PragerU's Not a Real Uni and Murder is Wrong.

[the_randomizer]

But you agree that it is possible for people like that to exist, right?

Yes, and I think people who think this is okay are sick, twisted sociopaths.

 

[osm70]

Yes, and I think people who think this is okay are sick, twisted sociopaths.

I would agree with you.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I'm not religious, but I'm also not an atheist, and I'm not going to spend hours dissecting a video that has a stupid premise to begin with. His basic argument is that all morality outside of religion or god is reduced to "opinion," but that would make all morality nothing but opinion because nobody has proven the existence of god yet. Morality, even for religious people, is obviously informed by far more than their religion alone. Otherwise goat sacrifices would still be as common as they were in the year zero.

And you know what, honesty, that. There are some things that just genuinely don't warrant intellectual discussion. A video that claims that moral authority comes from a higher power, despite "do-gooder" atheists and agnostics clearly existing with no incentive to follow what are supposedly religious moral standards, is kind of one of those things that exists purely to be laughed at if you think about it for more than 2 seconds

 

[Foxi4]

I mean, you could have just started off by asking, rather than taking the crusader route of asserting that your faith is objective truth and then making us come to you.

But, for your answer, murder is wrong for the same reason rape and theft (in most cases) are wrong; you're taking something (in this case, life) from someone else without their consent. If you want to think of the Ten Commandments as objective moral law, I'd have no qualms with that, but you have to understand that they are also Jewish in origin, and the Commandments themselves are borrowed from a condensed version of Hammurabi's code; which is to say, the idea of Supreme Wrongs has existed LONG before Christianity

It's also worth mentioning that I was raised Christian, and I still occasionally go to and appreciated church -- but I was also religious to an extreme at one point, and after seeing what that did to me, I've distanced myself considerably from Christianity and prefer a more "do good without witness or reward" approach

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


? God's a capitalist?

Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.

I see your argument

You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons

But that is a very subjective argument

You are basically saying it exists because we all feel it exists and say it exists

But you can never prove it exists either by a logic problem or otherwise scientifically

And this is why we say value is subjective - because unlike objective fact which can be measured, this can only be felt

Intrinsic value is definitionally derrived from practical application - that's the point of "intrinsic", it's the value that a given item or being has de facto. It can absolutely be measured - you can only be so thirsty or so hungry before you die, you can only live for so long and you can only exist for so long without companionship or entertainment before you go crazy. Nobody in their right mind would argue against biological needs.

I also disagree with the statement that this stance dispenses with philosophy - it is deeply rooted in philosophy, it just happens to align with science.

 

[Xzi]

Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.

Maybe, but our current system is more along the lines of crony capitalism or oligarchy. Workers don't get paid even half of the value that their labor produces, monopoly laws are no longer enforced, and punishment for crime is uneven depending on financial/corporate standing.

 

[Foxi4]

Maybe, but our current system is more along the lines of crony capitalism or oligarchy. Workers don't get paid even half of the value that their labor produces, monopoly laws are no longer enforced, and punishment for crime is uneven depending on financial/corporate standing.

How is that in conflict with capitalism? Workers get paid precisely how much their labour is worth based on supply and demand. As for monopoly laws, I agree with a caveat - monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing and they're subject to a case by case analysis. A monopoly is only a bad phenomenon if it provides sub-par goods and services for inflated prices. You have to prove that with evidence. Nowadays Google is an example of a harmful monopoly, to look for examples.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Capitalism is the most natural state of peaceful interaction - humans have exchanged goods and services by ascribing value to them for as long as humanity has existed. The only modern twist here is fiat currency.

That's kinda spitting in the face of nomadic hunter-gatherer communities, including most of the families featured in Genesis, but... Sure?

 

[Foxi4]

That's kinda spitting in the face of nomadic hunter-gatherer communities, including most of the families featured in Genesis, but... Sure?

Not really, no. If you look at the particular customs you will see that their basis was trade of services. Everyone in the tribe had a particular function and the fruits of their labour were exchanged for other goods. Just look at arranged marriages - a bride would be valued at a certain amount of goods because the bride herself is a prospect of having offspring which bears the intrinsic value of being able to pass on your genetic material to the next generation. You could argue that that's a commune, but I would argue against that supposition - trades have existed for a very long time and certain family trees were tasked with certain jobs within the primitive social structure.

 

[Xzi]

How is that in conflict with capitalism? Workers get paid precisely how much their labour is worth based on supply and demand.

They don't though. Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades. Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.

As for monopoly laws, I agree with a caveat - monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing and they're subject to a case by case analysis. A monopoly is only a bad phenomenon if it provides sub-par goods and services for inflated prices. You have to prove that with evidence. Nowadays Google is an example of a harmful monopoly, to look for examples.

Tech and social media are the worst about this now. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas. On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment. I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US. I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s. Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.

 

[Foxi4]

Of course, I THINK murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But YOU might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.

(You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)

That's demonstrably false because you yourself don't want to be killed, raped or deprived of your belongings. You are well-aware of the fact that those things are evil, but once you put the choice through a cost-benefit equation and decide to commit those acts, you decide that they're worth it for you in your current situation. The only thing steering you the other way would be a closely-knit social structure, and that is often built on top of a religious standard. In other words, you need to be faced with certain stakes, whether you realise it or not. Those are not necessarily based in religion, they can be based in tradition or custom, but the point stands.

They don't though. Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades. Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.


Tech and social media are the worst about this now. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas. On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment. I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US. I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s. Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.

I'll happily agree with half of what you just said. Alternatives to existing services must necessarily pop up and the government must necessarily put their foot down in terms of treating the Internet as, effectively, a public arena no different than a town square.

