Straw man fallacy.

All moral transgressors share the mentality of high school goths, but moral transgressors ≠ high school goths.

All moral transgressors share the mentality of high school goths, — Three-Buddy Problem

That's the straw man you're assuming. I explained this already. Again, slow down so we don't have to keep repeating stuff.

Please be patient. I'm subtly showing the progressiveness of my model, how that's the next step of civilization. Think of it like this:

Pre-civilization: you HAVE to give a fuck.

Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck.

Civilization using my model: you don't need to give a fuck.

Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck. — Three-Buddy Problem

Repeating again: arresting someone is giving a fuck.

I don't see how I'm not slowing you down already. And I don't need to be Einstein to spot a straw man.

Which is exactly why I'm proposing the model in the first place, a hypothetical society that's more progressive than the current one!

I don't see how I'm not slowing you down already. And I don't need to be Einstein to spot a straw man. — Three-Buddy Problem

Neither of these resemble understanding what I wrote above. Hence why you should slow down.

That's it, I'm done arguing with you.

Which is exactly why I'm proposing the model in the first place, a hypothetical society that's more progressive than the current one! — Three-Buddy Problem

You just wrote: "Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck." This is not true. Civilization as we know it gives just as much of a fuck.

That's it, I'm done arguing with you. — Three-Buddy Problem

Which is as it should be, but because you finally realize you were saying something stupid.

Jesus Christ. Even though the argument is over, let me show why it is so:

You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed. For example: when I said you ''don't have to give so much fuck'', I meant that you don't need to hit the transgressor by yourself because last time I checked we've got this thing called the LAW. In my model, moral transgressions themselves are prevented by people not giving a fuck altogether; and transgressors that are ''immune'' to this are taken special care of. However, you're somewhat correct about the fact that the existence of civilization itself is a result of ''giving a fuck'', albeit in a simpler way than what I've been talking about; so confusing the two would be an equivocation fallacy.

So if you were to see a child being attacked on the street, would you be apathetic to it and let it happen or would you intervene? If yours is the second answer then you give a fuck and moral apathy is ridiculous. If we tell ourselves we can ignore and not give a fuck about one act then what is to stop us from giving a fuck about them all? How long with this view would it take for things like legal slavery to make a come back if everyone subscribed to Moral Apathy?

This is a misunderstanding that my aim is to destroy morality. No, my aim is exactly the same as all ethical systems, albeit the mindset is fundamentally different.

The very fundamental reason behind most murders is murder being considered immoral in the first place. For a transgressor, happiness lies within breaking the most crucial rules of society; so if we have no such ''rules'' in the first place there'd be no transgressors (but that doesn't mean we don't get to have laws; laws are still needed to maintain this ''rulelessness'').

So to answer your question: I would intervene out of empathy, but my grander plan for preventing anyone from attacking children again is to not give a fuck about it, so that child-attackers don't give a fuck about attacking children in return.

“so that child-attackers don't give a fuck about attacking children in return” This is where we run into problems, this implies people will universally share in your view, which they won’t. Not giving a fuck might be less stressful but in the end it is just Apathy. I saw this Ted Talk too and you need to understand that the person who gave that Ted talk is kind of fucked up and is an escapist of reality due to abuse.

A morality grounded in “You shouldn’t give a fuck” is only going to be taken by those without a moral compass as permission to commit any immoral acts they want.

There is a moral ecology to the world so while your view has its place, it would be destructive if it were universally in place by most reasonable people. Moral Apathy is never okay as a universal application.

Jesus Christ. Even though the argument is over, l — Three-Buddy Problem

I thought you were done? lol

''don't have to give so much fuck'', I meant that you don't need to hit the transgressor by yourself — Three-Buddy Problem

"You don't need to hit the transgressor yourself" in no way equates to "don't have to give so much fuck."

moral transgressions themselves are prevented by people not giving a fuck altogether; — Three-Buddy Problem

That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions.

However, you're somewhat correct about the fact that the existence of civilization itself is a result of ''giving a fuck'', — Three-Buddy Problem

That's not what I said, though. I said that arresting someone for an action is giving a fuck about that action.

