.

There are things that cultures used to, and to this day, consider immoral, that we consider to be just everyday activity.

Treating morality as some sort of meta-physical road that we should define everything we do by is just as much of a mistake as disregarding any form of morality.

>>18717743
The point I was replying to was whether having religion makes life or humanity more interesting. It demonstrably does not due to the limited nature of those who conceived it and how it pales in comparison to much greater less conceited works of fiction.

Your point about religion being a tool of stagnation and oppression is unrelated but:
The power religion has over daily life has been diminished greatly in modern states and secular societies can and do exists.
So tools of oppression would occur anyway so religion is fine? This is false on the basis religion is specifically abhorrent in its nature above say economics, social structure, culture etc. as a method of tyranny.

I will gladly debate religion with you sir. But /tg/ is not the place.

>>18717888
So you disagree that, say, medieval culture, or radical Islamic culture, or whatever, are worse than modern, Western culture, where we don't hang people for stealing loaves of bread and where we have good medicine and create new technology?

>>18714986
No, it's being used correctly. He's saying that we're using resources at an unsustainable rate, that is, that we're using up stores of resources, depleting soil nutrients, emptying aquifers and so forth faster than they are being replenished. Now, I don't know if the exact figure is correct, but saying one rate is 120% of another rate is perfectly valid, and is equivalent of saying that rate is 20% greater than the second rate or that the second rate is 83 and one third percent of the first rate. This is assuming the rates are in equivalent units, which in this case they are.

A particularly clever, hairless ape.


Considering the smartest man is to I, Lord Buttfucker (which in your language translates to as "He Who Glides Upon The Aether On Shining Wings"), as the smartest termite is to you, I pay you no heed, and continue on my way.

>>18717954
I said nothing like that?

In fact, quite the opposite?

>>18717888
Would you say that discarding morality to speed up scientific advancement is worth the cost?

>>18717787
Morality can impede scientific advancement.
Some obviously morally wrong actions have advanced science. Some morals get in the way of experiments.

To what extent we're willing to allow suffering in the name of advancement is the most basic of ethical dilemma in science.
e.g. animal testing,

With scientifically obtained data, philosophical discussion and dialogue on a society wide level we can decide how we want to balance these two factors.

>>18717818
This is under the assumption that an interstellar species would be at all interested in planets what so ever.

>>18717977
I pity your arrogance Xeno scum.

>>18707909
It's hard to come by what we have, so yes.
Your question is very dumb.

>>18717996
Nope.
And neither for the opposite.

>Treating morality as some sort of meta-physical road that we should define everything we do by is just as much of a mistake as disregarding any form of morality.

It's a step-by-step process. We pick at what we believe in our attempts to advance what we know.

>>18718023
Yeah, some Nazi data is used in medical science nowadays.

You have to wonder, just where would our medicine be these days if we discarded morality?

>>18717996
>Would you say that discarding morality to speed up scientific advancement is worth the cost?
hurr durr
That doesn't even make any sense. If the benefits of advancement outweigh the harms of ignoring current ethical practices then that would for example fit perfectly within a utilitarian moral framework.

>>18718023
How do you define morality?

I like the definition; Immortality is an action which, if everyone did it, society would no longer function.

This nicely avoids all the emotivism and cheap, knee jerk, traditionalism that people cling to.

>>18717996
It depends on the specific case, and on the moral system. Certainly from a utilitarian moral system, some deontological or virtue based moral requirements are immorally impeding better outcomes, but others would be seen as necessary from their effect on people's confidence in medical and scientific professionals and institutions, which leads to better outcomes in general.
So different moralities disagree with each other over what is valuable, even before making questions of fact. Which is pretty trivial, but it does mean your question as asked is a bit hard to answer as it's pretty ambiguous

>>18718080
For one thing, most people would go back to using magic to treat their diseases as they'd be scared of going to hospitals. Those who do follow science would make their own remedies or take fairly strict measures to ensure their safety when being treated. People would want to be armed at all times and ready to shoot to kill at any threat so that they don't get kidnapped for vivisection.

>>18718080
See Tesla and then come back.

Also:
This thread could skip ahead and just start talking about greed, charity, and boredom.

>>18718093
Morality is a set of frameworks with which you can determine whether an action is good or bad in terms of an overall desired goal.
The simplest possible form of it being utilitarian reduction in suffering.
Suffering is pretty obviously bad.
We want as little suffering as possible.
Action increases suffering = bad
Action decreases suffering = good

Obviously that is all rather basic and black and white. From there you get more nuance.

