There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. It reviles anyone who has self-love. It teaches that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing. Agree? — Mongrel

What brand of morality decrees this?

What do you think--would I be saying that?

I said Rand too.

I think turn about is fair play.

I was just busting your balls a bit.
Relax.

I thought it would be funny to give you a taste of your own medicine.

I'll answer this question when you answer mine in a way that I would consider an answer.

Are you saying there are objective truths about you regardless of subjective judgement?

Now this I have no trouble believing.

I see you are getting upset and resorting to insults.
Perhaps it is best if just agree to disagree.

You said that not eating steak was moral.
You have used steak to make a moral claim.

Before you refused to admit that you had used steak for anything.

If steak is required for the claim to be moral, then it is a means to an end of being moral.

So we go from using steak as a means to the end of not eating steak to using steak to make a moral claim — Agustino

So now you are admitting that you have used steak?

If you claim not eating steak is moral then you have used steak to make a moral claim.

If steak does not exist then you have made no claim at all.

Case closed indeed.

So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct? — Agustino

No the definition is to exercise restraint from doing or enjoying something.
Abstinence is a self discipline in the face of an opportunity to do otherwise.
There is no opportunity to do otherwise in the case where the otherwise does not exist.

If so, then this assertion of yours is false. — Agustino

Except it isn't though.

I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral. — Agustino

Again if you claim it is moral to not eat steak, and then you don't eat the steak to be moral.
You have used the steak as a means to justify an end of being moral.

This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it? — Agustino

The definition of abstaining.

1. restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
"abstaining from chocolate"
2. formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.
"forty-one voted with the opposition, and some sixty more abstained"
synonyms: not vote, decline to vote
"262 voted against, 38 abstained"

If something does not exist there is no opportunity to restrain yourself from doing it.

Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it. — Agustino

You are using the steak as means to and end of being moral.
That is doing something to it, it is making a means to an end???
How are you not getting this?

So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. — Agustino

That is not what I said.

I said if steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.
There is no opportunity to abstain from a thing which does not exist.

Also I did not realize your argument was that it is moral to not do things to stuff that does not exist?

My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really........... — Agustino

Again the problem is with claiming that not doing something is moral.
If not doing something is moral then not doing that thing is a means to the end of being moral.
Otherwise what is the point of not doing it?

So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :s — Agustino

If steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.

Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it. — Agustino

If you are claiming that not eating is moral then you are doing something to the steak.
You are making steak a means to the end of being moral.

No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you — Agustino

Except your abstinence is not possible without the steak.

This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak. — Agustino

If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating the steak and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral.

If you don't eat steak just because you believe it is moral to abstain from eating steak then you are using steak as a means to an end of being moral.

The same applies with a person, treating them a certain way because you believe it is moral means you are using that person as a means to an end of being moral.

To use something means to do something to it. I'm not doing anything to steak when not eating it, and not doing something to it isn't itself doing something to it, that's a contradiction. — Agustino

Sure, unless you claim not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something, you are being moral by not eating steak.
So if not eating steak is the equivalent of doing something moral, then you are using that steak as a means to the end of being moral.

This is really simple I don't understand why you are having trouble following along here?

Yes steak is a means to and end of abstaining if you don't eat it.

If you are treating people a certain way just to be moral you are using them as a means to the end of being moral.

So if you don't have sex with them, you are still using them as a means to the end of being moral?
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't.

On an infinite timeline with infinite jars it is inevitable.

Moderators are here to kick out those who don't play the game (ie. buy the values of philosophy). — Nils Loc

That kind of makes sense, considering it is a philosophy forum.

What do you mean by treating others as objects?

I think I heard about this in the news.
At some point I believe those girls will start peeing on each other and/or him.

Concerning bears.

“There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. There will be nothing else to do, and nothing else to pursue. Live being true to the single purpose of the moment.”
― Tsunetomo Yamamoto

“It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation.”
― Tsunetomo Yamamoto

I was just using that as an example.
I don't imagine a lot of people boycotting products because of the way those products are being marketed.

And I don't imagine the issue of psychological manipulation from marketing becoming a priority in politics.

I agree that people are unhappy and mentally ill, but to the extent that advertising methods contribute to this....I don't know it just seems to me like most people would consider other issues more important factors.

I am kind of at a loss as well.
I am not sure how to reason about it either myself.

I mean at some level I guess I realize that modern hygiene is more of a luxury than a necessity but I can't imagine not buying hygiene products as a boycott of the advertising methods employed.

I am also not sure if it is such a problem that, as a society, we should legislate and regulate the advertisement industry further.
It seems to me people are more concerned with other issues.

I think I definitely agree with you that the advertising industry does attempt to exploit people psychologically.
I never thought about it as an important issue for some reason.
I mean I can't imagine what could be done to regulate that sort of thing?

I also tend to assume that the consumer has some onus to educate themselves on such tactics, I even seem to recall being taught about propaganda and advertising in school.

lol
you still avoiding the question?
why?

I have not actually seen you make this claim.
I only have seen some one else make this claim about you.
Are you saying that you have or do teach philosophy professionally?

I would be surprised because you do not seem to be that educated in logic, and one would think credits in a logic course would be a requirement before you were qualified to teach any philosophy.
Of course that may not be so.

But you don't actually teach philosophy professionally do you, and never have.
Right.

Having trouble thinking of a good name for your penis?
Try the penis name generator.

I named my penis Funky Flesh Lord.

lol that was auto correct.
I meant to type uncomputable

Ha!
Nice one

I still doubt that you have ever taught philosophy professionally.

I think uncomputable numbers can still be said to exist in the sense that there is a formal abstraction that defines them.
I see your point though and it is interesting.

Good.
Because that is just silly.

Why not, if sex is necessarily immoral?