“You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed.” I don’t think he’s misunderstanding you, I think he’s just rejecting your conclusion entirely on the grounds that it simply wouldn’t work because it relies on the existence of an ideal world where everyone is rational and well educated. The biological fact of nuerodiversity precludes is from having a universal moral code such as this. How is a psychopath supposed to care about morality if he was born without an amygdala or one of a reduced size? How is our not caring about what he does ever going to deter him from striking out at peoples lives?

You realise that some sociopaths are the way they are because too many people were apathetic to the wrongs being inflicted on them during their formative years in childhood?

If we cared about nothing, why would we even keep ourselves alive?

I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”

This is a misunderstanding that my aim is to destroy morality. — Three-Buddy Problem

The misunderstanding would be on your part. Giving a fuck about interpersonal behavior is what morality is in a nutshell.

For a transgressor, happiness lies within breaking the most crucial rules of society; — Three-Buddy Problem

I've pointed out a number of times that this is a ridiculous misconception that you have. Most moral transgressions and crimes are not motivated out of someone wanting to be a rebel. What in the world are you basing your belief about this on?

If people really didn't give a fuck about being raped, I'd be raping at least a couple different women per day. I wouldn't be doing this to be a rebel. I'd be doing it because I'm a horny bastard who likes variety and who is attracted to about 90% of the women I encounter. As things are I wouldn't rape anyone because (a) I have empathy and I'm not fond of taking actions against the consent of the person I'm taking the action with, and (b) I'd not risk being incarcerated, but if women were to genuinely not give a fuck if I have sex with them or not, without needing to do anything with/towards them except start to have sex with them, and there were no risk of incarceration (which would have to be the case if people don't give a fuck), then why wouldn't I? It wouldn't be nonconsensual, because withholding consent entails giving a fuck about what is happening to oneself.

So the actions of the people currently considered transgressors wouldn't change--except for that small minority of people who actually are motivated by wanting to rebel. It would just be that people would be getting raped and murdered and maimed and robbed, etc.without anyone caring about it. (And of course we could bring up the point that it's not rape if it's not nonconsensual, it's not murder if it's not illegal, etc.--but the end result would be just the same. The people in question wouldn't either want or not want the actions performed to them. We're stipulating that they literally don't care either way.)

I think he’s just rejecting your conclusion entirely on the grounds that it simply wouldn’t work because it relies on the existence of an ideal world where everyone is rational and well educated. — Mark Dennis

I don't think what he's saying at all resembles an "ideal world," and it doesn't have anything to do with rationality or education.

The rejection is on the grounds of him (a) apparently not even understanding what morality is, (b) having no understanding of emotional reactions about interpersonal behavior being as "core" to our brain function as reactions about pain outside of interpersonal behavior, (c) having ridiculous notions of behavior that one objects to being rooted in people wanting to rebel, and so on.

My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral issues.

"The rejection is on the grounds of him (a) apparently not even understanding what morality is, (b) having no understanding of emotional reactions about interpersonal behavior being as "core" to our brain function as reactions about pain outside of interpersonal behavior, (c) having ridiculous notions of behavior that one objects to being rooted in people wanting to rebel, and so on." I agree, I believe point (b) was inferred in what I said however you'll forgive me if I try to take a different route to get some of your points across (best to just focus on one at a time for those with an entry level understanding, break the problem up into parts. Do as Descartes Do.)

"That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions."
"I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”

These are similar arguments to be honest. The point is our brains would need to be significantly different. I also believe that Apathy is in the end a coping mechanism people escape into.

"My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral problems."

I know you understand you are employing a genetic fallacy here, however your reasoning is mostly correct. Part of the process to dealing with getting out of a black and white view of morality is to jump to the grayest gray. At those points you can't see the rainbow for the clouds. However I feel if you are correct about either the Aspie thing or depression thing then our reaction to the apathy should be one of empathy. Apathy has it's place in our moral ecology but not to the extreme the OP thinks.