Obviously a good moral framework is based on sound logical reasoning, general accepted elements of human nature, widely held social beliefs and scientific facts.

I personally subscribe to a Rawlsian view of things.

>>18718149
Right, not to mention that people without morals would lie about gods and shit to fool the uneducated.

>>18718235
>>18718149
Wait, who are we and what morality are we discarding?
If we're assuming the state then we educate the new generation that their sacrifice in the name of science is a noble one that further benefits society. Of course we would instill a greater level of reverence for society as a whole on them.
We can also heavily incentivize experiments, people are quite happy to sell themselves into slavery with the right motivators.

Honestly just because we're being amoral about it, doesn't me we have to be stupid.

>Immortality is an action which, if everyone did it, society would no longer function.

This is a bad definition because certain immoral (by this definition) things can happen and society would still function.
Just thought of an example: Completely ignoring cries of rape.

>>18718311
Or freeing the negro from slavery. That was immoral, but the yankee imperialist tyranny is still functioning fairly well.

>>18718309
Medical science would benefit greatly from their sacrifice.

>>18718309
But you're assuming that people won't be stupid. Which makes you pretty stupid.
You could shoot back and say that the theoretical progress made would outweigh the theoretical suffering and in the end the means will be justified, but that is fucking subjective on top of the fact that it stretches logic so thin that it could be countered with, "Okay, but what if it didn't do all those good things and did these bad things instead?" or maybe even, "Okay, so it does those good things. Then these bad things happen."
Meaningless. Like a world without morality.

>>18718343
That's right, all kinds of slavery would be okay by this definition.

>>18718346
If that's the only thing you want, you're being shortsighted.

>>18718403
All I was saying is there are highly amoral ways of structuring a society which is essentially a technocracy without having to randomly pick little kids off the street and vivisect them for shits and giggles.
What you have asked us to do is create a society which puts scientific advancement first and will ignore any morals to do so. This does not equal a society that does bad things nonstop, just one that is happy to do them when its the most efficient way.

But what you're saying is the argument is moot anyway because the benefits are long term and indeterminate versus short term and obvious prolonged suffering. Fair enough. I agree with you, we need to balance our drive for long term good with short term.

What are we even arguing about?

maybe for similar ecological/cultural/curiosity/fondess reasons that we might conserve the wildlife on our planet, but there comes a point of inherent, almost necessary speciesism, in that in most cases if a choice had to be made between human lives and ecology, and nonhuman biomes, it would seem reasoably to most that the human cause win out, and I would agree except in the case of aggressive overpopulation

>>18718309
>we educate the new generation that their sacrifice in the name of science is a noble one that further benefits society.

This step requires to appeal to a whole generation on a moralistic level. Without morals, the here and now would be more important than the distant future.

>>18718462
>If that's the only thing you want, you're being shortsighted.
I think we're engaging in a theoretical exercise here. No one is honestly thinking we should do this.

We're just discussing the retarded point
>>18717787
made which creates a false dichotomy.

>>18717926
>
So tools of oppression would occur anyway so religion is fine? This is false on the basis religion is specifically abhorrent in its nature above say economics, social structure, culture etc. as a method of tyranny.

Wait, are you counting Atheism itself as a religion? If so, then I guess you could say you were accurate (somewhat) in that. However, if you were not, I think a few modern day leaders would like a word with you.


On the topic, is it just me or does it seem the further we go along technologically the more we scoff at the achievements created by those before us?

>>18718614

>implying I can properly quote after a successful cuntpaste.

>>18718588
What? We're trying to further scientific advancement. I assume the reason we're doing that is because we believe that is the most important thing humanity can do and/or the long term benefits to society outweigh any short term suffering.

We're still using a moral framework, just a different one with different motivations.

And I don't see why me as the morally bankrupt head of my imaginary state can't lie and brainwash these kids.

>>18718627
Oh, you're being silly.

>>18718627

Because then the liberals would win.

>>18718680
OP is so dumb they won the moment this thread started.

>>18718594
Yeah, the thing that poster was after is the theoretical result of a world where scientific advancement supersedes morality.

>>18718719

Probably quite a bit of genocide. I mean seriously, while the atom bomb seems to vaporize the japanese to dust, it may have a different effect on the Russians!

>implying they make it that far.

>>18718744
Amorality does not lead to stupidity.

