What are the arguments for and against the natural equality of man?
All equally human.
>>752255
what does that actually mean?
"Man" and "humanity" don't exist. It's a loose category we apply to similarly shaped fleshy objects, but where we draw the line is arbitrary. Are peasants human? Niggers? Neanderthals? Chimpanzees? Even drawing the standard at being able to interbreed is kinda arbitrary.
We all live under same laws of physics
>>752258
All humans currently alive belong to the species Homo sapiens, the ability to interbreed demonstrates this,regardless of neanderthal or denisovan admixture.
>>752262
>"Man" and "humanity" don't exist. It's a loose category we apply to similarly shaped fleshy objects, but where we draw the line is arbitrary.
Is that a statement of fact or an assertion?
>>752262
>being able to interbreed is kinda arbitrary
It's not, it the least arbitrary of all categorisations used.
>>752267
I assume you're for equality
>why do you think all men are equal
>because they are equally human
>and they are equally human because they a) belong to the same species and b) can "interbreed"
is this correct?
but my question is, of what relevance is that to the argument for equality?
>>752264
could you please state what relevance this has to the argument for equality?
>>752278
How am I being redundant?
This is an interesting thread. We're raised to believe in values like equality but has anyone taken the time to critically examine why we should?
for: we are all sapient beings
against: there may be different levels of sapience, imagine a giant brainbeast which has the brains of 100s of people that are neurally connected and is essentially like a giant crowd of people, should it have more or less rights than 1 human? the answer is yes, which implies different humans vary in sapience levels and thus deserve more wealth and rights than others
>>752277
It is relevant because in the end there exist objective basis where we all equal to each other. Other example is death. All men are equal to each other because they all mortal.
>>752289
> deserve more wealth
For fucking what? If brain beast is so smart he can use his brains at honest work. You don't pay people for being smart, being sentient or even just being.
>>752299
you're arguing for the motion that "all LIFE is equal". There's a distinction.
>objective basis where we all equal to each other
could you elaborate?
Question for non-egalitarians.
What ought to be done with people who you do not consider equally worthy of respectful and humane treatment?
>>752321
being against "equality" doesn't necessarily mean you're advocating for disrespectful or inhumane treatment, as you've implied.
>>752310
> Could you elaborate?
There is no broad concept of equality. Equality is just assumption that you hold in certain systems that working around humans and depending from the type of the system you can treat humans as equal or other way around. Objectively all people would be equal in context of something that can destroy all life on the earth for example. In other cases you can separate them and threat as not equal. Basically there is no universal statement about equality of people that matters in practice.
>>752252
in an infinitely long time scale all things are equal but we'll all be dead
Natural equality of humans doesn't work because not every human will see another as it's equal. Metaphysical human rights is a joke.
Go read Arendt for why natural rights are a shit way for arguing for equality.
>>752321
People that are shown to have genes that predispose them to have retarded offspring should be sterelized.
Imo natural mutation ismenough trash our dna has tomdeal with, a human needing 24/7 care and is inable to pull their own weight should be castrated since kiling seems a slipery slope
>>752338
so what is the good way of arguing for equality?
>>752342
Are you talking about equality or natural rights? obviously natural rights are entirely social constructs.
>>752321
People that are shown to have genes that predispose them to have retarded offspring should be sterelized.
Imo natural mutation is enough trash our dna has to deal with, a human needing 24/7 care and is unable to pull their own weight should be castrated since kiling seems a slipery slope
>>752274
None, actually. The basis for equality changes from time to time. Usually it's derived from the same capacity for reason and moral action, but during the Enlightenment it only meant for Western European men.
>>752343
Both, but I'm more curious about equality.
>>752347
equally human bruh.
>>752350
but that's not a convincing argument for equality, in perception and by extension treatment.
>>752353
Perception and treatment are separate from equality.
>>752356
I think the miscommunication comes from mistaking the statement people "are" equal for people "should" be (treated) equal
>>752348
Kinda. the only counter argument Imever got was:
What if the reatrd is the new mozart? How can you know?
My response: just focus on the braindead veggies that can only think about foodd and water and shitting and sleeping. To allow them to procreate is wrong. Keeping them aoive should be their familys choice
>What if the reatrd is the new mozart? How can you know?
>what if something something is abortion?
Talent is the product of hard work.
