This is temporary struggle, and this is largely irrelevant. Flourishing here occurs over the period of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years. It is the collective performance of the speices over this very long period of time that defines whether or not they have flourished or failed to do so. If the animals consistently struggle and suffer to the point of failing to compete for this entire period of time, then they are more than likely will go extinct. — Marzipanmaddox

It just sounds to me like you're trying to do in different words what Darwin already did, and did better. Survival of the fittest.

What's that got to do with morality? Darwin wasn't a moral philosopher. He was doing science, not ethics.

You gave me an example of your question begging. End of. — NOS4A2

You thought of the word "red". That was involuntary. And it was influenced by those words I typed up and submitted.

Why don't you just be honest and admit it, instead of denying it and trying to come up with a good comeback?

I don't need to do what you ask of me. I've just given you an example of your thoughts being involuntarily influenced, and if you're intellectually honest, then you'll acknowledge that. End of.

The point being that definition, meaning the defining trait of life, that in it's purest essence, life is just flourishing competitively, indefinitely. — Marzipanmaddox

But there are plenty of examples in nature of life that is far from flourishing. Animals can live for significant periods without flourishing or excelling, when they're malnourished, struggling, and just about surviving.

So you're a liar, then.

Now, sincerely, can I get an example of thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced? — NOS4A2

You've been given plenty of examples already.

Roses are ____ .

There you go. That's an example. If you deny that the word of a particular colour didn't come to mind just now, then you're lying. And that it did so is obviously not a coincidence.

It's common parlance to say, "That made me think of such-and-such".

If it is not me, then what is controlling my mind? — NOS4A2

It doesn't follow from the fact that you don't have full control over your mind that someone or something else is controlling your mind.

It is known scientifically, as well as simply being a matter of common sense, that our thoughts and behaviour can be involuntarily influenced.

I'm not arguing in favor of altruism. — Marzipanmaddox

Then why define morality in accordance with altruism, as you did in your opening post? That is to argue in favour of altruism. You're not making any sense.

My definition of morality is "That which holds the groups together, thus enabling them to dominate the individual." — Marzipanmaddox

But this is the problem. I don't accept that definition. That could be used to describe a whole number of things. So you'll just be talking about something else and calling it morality. Why don't you just make your point without trying to redefine morality? That's not a feasible approach.

Once an individual is part of a collective, they are no longer an individual, they are a part of that collective, and they cannot exist without the collective so they are not an individual. — Marzipanmaddox

But that's nonsense. Of course I'm an individual, and whether I'm part of a collective or dependent on the collective for survival is logically irrelevant.

My definition is in explicit accordance with the definition in the dictionary. — Marzipanmaddox

You said that the sole definition of life is to flourish competitively. That's not true, and that's not to be found in any dictionary definition. That's just what you imagine the purpose of life to be. The world "definition" was the wrong word to use.

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel at all. I'm trying to argue that the scientific method should be applied to process of making wheels. I'm trying to improve upon the process from which wheels are made, using a systematic approach that has been explicitly proven to function.

The wheel has been improved greatly by the scientific method. There is no reason that morality should not be subjected to the same system of improvement.

To say that this is reinventing the wheel is to say "All wheels must be made of wood or stone, this is how wheels have always been made, if a wheel is not made of wood or stone it is not a wheel at all."

If this were the case, then all wheels would still be made of wood and stone, when in reality very few wheels are made of wood or stone today. Philosophy here is this wood/stone wheel. I am arguing that the utilizing the scientific method to define, refine, and improve morality would produce a much higher quality product, a better and far more functional form of morality. It's hard to have a car with wooden wheels, and the same can be said about using traditional/non-scientific morality to govern our society.

My argument is that simple. "Apply the scientific method to morality in order to study, formalize, refine, and improve our understanding and ability to utilize morality." — Marzipanmaddox

That's all well and good in theory. Apply the scientific method, you say, as though it were that simple.

Because I think that the idea of good and bad moral action, the inherent logic of it, if you like, is based on the idea of benefit vs harm, i.e. flourishing vs languishing. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this. — Janus

I know what you think, but if you worded yourself better to begin with, then you could likely avoid these kind of objections, and then you wouldn't have to keep clarifying in response.

