Oh, well, Paul doesn't give an account of the Life of Jesus Christ he gives his own doctrine... "Pauline Doctrine"

Jesus has his own equation.

Sin is the divorce of man from God (just as absurdity is the divorce of man from himself)

Nothing comes between Jesus and another, he loves all, and can bridge any divide, towards even to those who were his greatest enemies.

Paul's Doctrine has zero to do with the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.

You should probably read Foucault. Madness and Civilization if you want to understand a bit more on that.

After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries—until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche—for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason.

But at the very moment Christian reason rid itself of the madness that had so long been a part of itself, the madman, in his abolished reason, in the fury of his animality, received a singular power as a demonstration: it was as if scandal, driven out of that superhuman region where it related to God and where the Incarnation was manifested, reappeared, in the plenitude of its force and pregnant with a new lesson, in that region where man has a relation to nature and to his animality. The lesson’s point of application has shifted to the lower regions of madness. The Cross is no longer to be considered in its scandal; but it must not be forgotten that throughout his human life Christ honored madness, sanctified it as he sanctified infirmity cured, sin forgiven, poverty assured of eternal riches....
...Coming into this world, Christ agreed to take upon himself all the signs of the human condition and the very stigmata of fallen nature; from poverty to death, he followed the long road of the Passion, which was also the road of the passions, of wisdom forgotten, and of madness. — Foucault, Madness and Civilization

Nietzsche's Equation is Amor Fati, which Mirrors the Glad Tidings, and the Superman is made reality when you suffer the fool...

"Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet"

"nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism.

When was the last time either of you read the Gospels?

He came unto his own, and his own received him not... But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. — John, Chapter 1

Jesus was rejected by his own and he abolished the entire doctrine of sin, reward, and punishment of Judaism. Because Jesus assumes the right to new values, just as the Greek men of antiquity. Hence why Nietzsche vibes with Jesus.

Thanks for bringing up the discussion, I hadn't got the connection quite yet in my mind, it was there, as a "hintegedanke" but this solidified the bridge for me. Appreciate it.

Hannah Arendt mentions that on page 31 or so...? The government became the right bearer of necessity rather than the individual. The social was to make a more calculable man, easier to control, a norm of society that all think similarly through the collective housekeeping of society.

It opens his theory to criticism and lends his polis an anti-social quality rather than a social one. Further, the master/slave relationship is a matter of convention rather than of nature. — NOS4A2

The proportion varied and is certainly exaggerated in Xenophon's report from Sparta, where among four thousand people in the market place, a foreigner
counted no more than sixty citizens (Helknica iii. 35). — Reference 23 in Human Condition

I feel Aristotle perhaps reified the notion that master and slave was a natural thing because of how few citizens there were which were actually considered as equals. The private realm of Citizens was part of the ruling class because each house had its own "army of slaves," which was a wide array of craftsmen, to law makers and of course the common slave.

Every citizen was of the ruling class. Not just the tyrant alone...

Every citizen his own king, where as the social is more like one big family controlled by the Nation State. The Nation State monopolizes power and violence.

Where as Power and Violence was seen as a necessity to the Greek.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world. This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. — Hannah Arendt

The social man of today is just a tamed domesticated house cat compared to the political man of the Greek. The political man of the Greek assumed the rights to his own values...

Hence the greatest utility of polytheism Joyful Wisdom 143 Nietzsche:

The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.—For the individual to set up his own ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rights—that has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves,[Pg 179] usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but a God, through my instrumentality!" It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Gods—in polytheism—that this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled; for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy. To be hostile to this impulse towards the individual ideal,—that was formerly the law of every morality. There was then only one norm, "the man"—and every people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant over-world, a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that individuals were first permitted, it was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen—dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual...

Hence Sisyphus was actually rewarded with with his own demigod status of the ideal representing Eu Prattein, because in life he was the definition of Aristeuein from assuming the rights to his own values and triumphantly affirming those demands of his own life, besting multiple gods.

The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon. — Nietzsche, from Genealogy of Morals 10

Well, Arendt states that the Social class was vastly different in Rome than in Greek... lemme pull it up.

Fair. Fair. I thought maybe you were asking because of some section you may have read vs the whole.

Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition," will answer this for you. There are various free PDFs you can find online. You'll have to enter into a different constellation of thought to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Relationships end in the Polis because that is the Public Sphere of Equality. The private house hold is where the inequality of relationships was housed.