Don't want to derail the thread, but I feel like it's on a similar vein so I'll ask this question
is there a moral or ethical obligation by a host nation's population to accept immigrants into their cultural and societal mainstream?
>>752377
Yes if alternative for immigrants is death and immigrates are obligated to integrate themselves into society.
>>752389
immigrants =/= refugees
my question was is there a moral obligation by the majority demographic to accept the migrant and treat them as "equals"?
>>752400
ppl mix up equality with positive discrimination
what do you think, how youd be treated by them if the situation was reversed
>>752400
In the past? When there was wilderness and lawlessnes a stone throw away from walled off cities? Yesh it would be moral to invite any homeless stranger to share the fire. Guest right and what not.
Immigration now means: I live in shit country, I want free health, food, shelter, school etc. And you're racist if you don't let me in. People like that were shot at before, and believe me if you kill 2000 and dump them at the border you'll have no problems with immigration. But now that is racist and inhumane.
Let them stay for a year, then ship them off back to syria. Assad would be game he's running low on manpower
>>752423
Explain why 2000 dead is worse than 1000000 displaced or 5000 getting equal social welfare most native citizens have payed for every month for least 3 generations?
>>752437
I'm not disagreeing with you.
The idea that Europe has a moral obligation to save refugees is not exactly "wrong" but it has unpleasant implications
>>752453
this.
>>752491
I don't get how someone can hold the belief that it's their (or rather their governments) duty to save refugees since it also makes them morally responsible for stopping or preventing every single calamity in the world.
>>752279
>statement of fact
>assertion
Literally the same fucking thing. All proofs rely on an unproven or circular foundation when examined critically enough.
>>752504
(not him)
I don't think it's bad not to take them in, but I do think it's good to do so.
There are morally questionable ideologies centered around dehumanizing refugees, though.
>>752507
No it's not.
>>752509
inaction and active inaction are different
>>752252
equality simply does not occur in nature
for something like equality to be a thing you need a structured, organized society with things like rules, laws, constitutions etc...
like say how in a given urban area people drive a large number of different car models, at any given point few cars in a street will be the same, usualy they are all different
but if all the drivers know and operate by the same rules, they can all drive, park, switch lanes, get in and out of the driveway, etc. just fine, in apstraction they are all 'equal' as drivers, since it is assumed same rights and rules apply for all, in a structured, organized system(except they are not and people crash and kill each other all the time)
so thats how you do equality
50 people lost in a forest would have no way to maintain 'official' equality, except as a general notion of mutual respect and reciprocity in cooperation
>>752521
is ought problem
>>752510
Okay fag, guess we just have to take your word for it, huh? Your proofs are so solid and unshakeable you have literally none to show.
>>752514
>inaction and active inaction are different
Never heard the distinction before, and all I'm pulling up is one or two google searches that entirely concern international politics and seem heavily biased. Care to explain why this distinction is useful?
>>752521
>equality simply does not occur in nature
I have 2000 dollars. My friend has 2000 dollars. The dollars are fungible.
>>752534
not him, but I think he confused the word assertion with declaration of opinion
>>752534
not that guy, but, isnt it clearly obvious how 'inaction and active inaction are different' ?
how simply not doing a thing and not doing it on purpose while you know youre not doing it and why are different things?
you can get sued and trown in prison for willingly choosing not to act in certain situations
its kind of obvious, no?
>>752534
>Care to explain why this distinction is useful?
intent
>>752539
>not that guy, but, isnt it clearly obvious how 'inaction and active inaction are different' ?
Evidently not, since I'm asking the fucking question.
>how simply not doing a thing and not doing it on purpose while you know youre not doing it and why are different things?
I don't see how knowledge significantly changes the nature of the inaction. Things can get very blurry when you take this to its logical conclusions and consider how much time one dedicates to investigating certain parts of the media and topics means you will come across particular international or domestic issues, and some people just have higher priorities in their lives. Or they could not care or not register it the same way as somebody who does.
>you can get sued and trown in prison for willingly choosing not to act in certain situations
All this proves is that legal institutions act a certain way. Legality isn't the same as morality.
>its kind of obvious, no?
Not to me, no. It seems kinda thoughtcrimey to be honest.