And also that's different to what you said earlier, which was about benefit or harm to others, or of a community, rather than benefit or harm generally.

So his speech forces them to talk about what they do? — Terrapin Station

How much of this discussion has just been you completely getting the wrong end of the stick?

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so. — NOS4A2

Haha. Sure, you have 100% full control of your mind. What a joke.

And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it,
— S

. . . What does that have to do with Shamshir's post? — Terrapin Station

You asked a question, I answered it. And the first part of my sentence you quoted is clearly about his reasoning, so why ask what that has to do with his post? How could you miss that? Are you feeling okay?

Oh that dangerous free speech fanaticism, sure to lead to genocide and death. Of course, free speech fanaticism has never lead to any such extreme, only to the defense of human rights. — NOS4A2

It would lead to all kinds of wrong, including permissible discrimination, a rise in hate crime, permissible fraud, and things like this:

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, a theater in New York's Harlem neighborhood in 1884,[8] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede. — Wikipedia

Your ignorance in this regard, whether wilful or otherwise, is no excuse.

Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. How did that turn out? — NOS4A2

The moral of the story would be to reject both extreme censorship and free speech fanaticism, and to support instead a reasonable balance between the two extremes.

Just following shamshir's reasoning. — Terrapin Station

Okay. You asked:

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing? — Terrapin Station

And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it, or for maintaining the ban where it's already in place, whereas your counter proposal is stupid. Hate speech is already prohibited under UK law, and if you scrapped those laws, then you'd bear responsibility for the consequences. But you can't scrap laws on prohibiting being romantically spurned because no such laws exist because that would be stupid.

Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? — Terrapin Station

Why are you continuing to pursue this when we both know that it's a stupid idea, not at all comparable to hate speech?

All we need for rape is a claim that it happened. — Terrapin Station

What?

?? "Being spurned romantically" refers to someone turning you down when you're romantically interested in them. — Terrapin Station

Do you do this on purpose? Just curious.

Okay, just swap "being angry" with "being spurned romantically". It's not like that makes it any less impractical, impossible, and ridiculous.

Unfortunately this is now normal political discourse. One cannot fruitfully engage with people who do not care about self-contradiction. One has to recognise that the time for talking and listening has ended. — unenlightened

Sadly I think that that's true. Hopefully at the next opportunity there will be a change from Trump-Johnson to Bernie-Corbyn.

TV commercials do not cause every viewer to immediately go and and purchase the advertised product. Nevertheless they are effective at inducing some demand for the product. — Relativist

That's another really good example. The typical person you'd stop on the street would readily accept that. This isn't a genuine debate here, because the other side would have to be intellectually dishonest to deny these compelling examples.

They begin with a diehard commitment to free speech fanaticism, and then they just sit back and deny any reasonable counterexamples and objections presented to them.

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing?

"What if anger about being spurned romantically sparks violence, and that violence sparks revenge, and that revenge sparks genocide?" etc. — Terrapin Station

It would be practically impossible to ban anger, so that's not even worth bringing up as an attempt at producing a counterexample.

Also, there's a simple cost-benefit analysis that can be done with hate speech, although you will of course disregard it because you're a free speech fanatic. The loss of freedom of hate speech doesn't outweigh the risks of hate crime. Anyone with a working conscience will grant that the prevention of serious crimes like the Manchester bombing outweighs some self-important douchebag who thinks that he should be free to preach hate, discrimination, and acts of violence or terrorism.

I think that he is one of those people who uses technical-sounding terms in a jumbled and sporadic manner in the hope of sounding like more of an intellectual.

I've seen much worse.

Why would I use the noun “consequence” instead of the verb “contribute”? No I do not understand. — NOS4A2

You do realise that "contribute" is not a variation in verb form of the noun "consequence", right?

You should have stuck to talking about consequences if you wanted to avoid committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts. Your interlocutor made a point in response to your point about consequences, but you then moved the goalposts by framing your question in reply to him as though you had been talking about contributions, when you had not. Do you find it difficult to stay on point?