I myself was diagnosed with Aspergers at 23. It's a trauma of its own kind, similar to how studying philosophy itself can be existentially traumatic. I don't really buy my diagnosis anymore tbh I think i was just being raised in a dysfunctional family which is no longer the case and these diagnoses were never meant to be much more than a concept tool to provide a framework for where you need to grow and develop or what environment you require to thrive or be safe.

If Terrapin station has a point about the psychiatric label thing then read carefully this. "The Rule of the animal kingdom is kill or be killed; The rule for the kingdom of man is Define or be Defined" - Thomas Szasz. Don't get stuck in the rabbit hole of believing you are your diagnosis. Think of it as a framework for how you need to improve yourself. If you have social anxiety, force yourself to be social, if you are depressed, stand up and look straight up and put on the biggest smile you possibly can and stay like that for one minute with your arms outstretched. I dare you to feel depressed while doing this.

know you understand you are employing a genetic fallacy here — Mark Dennis

I'm not arguing that he's wrong because of these facts. It would only be the genetic fallacy if I were doing that. Why he's taking the track he's taking is what I'm seeking to explain instead. It's a bit of armchair psychology.

That's fair to say, I apologise. The way I see it, some forms of depression make a person see the world in a brutally honest and critical way. However, what they prescribe themselves to do in reaction to what they perceive about the world is where things get irrational. My mother can be quite insightful at times in her depression however her reasoning behind how to react to it is very flawed. To be honest, if I hadn't observed for myself how much her diagnosis has become a part of her identity to her own detriment, I might not have stopped identifying with mine.

I think you need to work on your argument because not to give a fuck "comes" off as too strong an assertion. To not give a fuck about anything, if movies and novels are accurate, is a sign of mental derangement and in such cases most of those who don't give a fuck will unleash their base instincts and that's not going to turn out well right?

One could argue that if EVERYONE didn't give a fuck then the situation may be quite different. Of course it all depends on the possibility of such a thing. Can we really not give a fuck about suffering. Suffering has a way of grabbing your attention especially if experienced in the first person. Could you really not give a fuck about someone beating you with a baseball bat? I don't know. I've heard of mad saints who would fall into that category but notice I said "mad". To not give a fuck about anything is insane.

Perhaps we can reposition ourselves on the not-give-a-fuck-couch by separating things we do give a fuck about from those we don't give a fuck about. I have a feeling, almost a foreboding, that if you really think about it nothing really matters which is basically what you're trying to say here - don't give a fuck about anything.

HOWEVER, not everyone is on the same page and we need to accommodate those who do care, give a fuck in your parlance, about whathaveyou. That's very important or else <insert undesirable consequences>.

My solution to this conundrum is, please don't laugh, to ''not give a fuck''. That is, you don't give a fuck that John stole your stuff--in fact, you don't give fuck about ANYTHING that would be considered transgressions towards you. — Three-Buddy Problem

That would require something equivalent to setting up a prison state inside myself. IOW John's argument would be even stronger in related to my giving a fuck. Why should my giving a fuck be more problematic and less causes by society than this stealing?

Sure, this may sound ludicrous and counterintuitive, but think about this:

The less fucks you give about your property, the less John would want to STEAL your property.

I truly doubt that. I don't see the causal chain.
Ah, ok, it isn't a causal chain....

The difficult part is that this solution can only work if EVERYONE in a given society sticks to it. But once everyone does, society as we know it would be so much better that the conventional concept of morality becomes obsolete.

Yes, if no one gave shit about....

Well, wait a minute, how extensive must that category be? How about rape? Child abuse?

Ok, the idea is that we all stop giving a fuck about anything, then we don't have trouble with each other.

But then, we don't have any motivations, because all experiences are the same to us. Nothing is negative, nothing is positive. Eat ice cream or lick an ashtray...I don't give a fuck. So if someone steals my ice cream or forces me to lick an ashtray...it's all good or the same, at least.

So if everyone could no longer give a fuck about what anyone did, they would simply not give a fuck. And this would mean they would have no motivation to go to work, find love, create art, not step in front of a train, eat, breath.

We can elminate all moral conflict by all killing ourselves, but I am not sure if it's a solution either.