>>752537
nah, it dont work like that IRL, one of us will spend it all on beer, drugs and sex and the other one might say get tools he needs for work and so actualy make more money following the investment
this would happen because were inherently different humans, qualitatively and quantitatively, and so we behave and function in different ways
to make us equal youd have to get us both to function the same under the same rules, which implyes conditioning, structure, organization, a whole system
>>752542
I'm not a deontologist so I don't care. Every faggot on Earth thinks he has "good intentions". It's meaningless.
>>752538
I don't believe there is a firm distinction between the two. Subjects just seem to feel varying degrees of certainty, but subjectivity itself is necessary for any kind of perception of judgement. To be conscious is to be a conscious subject.
>>752554
>It's meaningless.
obviously it is not meaningles, youre being intentionaly daft
>>752554
>Every faggot on Earth thinks he has "good intentions"
you clearly don't understand deontology so why bother
Closest weve got is people like Locke saying "ayy lmao we got natural rights". Where they come from is arbitrary, and in reality we dont have innate rights. Equality is just the dominant morale at this point in time.
>>752552
>nah, it dont work like that IRL, one of us will spend it all on beer, drugs and sex and the other one might say get tools he needs for work and so actualy make more money following the investment
Two people can never have the same amount of money? What the fuck is this shit.
Also, you imply wealth disparity is entirely due to decisions and investment. It isn't. You are emotionally upset by the idea of equality in any social or economic context, which is why you neglect to mention factors like luck, windfall gains, inheritance and broader social context.
>this would happen because were inherently different humans, qualitatively and quantitatively, and so we behave and function in different ways
Still doesn't bridge the is-ought gap.
>to make us equal youd have to get us both to function the same under the same rules, which implyes conditioning, structure, organization, a whole system
Literally every setting a human can exist in has these things. A caveman is "conditioned" to be afraid of snakes and spiders. Any method of social interaction or even just subsistence gathering will lead to structure and organization. I'm not even going to get started on complex systems.
>>752546
>the destination is the same ergo mode of travel has no relevance
>>752573
>this is meaningless
>why
>BECAUSE!
>>752572
>non-sequitur faux proverbial bullshit
>>752573
define deontology, retard
>>752576
>not an answer
>>752575
Nobody questioned why I said it was meaningless, or attempted to explain how it contributed to the discussion. So yeah. Conjure up more fictional greentext conversations in your head if you'd like.
>>752582
it's naturally assumed that if you make a claim you explain the "why" behind it.
>I'm needlessly combative because it proves a point, or something.
>>752581
You're right, I don't give lengthy essays in response to pseudo-Zen gibberish.
>>752585
OP here, thanks for derailing the thread
>>752584
Telling someone they don't understand because they disagree with you is intellectually lazy. If anyone was calling the discussion meaningless, it was him for saying "why bother". Evidently he did bother, just not enough to make a real case or point someone he considered misguided in the right direction. So I consider it ego wanking.
>>752587
Yep, I'm just here conversing with myself. Who would have thought a thread around a vague concept like equality could possibly be derailed by arguments over definitions?
>>752588
but he was right, you clearly don't understand deontological ethics
>>752591
fair enough, that's on me.
>>752578
Judging the moral value of an action by a system of moral duties and the intentions of agents who violate these duties.
>>752546
ok, lets make it simple
lets say im closing a car door and i hit the one exiting behind me in the head
now if you have two options here in this context, it was intentional, or i didnt notice him so it just happened
if we both agree that it was obviously a accident and that i had no intent on harming him, we will shake hands and have a beer and it will pass
on the other hand if it becomes clear i intended to mash his head in we will have a fight and shit will get ugly
see? intent
but thats action, now lets see non action
now, lets say its more or less the same thing except one of us is sitting on a higher position and theres, say, a tool-box right next
say the tool-box falls and hits the other one, but it is clear no one touched it it happened
now, if i simply didnt know the toolbox is going over, i could not help by acting, my non action is just part of the accidental circumstances
however, if someone sees me looking at the toolbox, looking at it as it tilts over, looking down at it falling and hitting the guy, without tring to stop any of it or alerting the people underneath, then i purposefully and knowingly did not act, and so by intention caused harm to others, and the result would be pretty much the same as above, and people would think im a sociopath, and i could get sued and have much legal problems
does that make it clearer what intention is about?