When we're talking causality, there's only one option. — Terrapin Station

No, you still need to explain yourself properly. This is going to be a needlessly lengthy discussion if you keep responding like that. Why don't you start from the beginning instead of somewhere in the middle? That would make more sense, would it not?

Contribute is a verb, consequence is a noun. Do you know the difference? — NOS4A2

Yes. They're two different words, with two different meanings. The word "contribute" has more of a positive connotation (as in e.g. "What did you contribute to the team?") which "consequence" lacks. Do you understand that? And do you understand that you keep moving the goalposts in response to questions and criticism?

I have no clue what your argument is here. — NOS4A2

You have no clue, generally. Do you know what it means to move the goalposts, in the context of informal logic?

My point is that in Europe there are other options. — thewonder

I am from Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, and more specifically England. We have a multiparty system here, and more so than the United States, but there's still only two realistic options to choose from, those being the two main parties, Labour and Tory. I'm a member of the Labour party.

That’s a lie, I said “contributing”. Again you’re revealing more about yourself than you can about reality. — NOS4A2

Haha, yes, I know you said "contributing". And that's a variation of "contribution", but you weren't originally talking about contribution. You switched from talking about consequences to talking about contribution.

My baby keeps me amused. She has orifice. — god must be atheist

:brow:

Should we call the NSPCC?

Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect. — NOS4A2

You've switched from "consequence" to "contribution". Moving the goalposts again, I see.

One consequence which your speech tends to have on me is that it has me laughing or shaking my head in disbelief.

There is no main left-wing party in the United States, though. I plan on voting for the Democratic Socialists of America if they put up a candidate. It's partially out of spite as the Democratic Party will consider that to be a vote that has been lost, but partially sincere as I do think that political parties should be more like the DSA. — thewonder

The Democratic Party is the main left-wing party in the United States. They're a centre-left party, and that still counts as left-wing, regardless of your more radical alignment. Once again, albeit in a difference context this time, you don't get to just define things however you please. And with someone like Bernie Sanders at the helm, a result which would meet with my approval, then they'd move even further to the left.

I have found out that the DSA just supports Bernie Sanders and, so, my plans have been foiled. I'll just have to vote Green I guess. I've just realized that I can vote in the Green primaries. I might vote for Dario Hunter. — thewonder

Well, if you want to waste your vote, then so be it, but I wouldn't encourage it.

The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech. — Terrapin Station

Just out of curiosity, if an Islamist acolyte of a preacher of hate and violence against infidels murdered those whom you most care about, you'd still see no problem with allowing hate speech? You'd be happy for the preacher to continue his nefarious activities unobstructed by pesky laws?

It's reasoned from my foundations — Terrapin Station

Funnily enough, foundations in madness lead to more madness.

How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option? — Terrapin Station

There isn't only one option. I think you need to backtrack and explain yourself properly before directing such loaded questions my way.

What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"? — Terrapin Station

The clue was in my reply.

Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people do what they want to do" as much as possible, within reason.

The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech. — Terrapin Station

Well, dream on.

There are numerous reasons why we speak, none of which require moving matter with articulated symbols.
— NOS4A2

You didn't restrict your comments previously to telekinesis. You said "no consequences" not just no macro-scale physical consequences on inanimate objects. — Isaac

Yes, an example of moving the goalposts. (And it's weird that he keeps talking about telekinesis and sorcery when no one else is).

Decisions/choices aren't decisions/choices if they're caused. Compatibilism makes no sense. — Terrapin Station

Then they aren't decisions or choices. But I reject that. I think that it makes more sense to continue to talk about decisions and choices, but to conceive of them more sensibly than you do, so as to avoid ending up at the absurd conclusion you reach.

Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people what they want to do" as much as possible. — Terrapin Station

So close, and yet so far. With a simple qualification to that, we'd be in agreement. I am a liberal, as are many others, but we keep our liberalism within reason, whereas you throw reason out of the window.

There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech. — NOS4A2

The oceans don't contain a single drop of water.