>>18718614
No atheism isn't a religion.

Religion as a tool which robs the individual of a proper concept of reality, gives no earthly method of redress, limits freedom through indoctrination on a more fundamental level than others, directly harms rational thought which is required to be free and is downright stupid and intractable in its tyranny.

Communism is bad when used as a tool of oppression but all secular systems of government are at least open to dissent from rational members of that society even if you're shot for it. The concepts of socialism can be argued with, the government can be seen as faulty and Stalin can be shot, With a religious system you are unable to argue, it is inerrant and this world is supposedly only transient so the risks seem far greater.

This doesn't mean that non religious tyranny can't be more effective due to other factors, just that as a concept religion is a greater tool of oppression. This is of course ignoring the further problems with religion.

>>18718781

It also doesn't leave much room for mercy.

>>18718781
I'm glad to have an expert on theoretical social science in this thread. It would have 404'd without you! Amorality leads to stupidity just as it leads super utopia dreamland. Just like morality.
You see how dumb this is?

>>18718793

I don't think there is much room to dissent (or much of anything, free will and otherwise) when you get shot at for beng even publically associated with religion. Nit picking on that bit, of course. For the most part actually Communism hasn't been used for much else than a secular tyranny it seems.

While religion has it's downsides it has also been the foundation for equal rights movements for African Americans and due to it's diversity allowed for things such as the freedom to express one's religious beliefs to occur.

Proper Concept of reality? Sounds a bit more eye of the beholder to me. Downright stupid? Sounds more like an opinion built on bigotry.

But let's face it, with or without religion people would find a way to control desperate masses to do their biddng, whether to rally against a group invading one's privacy, or to organizing prison systems for people who go against the status quo.

>>18718844
It doesn't lead to either. Surely we're talking about a shift in priorities rather than 'lol imma blow up this nuke just to see what is does'.

I'm not going to get my lab results by murdering all my test animals for shits and giggles.

While I agree a society where we are fine with testing chemicals on people to see what they do even if it means they die in horrible screaming agony is bad, it doesn't meant that a society which puts ethics behind advancement is going to act fucking retarded.

Also I'm unclear whether we are structering our society from the top as one geared towards advancement and screw the costs OR is everyone suddenly just amoral and we all want to advance science?

>>18718916
I assume that the former was the poster's intent.

>>18718916

Screw the rules, I have power.

>>18719024
There's a difference between Chaotic Stupid and amorality.

You can't tell the difference, it seems.

>>18719052

Sorry was too busy pretending to push a scientific agenda while killing random dudez. That's amorality for you. You still realize bombs kill things, and you get a piece of used real estate!
Almost everyone wins!

>>18718911
Religion was also used to justify slavery and the jim crow laws. Almost as though people believe what they want and just use religion to justify it.

>>18718462
It's the most obvious benefit. Exploring the limits of the human body can also allow us to determine how to bring it back from the brink of death.

>>18718911
>I don't think there is much room to dissent.
I'm saying in concept you can argue with communism on a rational level whereas in a religious theocracy you can't. Though in the case of the USSR you'd usually be shot for suggesting capitalism provides a more fair society at least you're able to able that argument.
>While religion has it's downsides
Many
>it has also been the foundation for equal rights movements for African Americans
Does not excuse previous or ongoing negative elements. Also basic concepts like equality are easy enough to justify through moral reasoning with a magic sky god.
>Sounds a bit more eye of the beholder to me
If I have an improper world view (religion describes the world in a way which is not true e.g. including magic in it) means you can't rationally act and achieve as much freedom as possible as an individual.
>Downright stupid? Sounds more like an opinion built on bigotry.
Sorry I was making a larger point about religious tyranny sometimes not having any real direction or goal i.e. its leaders often buy into their own bullshit. This means they may do things which are bad not even in the name of keeping their seat of power, just for religious reasons. And it means their moral arbitration are inherently stagnant.
>But let's face it, with or without religion people would find a way to control desperate masses
Other methods being bad doesn't make religion good. And hell religion is just a worse reason FOR setting up a tyrannical state and will often perpetrated the examples you just suggested to maintain itself.

I swear I'm going to get banned for this. sage for religious discussion on /tg/. If you wish to argue more give me an email or something.

>>18719100
Yeah, it can be an appeal to any sort of 'higher form of morality'.

In a world where everyone was moral, they'd VOLUNTEER to be used as test subjects to further progress. Business men and scientists would collaborate instead of compete. More patents would be available for anyone to use instead of products being sat on purely for future profits.