>>752262
bold claim
>>752593
And telling me this accomplishes what, exactly? Consider how this all sounds from my perspective
>u are le wrong you don't understand
Am I meant to be spontaneously motivated by that to go out and seek information that confirms your argument something, which hasn't really been elaborated on whatsoever?
>>752554
congrats on destroying one of the two schools of thought on ethics
This whole morality bullshit was invented alongside religion for retards who can't tell when they are hurting others.
Europe advanced when they abolished religion and all this abstract spiritual bullshit and focused on science
There is no better or worse in science. What science tells us, thats its not whole of humanity, but the 1% that moves history.
>>752605
pointing out the moral subjectivity of the agent carrying out said moral acts isn't a trump card against deontological ethics and you acting like it is is in itself an indication that you have a superficial understanding of deontological ethics
>>752598
I kinda get what you're saying, but I feel it breaks down when you analyze it further. We never really have precognition or total knowledge of what *will* happen in the future, just degrees of certainty we ascribe. So it seems fair that, subconsciously, I might ascribe something like a 99.999% chance of the toolbox falling on some guy's head. I think it would really be lower than that, but bear with me. So, most people would agree I'm a dick for not stopping the toolbox from falling in that context, but at what degree of causative certainty can we draw the line? 70%? 50%? 5%? 1%? 0.00001%? I could be out helping children in Africa have clean water 16 hours a day in order to maximize this kind of thing, but I don't think most people want to live that way. Do you kinda see what I'm getting at? Like, I agree sentimentally but I don't think this system of judging people's actions is really consistent.
>>752609
There's more than two schools of thought, and I wasn't claiming to have destroyed anything, but by that kind of logic nobody can disagree with any philosophical position ever. It's just snark.
Obviously equality isn't real, but side different people value different attributes, we as a society just agree to try to treat each other as equal because the alternative is to constantly fight about which standards are better.
Obviously you cannot trust humans to be objectve because they will always claim their group is superior by cherrypicking traits they think their group has.
>>752621
if you read the previous posts, there's nothing to suggest that they're in favour of evaluating moral actions by degree of intent
>>752626
ignore him
>>752637
"degree" of intent, it's kinda absolutist in a way that if you mean it, you mean it and if you don't you don't.
>>752637
I'm just curious, what's your view on ethics?
Do people, even if they are not "equal", deserve equality?
>>752640
I realized that after I made my post.
Considering how murky people's motivations often are, I don't think this kind of thinking is practical or consistent with reality at all. People are frequently weighing cost-benefits and feeling conflicted about actions they take, before, during and after. Not to mention we never have perfect knowledge of future consequences, as I said, it just seems that way in hindsight.
>>752642
Non-cognitivism, but I will dishonestly argue for other positions if I feel it benefits me in some way, or spreads the kind of ideas I want society to adopt.
>>752647
I read your original post and it seems that what you're saying is "there is insufficient information to sufficiently answer the question", am I correct?
Would I be mistaken in assuming that you advocate nonhuman sentient animals' right to be recognised as a person?
>>752585
It was pretty much a phrase a utilitarian would say. The fact that you dont recognise that says a lot.
>>752655
if you believe that moral knowledge is impossible then what's the impetus for your actions that has nothing to do with subsistence?
>>752660
>I read your original post and it seems that what you're saying is "there is insufficient information to sufficiently answer the question", am I correct?
Eh, more like "the question is vaguely worded and based on a number of assumptions that I think one can disregard entirely". Especially assumptions tied to socio-political issues and the emotional attachment people have to them, as demonstrated in >>752521
>Would I be mistaken in assuming that you advocate nonhuman sentient animals' right to be recognised as a person?
I think "animals" should be exempt from torture because it personally disturbs me. Same with humans, who are also animals in a sense. I'm an ontological pluralist who wanted to deconstruct the concept of "human" more than anything, especially the way people use the word man "man". It has so many mythical spooks and associations floating around it, I really think the objects we describe as humans are so diverse behaviourally and morphologically that describing them with broad, sweeping statements doesn't express much except someone's personal inclinations about a particular topic. Technology is one example that a transhumanist would be particularly fixated with. Likewise, a racist/sexist would be fixated on inequality and a progressive would be fixated on the opposite. A Christian might be fixated on the fall and sinfulness as the defining feature of "man" compared to other living things. Does that make a bit more sense now? It all seems hollow when I spread it out.