The misunderstanding would be on your part. Giving a fuck about interpersonal behavior is what morality is in a nutshell. — Terrapin Station

I think the problem is even deeper. To not give a shit about what other people do (to you) requires not giving a shit about everything. A person might knock the ice cream out of your hand on the sidewalk. You can't care that you are not eating ice cream. Extend this to the full range of desires, and not getting them. This is stopping a desire. Then you have the giving you unpleasant experiences. Pouring water on you in winter. Taking your car so you have to walk. Extend this to all unpleasant experiences. To maintain not giving a fuck you can no longer dislike unpleasant experiences and prefer ones you want. You can no longer prefer, desire, want to avoid. You would be, basically, a motivationless creature. All states and experiences would be the same to you. Civilization, even continued existence, would collapse. Why work? Live? Eat? make? kiss? Homo sapiens ends on a shrug.

I think the problem is even deeper. To not give a shit about what other people do (to you) requires not giving a shit about everything. A person might knock the ice cream out of your hand on the sidewalk. You can't care that you are not eating ice cream. Extend this to the full range of desires, and not getting them. This is stopping a desire. Then you have the giving you unpleasant experiences. Pouring water on you in winter. Taking your car so you have to walk. Extend this to all unpleasant experiences. To maintain not giving a fuck you can no longer dislike unpleasant experiences and prefer ones you want. You can no longer prefer, desire, want to avoid. You would be, basically, a motivationless creature. All states and experiences would be the same to you. Civilization, even continued existence, would collapse. Why work? Live? Eat? make? kiss? Homo sapiens ends on a shrug. — Coben

Exactly.

You: John shouldn't have had been a thief because it's destructive to society, even though that's exactly what society have molded him into.

John: I have no reason to NOT be a thief because that's what society molded me into, even though you lost your stuff as a result. — Three-Buddy Problem

"Society" doesn't make people into thieves -- or saints, either. Unless, of course, you believe in absolute determinism. But, as it happens, you don't believe in absolute determinism, because you are proposing that we voluntarily stop giving a rat's ass about whatever happens to us or anybody (everybody) else. Thieves are made through a combination of social norms and pressures working in contrary directions; parental neglect (failure to instill the sense of right and wrong); personal proclivities, and more.

People don't become thieves merely because other people are possessive. two year olds work on that level (if child A takes a toy that child B isn't playing with, child B will get upset). even older children, never mind adults, display more complex possession-related behavior.

Your proposal that we not give a fuck about anything covers your proposal, unfortunately. According to you, I shouldn't give a fuck about your theory. Because your theory is based on profoundly erroneous assumptions, I am responding. So I give a fuck for the next 5 minutes, after which fuck expires.

"Giving a fuck" or having emotional investment in objects, persons, and places--all things of which we can be deprived--is not a question of morality. It's a question of animal behavior. Animals tend to get attached. Birds care for and defend their nests. Lions don't casually relinquish a kill to somebody else. We protect our stuff because we like, love, and/or are attached to it.

Your proposal to not give a fuck has to overcome morality; more to the point, it also has to overcome animal behavior. Monastics practice detachment from objects, persons, and places, and find it quite difficult -- impossible beyond a certain point -- even though they are in a closed off society which supports abandoning attachment.

Jesus advised us to "turn the other cheek"; if somebody slaps the left side of your face, turn so they can conveniently slap your right side as well. That might sound like not giving a fuck, but there was a give-a-fuck reason for letting people slap you around. In his system, your standing in heaven (about which he thought we should definitely give a fuck) is more important than your standing on earth (which he considered less important).

You are advising us to turn the other cheek for no reason at all. Personally, if I am going to get slapped around, I want there to be some definite and considerable benefit. That's because we are endowed with 'fuck'*** which we can not give up.

*** At the conclusion of Margaret Atwood's terrific science fiction trilogy MaddAddam, the naive "new people" wondered what the old kind of people meant when they used the word "fuck". The old people, soon to die off, told the new children that "Fuck" was a god, and when they said "Fuck" they were invoking the god. Very fanciful.

In one of his novels, Tom Wolfe provides a complete sample of "fuck patois", giving all the possible uses of 'fuck' in a sentence. If I remember correctly, he also provided examples of 'shit patois'.

Thought you would like to know that.