 

[osm70]

That's demonstrably false because you yourself don't want to be killed, raped or deprived of your belongings. You are well-aware of the fact that those thongs are evil, but once you put the choice through a cost-benefit equation and decide to commit those acts, you decide that they're worth it for you in your current situation. The only thing steering you the other way would be a closely-knit social structure, and that is often built on top of a religious standard. In other words, you need to be faced with certain stakes, whether you realise it or not. Those are not necessarily based in religion, they can be based in tradition or custom, but the point stands.

I'll happily agree with half of what you just said. Alternatives to existing services must necessarily pop up and the government must necessarily put their foot down in terms of treating the Internet as, effectively, a public arena no different than a town square.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that it isn't possible for me to not think that murder is bad and if I commit murder, I must know that I am doing something bad?

 

[Foxi4]

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that it isn't possible for me to not think that murder is bad and if I commit murder, I must know that I am doing something bad?

You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.

One could say the same about paying someone below a livable wage, but just a few posts ago you were arguing that wage should be aligned with supply and demand

 

[burial]

Okay, so I'm gonna assume the OP is an atheist... Why is murder wrong? That's an interesting discussion, because as someone who agrees with the video, I have been trying to figure out a possible atheistic source for objective morality for quite a while now and I'm coming up short every time. Sure, we can have "majority rule" morality, but that's still not objective "right" and "wrong", that's just law.

Do you want someone to kill you?

No?

Thats all you need to know that killing is wrong.....

 

[Foxi4]

One could say the same about paying someone below a livable wage, but just a few posts ago you were arguing that wage should be aligned with supply and demand

I don't see the contradiction. Prices are determined by supply and demand, workers are paid as much as they agree to be paid via consensual contract. Nobody is forced to work in modern, developed societies - we've dispensed with slavery. If you want to argue that this is evil, you have to first deal with the fact that the worker in question entered into a legally binding contract with consent from both sides. If the contract is not beneficial to the worker and the worker signs it, he's an idiot. If less workers agreed to sub-par contracts, demand would be higher and wages would increase. It's the workers who are in charge in this relationship, they're the ones accepting unacceptable terms of employment. Supply and demand holds.

 

[osm70]

You would be in a state of logical inconsistency and cognitive dissonance if you didn't think that. You are aware that you have the desire to live and you choose to deprive someone else of that right for personal benefit - that's objectively evil, it's a choice.

OK, what about this? (Keep in mind that this is an example and it is not the way I feel or think.)

"People with green eyes are terrible and they should all be killed. Green-eyed people don't deserve to live and they shouldn't have any rights. I am not doing anything wrong by killing them. In fact, I am doing humanity a favor by getting rid of the worthless scum that just wastes place. They are eating OUR food, so the less of them, the better."

So, assuming I don't have green eyes myself and I think the way I just described, I wouldn't actually think I am doing anything wrong.


And if you think having a mindset like that isn't possible then explain for example racism or for example the Holocaust. I am pretty sure Hitler didn't think he's in the wrong.

 

[Foxi4]

OK, what about this? (Keep in mind that this is an example and it is not the way I feel or think.)

"People with green eyes are terrible and they should all be killed. Green-eyed people don't deserve to live and they shouldn't have any rights. I am not doing anything wrong by killing them. In fact, I am doing humanity a favor by getting rid of the worthless scum that just wastes place. They are eating OUR food, so the less of them, the better."

So, assuming I don't have green eyes myself and I think the way I just described, I wouldn't actually think I am doing anything wrong.


And if you think having a mindset like that isn't possible then explain for example racism or for example the Holocaust. I am pretty sure Hitler didn't think he's in the wrong.

You've picked an arbitrary characteristic which denotes ideology. You are defending your tribe against external threats, this includes "The Other" which are de facto enemies as they are different to you. We overcame that instinct by introducing communities, both religious communities and nations. "The Other" is a well-known and researched subject. Hitler's Reich is entirely based on it, but that flattens the argument to a single dimension. People forget that Germany had legitimate grievances in addition to the irrational ones.

EDIT: Thanks, autocorrect.

 

[Xzi]

I don't see the contradiction. Prices are determined by supply and demand, workers are paid as much as they agree to be paid via consensual contract. Nobody is forced to work in modern, developed societies - we've dispensed with slavery. If you want to argue that this is evil, you have to first deal with the fact that the worker in question entered into a legally binding contract with consent from both sides. If the contract is not beneficial to the worker and the worker signs it, he's an idiot. If less workers agreed to sub-par contracts, demand would be higher and wages would increase. It's the workers who are in charge in this relationship, they're the ones accepting unacceptable terms of employment. Supply and demand holds.

Wage slavery is still slavery, just with extra steps. Unless you're applying for CEO, the worker does not have the power in most employment situations. The system is rigged in the employer's favor, especially in 'right to work' states where raises no longer exist because it's cheaper to just hire somebody new.

 

[Foxi4]

Wage slavery is still slavery, just with extra steps. Unless you're applying for CEO, the worker does not have the power in most employment situations. The system is rigged in the employer's favor, especially in 'right to work' states where raises no longer exist because it's cheaper to just hire somebody new.

Workers absolutely have power over the company, the company doesn't exist without the workers. This isn't even a right-wing talking point, this is a left-wing talking point and the origin of worker's unions.

 

[osm70]

You've picked an arbitrary characteristic which denotes ideology. You are defending your tribe against external threats, this includes "The Other" which are designed facto enemies as they are different to you. We overcame that instinct by introducing communities, both religious communities and nations. "The Other" is a well-known and researched subject. Hitler's Reich is entirely based on it, but that flattens the argument to a single dimension. People forget that Germany had legitimate grievances in addition to the irrational ones.

We did? Tell that to some extremist groups that still exist today.