>>752668
I did recognize it (although utilitarians tend to be a subset of consequentialists, one can have utilitarian motivations and support a deontological system). I just don't have a lot of respect for the logical conclusions of utilitarianism.
>>752672
Pleasures other than food, including social posturing.
>>752568
im not emotionaly upset by anything right at the moment, you seem to be slightly
wealth disparity is due to a lot of things, in large economies its mostly systematic, but in the example of two people having 2000 dollars each wealth disparity doesnt apply, in that imagined example there is no wealth disparity, the idea is both people have the same amount of money, the implication being they are then, in that moment, equal
but they arent, not based on the money any way, there equal as long as they are subjects in the same system, so its a moot point, they are equal under a legal and political system that says they are equal, as in, a system that operates based on official and accepted documents and agreements that define things like rights and why and how a political/legal subject is equal to others and when, and then only under a given set of political and legal definitions
and what youre saying about 'human settings' is right, but its a tautology, that 'it has these things' is besides the point, how these things are organized and defined will determine things like equality and hierarchy, if you want any one specific form of this, be it feudalism or democracy or any other, you set it up so, or it gets set up by momentary necesity, and from then onwards thats where all the rights and relations are derived
saying there is no human population without this does not negate it, every population of humans lives in some version of it, but its not that simple, such things have their own kinds of logic and reasons, borders and boundaries, outside that there are no rights, there is no equality, there isnt even any inequality in the political sense, only inherent qualities, different capacity, different relations, abilities, needs, varying from organism to organism
dont realy get what you mean by the is-outh thing
>>752682
>I really think the objects we describe as humans are so diverse behaviourally and morphologically that describing them with broad, sweeping statements doesn't express much except someone's personal inclinations about a particular topic.
there are such things as overlap in the many subsets of "humans"
>>752305
>If brain beast is so smart he can use his brains at honest work.
Why do people deserve money for honest work?
>>752682
suppose that the dominant sociopolitical climate demands that the diverse groups of objects we would describe as humans be perceived and treated equally, regardless of relatively "objective differences", how would you respond to this demand?
>>752693
>im not emotionaly upset by anything right at the moment, you seem to be slightly
That's a very genteel way of saying YOU MAD. Well done.
>The rest of your post
I'm not going to bother. The fact that you wrote all of that in response to my offhanded reference to your previous libertarian wankery shows who is really more invested in this topic. Yes, little man. I'm saying you are the one who cares more. That means you lose, you histrionic, foaming-at-the-mouth emotional wreck of a human being. Your face is so red it inspired Plato's theory of forms.
>dont realy get what you mean by the is-outh thing
I know you don't. You don't know many things at all.
>>752686
>Pleasures other than food, including social posturing
some would say pleasures are part of subsistence
>>752715
>some would say pleasures are part of subsistence
Oh, well in that case my whole life is subsistence.
>>752720
>where you draw the boundaries is arbitrary
what about boundaries derived from empirical evidence, like physical characteristics etc?
>>752720
>You still don't get it.
apparently not.
>>752720
>I would question why such descriptive observations necessitate prescriptive ethical commands in any way
tell it to the government, brother. They seem to be certain why
>>752724
would you ever commit suicide?
>>752731
Empiricism is based on acceptance of sense-data which is shaky itself, but I'm not going to go down that road. Instead, I'd question the significance of these differences because there are so many and they're so variable, and the extent to which one focuses on them is a reflection of one's personal preferences. I've seen sources suggesting that left-handed people tend to have higher IQs than right-handed people, but I don't see people arguing so valiantly for the socio-economic status of left and right handed people as I do for physical characteristics that are associated with stronger tribal loyalties or social status, like race, sex or height.
>>752746
man, just say you're not for the aggressive progressive agenda for "equality", it's clearly what OP and the rest of these crypto whatevers are fishing for.
>>752746
do you believe that objects exist independent of perception?
>>752739
I suggest you read Hume.
>>752743
I think everyone "would" if they're in sufficient pain. Torture someone for long enough and he'll bite off his tongue and bleed out given the chance, virtually everyone breaks under torture eventually. I know most examples of suicide aren't caused by something that extreme, but then biological considerations like a family history of depression become relevant alongside environmental ones. So, yeah I might, but I think people who say they never would for certain are lying and over-estimate their own agency.