Tesla worked for the people: Made his research available to everyone.
Medical corporations only concerned with making money today are in no hurry to give us the most effective and affordable care.

>>18719100

What? People...bending whatever they want to try and fit how they live? Gee, it's almost like that hasn't been occuring since the rise of civilization, this is a breakthrough. Children won't starve, people will be dancing in the streets!'

To apologize for such an outrageous condenscending speech here is a picture of a guy fighting a three headed dragon with a guitar.

>>18719207
Which would be great. But it would never happen as we're ignoring a lot of human nature.

>>18719211
The point being a religious moral argument purports to have greater justification in the form of a higher power which does not exists whereas a moral argument based on logic can be broken down to its simplest parts and discussed on an equal level to another.

>>18718911
>I don't think there is much room to dissent

Should've stopped there. Even in countries with vast freedoms, our right to dissent has been stigmatized, and a vast marketing program has painted the revolutionary as the Other, a joke to be laughed at, a flash in the pan, or an enemy to you the consumer. Name the last revolutionary cause in the first world that was even given the time of day.

Vast oceans of money all but guarantee that you simply don't give a shit; that you'll stay insulated from reality in a cocoon of goods, that you'll demand a yoke made of debt, and that you'll look down on your neighbor for accepting charity. Marketing has become an art, to the point where behavior of the masses is sculpted by interests who require things. The machine of consumer capitalism at-large demands an ever-increasing pool of debtors who attempt to fuel infinite growth. Individual lobbies demand a pliant governmental body willing to bend to their needs to try to chase that growth. And companies need to convince us that we NEED this shit, to the point that we'll mortgage our lives to obtain them.

Now, those who do have the wherewithal to actually dissent, to go in the streets and shout and bleed and die, they're earning freedom by degrees at an unprecedented rate. The truly old and backwards regimes are falling down. But that is only because they want it, because they're hungry and angry enough to take to the streets in the first place. When you're already risking death to cry for food for your children, it's easy to also throw in proper civil rights. We're too fat and distracted to make the effort in the first place.

>>18719131
That's great for when you're about to die, but not so great when you're the one being tested on. It'd be moral to give yourself to science without any reward. There could be more research done if everyone wasn't so amoral.

>>18719223
Morality is a part of human nature and has helped progress society just as amorality has.

>>18719275
People not signing up to be vivisected is not amoral. They have no major moral imperative to do so.

Your moral duty to the rest of society has limits and you've not just that any benefits from an individual giving themselves up for this specific societal goal outweighs the loss of the individual's other possible contributions, loss of his personal freedom, the suffering he incurs and the detrimental effect on society as a whole such a system would have.

The possibility of scientific advances being brought through this method are a) an unknown and questionable and b) brought through creating a system of immense personal suffering in a society which devalues individual human life.

>>18719295
I don't understand where you're getting this weird black and white moral, amoral split. It can be a perfectly reasonable moral argument to make that you have no stake in society since you never chose to join it at birth and the fruit of your labour is your own.
That is still acting with moral principle and is not amoral. Selfishness can be perfectly moral, fear of death is perfectly moral, prioritizing suffering infront of you or of those close to you over that of a nebulous society is moral.

You can't call everything outside of one narrow framework amoral.

And people are selfish, they are personally ambitions, they are jealous and prideful, they do put emotions first, they do dislike pain and death and these drives are most often much more strong than the SINGLE moral argument you've put forward which differs from the moral motivations of many others.

>>18717987
You said morality was culturally relative. If that's true, there can be no objective comparison of the moralities of various cultures, wince any such comparison would have to appeal to a higher morality independent of any culture.

>>18719295
>Morality ... has helped progress society just as amorality has hindered it.
FTFY

>>18708906
so what? the aliens would be some peace loving race with the universes and other races best interests in mind and at heart? hell no! they would be just as greedy, just as corrupt, and just as self centered as us. they would not be some peaceful in tune with nature civilzation. they would be expandtionist recorce hungery civilzation.

>>18726773
Funny how he talks about how people don't care about human values and finishes with saying how he wants to watch the world burn.

>>18726773
Earth doesn't have much resources can't find elsewhere in the solar system in greater quantities.

Let's assume we meet another species like us, it'd be a lot more useful to establish trade relationship. That's what we do, we try and find a way to co-exist. Perhaps they can provide us with technology to improve our space technology.