>>752746
I like you. But nah, if they want to string themselves along by polarizing all opposition to their opinions through pseudo-Socratic bullshit, all the more power to them. OP seems okay, actually, he just didn't think the question through very well.
>>752754
I would hedge a guess that solipsism is false and there is some "objective" world behind appearance, but this doesn't seem like a terribly useful revelation to me. The fact that you have perceptions makes you a subject by definition, to cease to be subjective would be to literally cease consciousness - objective knowledge is an oxymoron. The brain seems to be a localized part of the larger universe outside of itself and thus, cannot ever really contain the full details of reality external to it.
>>752756
if moral value of actions are unknowable, this doesn't necessarily imply that there is absence of moral value or that morality doesn't exist.
Would you not want to act in such a way that even though you don't know if your actions are moral or not you would hope that it coincides with the unknowable moral code?
And if so, how do you perform any actions ever?
>>752769
>OP seems okay, actually, he just didn't think the question through very well.
how would you ask the question? Not that I think you would, ever.
>>752775
>if moral value of actions are unknowable, this doesn't necessarily imply that there is absence of moral value or that morality doesn't exist.
I kinda agree. I don't just deny moral knowledge, though. There is no knowledge in general, only smugness.
>Would you not want to act in such a way that even though you don't know if your actions are moral or not you would hope that it coincides with the unknowable moral code?
What makes you assume I would care? I could worry about a billion hypothetical absolute laws I'm violating in that case. Much simpler to just dismiss them all.
>And if so, how do you perform any actions ever?
Because lack of certainty doesn't really bother me that much. I just do shit.
>>752637
why would the lack of objectivity bother you?
>>752784
much simpler to dismiss them all doesn't justify the possible violation of "countless" moral codes, and I'm not sure if you've deliberately ignored the implication of the post the guy was clearly saying "the best way to conduct oneself is to be moral [adhere to the absolute moral code, in the event of its existence]"
>>752789
>he's saying one should be as moral as possible, if possible.
it's a valiant attempt at entrapping you logically
>>752780
>how would you ask the question? Not that I think you would, ever.
Well, that's the thing. I wouldn't ask it. After pondering the meaning of the words "equality", "man" and "nature" and all the fuzzy connotations they carry (and predictable reactions it would inspire) the whole exercise just wouldn't be worth my time. It's not just the wording I have a problem with so much as all the political subtext it carries that just seems silly to me.
>>752800
the world is not yours, and yours alone
>>752789
>much simpler to dismiss them all doesn't justify the possible violation of "countless" moral codes
Why doesn't it? Taken to its logical conclusion I would have to follow a bunch of contradictory moral codes at the same time if I were to follow every single one, which isn't possible. I could be offending the Aztec gods right now by not sacrificing people, can you blame me for not caring?
>and I'm not sure if you've deliberately ignored the implication of the post the guy was clearly saying "the best way to conduct oneself is to be moral [adhere to the absolute moral code, in the event of its existence]"
As above. This is my problem with univeralists and absolutists. It's easy to call your own system of morality objective and universal, but there are hundreds of other people with differing morals saying the same thing. Why should I trust them over you when I'm not feeling particularly convinced by any of them? It's just stupid.
>>752793
Yeah, that statement itself presupposes the very thing I reject,
>>752821
>Yeah, that statement itself presupposes the very thing I reject,
but a few posts ago you were open to the possibility of the existence of an unknowable absolute moral code
>>752800
>derail whole thread
>not one concrete argument given
>words are 'fuzzy'
>>752802
I never said it was. Ownership is just another vague abstract concept I can disregard, anyway.
>>752821
this is essentially "yeah but which god is the real god" question
>>752821
>can you blame me for not caring?
Yes in fact I can. The possibility of the existence of countless moral codes has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of a single absolute moral code -- and in the event of its existence, which you yourself cannot "certainly" (lol) deny, how are you supposed to perform any actions?
>>752827
people don't exist in a vacuum, is the point anon was trying to make I assume
>>752823
Degrees of certainty are the only reasonable way I see fit to act. I mean, yeah, I could be wrong, but I see the chances as so low that I don't care.
>>752826
Because I'm a critic and a nihilist, not some social justice warrior like all of these fags are trying to box me into. Also, I personally believe I improved the quality of this thread immensely and that derailing OPs poorly worded statement was worth it. So suck my nuts.
"Concrete argument" is an oxymoron.
>>752828
Yes, although it's made even more trivial by the postulation of secular absolutist ethical systems like those of Kant which have zero consequences for me disregarding them.
>>752841
I don't think they do. I just think people get mad when you nitpick at what they really mean, because it often doesn't mean very much at all.
>>752844
how can you be certain you improved the quality of the thread?
Are you now open to objective measurements of "quality"?
Isn't poor a subjective metric?
>>752844
>I see the chances as so low that I don't care.
logical leap
>>752835
>Yes in fact I can.
Well, yeah, but it doesn't carry of a lot of significance to me.
>The possibility of the existence of countless moral codes has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of a single absolute moral code -- and in the event of its existence, which you yourself cannot "certainly" (lol) deny, how are you supposed to perform any actions?
I wouldn't care that much about obeying it even if it were demonstrated to be absolute, but the juxtaposition of one moral universalists code with another and the low probability I ascribe to them all makes it trivial. I do not find certainty to be necessary for me to take actions. I'm okay with being wrong.
>>752800
too bad people not fitting your ideal won't hesitate to fuck you over with poorly thought out bureaucratic and administrative failures
Eurabia when?
>>752849
>how can you be certain you improved the quality of the thread?
Because I like it more this way.
>Are you now open to objective measurements of "quality"?
I'm always open to being wrong.
>Isn't poor a subjective metric?
Yes, and I don't shun subjectivity.
>>752853
Logical leap, practical consideration. I think the phrase "low, but non-zero" pretty much sums it up.
>>752860
THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN
>>752862
>too bad people not fitting your ideal won't hesitate to fuck you over with poorly thought out bureaucratic and administrative failures
This will happen regardless of whether I agree with them or not. You're naive if you think otherwise.
>Eurabia
I don't live in Europe, and I don't put a lot of weight in conspiracy theories or politics.
>>752868
then fuck you, you're wrong about everything
>>752869
>>752879
not that anon, but Eurabia is a distinct possibility and a particularly unpleasant one
>>752880
If you say so.
>>752879
I don't know what to call you other than meditative philosophical defeatist
>>752888
>trips
ouch
>>752886
Being somebody else who expresses the exact same opinion doesn't make your ideas seem more valid or reasonable to me. I'm not sure why you think it would.
I'm not European. Why would I care about some faggy brotherhood of the white race if I deny the very concept of humanity as being really meaningful? If Muslims took over my country I'd just pretend to convert to Islam and enjoy the benefits of having my wife's submission enforced by law.
>>752868
I can't articulate why, but I instinctively oppose your philosophical stance
>>752890
I'd prefer "The greatest being that ever existed" but whatever floats your boat.
>>752909
I've got a better one, how about "the coward"
>>752909
you took the easy way out of philosophical inquiry.
this makes you a coward
>>752920
I wouldn't disagree. Bravery makes people do so much stupid shit.
>>752925
See, the fact that you're calling it "easy" shows that it produces so much less cognitive dissonance in me than a system based on all these spooky moral assumptions does for you realists.
>>752930
nihilism is for the weak and you know exactly why I would say such a thing
>inb4 uninspired and not at all witty jab
>>752943
I don't feel some retarded need to prove my "strength" to anyone.
>>752942
more like
>I don't like intellectual challenges or difficult philosophical exploration
>I'll settle for the option which allows me to play everything safe
>>752950
it's not about "proving" your strength, but a reminder.
I don't seem to recall embedding any moral judgement about being weak, but evidently it touched a nerve.
>>752922
>However, I take it further than most nihilists
anon youre so fucking edgy you have your own thread now, a whole thread, just for you, great job anon
>>752954
I understand that absolutists feel the need to frame opposing POVs in a fantasy world where their enemies disagree with them, but lack enough moral virtue to adhere to their own standards. You lack theory of mind, but I guess that's almost a necessity for that kind of thinking.
Producing a bunch of difficult questions and contradictions doesn't make an idea any more worthy to me. The trinity does the same thing, because it's contradictory and retarded.
>>752958
I disagree with you, because admitting those things would make you feel insecure.
>>752966
Why are you all responding if you think my opinions are so low-quality? I'm not stopping you from fucking off and letting this thread die, since evidently it's evolved into people just telling me I suck.
>>752967
hey, poke the bull, get the horns.
I saw your posts about "it's all meaningless maaan, you're stupid for believing otherwise"
misrepresent all you want, it doesn't prove anything, oh edgy postmodernist
>>752981
so it did touch a nerve then.
>>752985
But calling me edgy proves everything? Okay.
>>752992
Not really, but accusing your opponents of losing composure is a common tactic that I'm well aware of.
>>752996
I've said nothing of the sort. You're doing it again.
I'm just gonna ignore you from now on and answer OP's question.
There's nothing to suggest that natural rights to equality exists
>>752999
one you're not above using clearly. Bye now.
>>753001
You did nothing in that post except call me edgy and impersonate a nihilist, so yeah.
>>753002
Bye!
>natural equality of man
It rarely gets discussed, if at all, but "Mr I want to be Derrida, or something" interjected with his pedantry and attention seeking...
>>752981
>Why are you all responding if you think my opinions are so low-quality? I'm not stopping you from fucking off and letting this thread die, since evidently it's evolved into people just telling me I suck.
because its so much fun anon, and how much you enjoy it is endeering, this level of smug faggotry hasnt been seen on /his in a while, keep going you might become a living /his meme, all you lack now is a tripcode
The real question is if people are deserving of equality, not if they "are equal"
because the state of being "equal' doesn't necessarily guarantee entitlement to equal treatment
>>753011
leave him alone, the nihilist just wanted to tell us all how much he doesn't care, about anything and how intellectually freeing that is.
>>753007
Well yeah, Derrida is pedantic, but calling it pedantic is just a value-loaded way of complaining about a certain type of critique.
It was other people who gave me attention.
>>753011
Well that's all it really comes down to, fun.
Also, in all seriousness, it's not like a discussion of equality here was going to be any less smug, unproductive and meme-filled.
>>753019
I care about a lot of things, just not the things you care about. That triggers a lot of people.
>>753037
This attention-giving motherfucker.
Hide post and move along.
I think the idea of equality, especially in Western nations, came from Christ's maxim "do unto others"
of course this failed to account for a lot of relevant factors
>>753048
applying this would be...
>do unto others, for instance the other being a severely disabled man
>I am not disabled so I cannot determine what I would want others to do unto me
>>753011
absolute meme tier
I've never seen this kind of aggressive sprawl for attention
The obvious disparity in intelligence and physical prowess that can be observed among human beings both between races and within individual races suggests that true equality does not exist. That being said I don't think it's impossible to create political equality by enforcing stated rights as is done in the U.S and other western countries. I also believe it that it is possible to create economic equality via full communism, though i'm personally not for it. As an aside I would like to say that the western world would be better off limiting inclusion to whites and specially selected members of other races who would be expected to breed into whiteness for the sake of racial harmony.
>>753060
is this a joke
>>753083
No, why?
>>753093
it read like bait
>>753093
Because you're a white supremacist who makes concessions to Marxism. Like you just combined the two most retarded ideologies of all time.
We're not equal, nor should we be.
What logical or moral basis exists to justify expectation of equality?
>>752252
It is utterly fantastic to me that a phantom concept such as rights continues to persist, though I do understand why.
The only possible equality couldn't be found naturally, and could only be enforced into existence.
But if that is the case, it is a self defeating concept.
To believe we are all equal is to surrender to another's idea, and surrender a portion of being to comply.
So, I would say, while it is enforced, there is no such thing as natural rights.
>>756202
>enforced equality
if we are "equal" does this render the forced nature of enforced equality null?
TL;DR
>Natural rights ==> natural equality doesn't exist
can equality be challenged by the is ought problem?
The only thing humans are equal in is death.
>>756224
Mister lowercase, I think you need to reassess your conception of what it means for a state of affairs to be "forced". The world is what it is. If the lower groups in society gang up and demand concessions from authorities or more privileged groups, that's just as natural as the hierarchy itself. They're going to try and raise their position in the world just like the upper classes are going to try and preserve it.
>can equality be challenged by the is ought problem?
Any argument that depends on appeal to nature can, whether it argues for equality or inequality.
>>756962
Man's got a point. "Force" who to do what?
>This entire fucking thread