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

Nietzsche clearly isn't talking about Hedonism. And your God can sucketh. It's all just a fable anyways. A fable that details the most bogus bullshit, like men living 900 years, and how everyone was incestuous in their culture. Which is funny considering humans were around long before the Israelites and thus they weren't just fucking their own sisters to birth all of humanity... that's a much much older tale that has nothing to do with the Jews.

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. — BitconnectCarlos

People who haven't read the Bible obviously.

The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Good" is always subject to the culture's table of values though. So you didn't really say much about an objective good.

I misunderstood. You wrote "To dismantle this pathetic fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment." You meant a pathetic fallacy, not the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Fair enough, I'll change that for clarity.

That being said, I would characterize calling an argument pathetic as what you call "cheap rhetorical tactic." Pot criticizing kettle, philosophically speaking. — T Clark

Eh, okay, just your opinion, and not a very reasonable one, just like a fallacy is bad (pathetic) reasoning.

My basic point is that an appeal to emotion in this particular case is appropriate. It's not a fallacy at all — T Clark

That I have to explain to you, and Philosophim what a damn fallacy is and you both have been here for how long again? (8 and 5 years and you both don't know what a fallacy is) It's evidence to suggest your unwillingness to learn.

An appeal to emotion fallacy is used to persuade someone you're right by appealing to emotion rather than the use of logical discussion. We can see the dilemma that occurs through logical discussion and the appeal to emotion fallacy attempts to bypass the logical dialogue all together.

The etymology of Arya is "the rich and powerful" ...
The Mitanni kingdom, with its Indo-Aryan aristocracy, adopted Hurrian language and culture, and they were known for their chariot warfare, which was also used (the culture of Arya) by the Babylonian Empire...

Who held the Jews captive, and were damned by God—Genesis 15:13-15

Thus...

Human history would be too fatuous for anything were it not for the cleverness imported into it by the weak—take at once the most important instance. All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Who cares it's a completely moot tanget and red herring from the fact of Genesis 15:13-15 That God damns anyone with power over the Jew, this shows their logic in hating those more powerful than them... this places the emphasis on the weaker type.

You take Nietzsche's meaning to be "all Jews are weak slaves," or something like that due to some reason, of which there are many you're doing so for.

Obviously doesn't know a damn thing about repressed instincts which cause for the greatest spasmodic explosions of compulsion in which one cannot control themselves.

Cruelty when practiced in moderation tempers its most destructive elements...

This has been part of psychology for the last 200 years at least... how you're blind to it just shows you're not very educated on the human condition.

That's always the problem with dogmatists... too obstinate to see beyond what was issued to them.

Yahweh is the Supreme Cruelty... hence why those who dont follow the equation of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgements, John 3:17... Most of Nietzsche's main points in philosophy and psychology is more or less a copy to the equation of Jesus' Glad Tidings.

God damns anyone with power over the Jew...
Genesis Chapter 15 line 13-15

Nothing to contradict though.

I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class behind the text and then taking liberties in describing the social context of those shadowy priests, as if they were writing against a noble and proud aristocracy. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything Nietzsche details in his genealogy essay 1 can be found in the Old Testament. In Genesis alone at that.

That God confuses the languages of Good and Evil, and that the powerful who enslave shall be the damned etc etc, the cunning of these slaves, like Abram fucking over Pharoah because he was a coward to admit his marriage etc etc...

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time. — Philosophim

You didn't even know what a fallacy was until I explained it to you just now...

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I addressed your other points in the OP, your fallacy isn't effective, it's just trash. It's annoying that you think it's a good argument. Seriously you need to brush up on basic logic. The reason it's not effective is yes, at times, killing a child could be considered good. And you use it in conjunction with your argument on an objective morality in an attempt to persaude me away from my subjectivity on morality. Thus a fallacious appeal for an objective morality vs subjective morality.

because talking with you is relatively pointless. It's like talking at a brickwall. Your other talking points are as I said, pointless.

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. — Philosophim

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything.

Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. — EricH

Not an obvious goof, Chomsky became active in Zionism under the same Supranational intentions pre-Nakba. And only afterwards turned away from Zionism. The obvious goof is you trying to challenge me with only a quick Wikipedia scan...

I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.

The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine. — Chomsky

There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously. — EricH

Nope...

The Basel Program was drafted by a committee elected on Sunday 29 August 1897[1] comprising Max Nordau (heading the committee),[2] Nathan Birnbaum, Alexander Mintz, Siegmund Rosenberg, Saul Rafael Landau,[3][2][4] together with Hermann Schapira and Max Bodenheimer who were added to the committee on the basis of them having both drafted previous similar programs (including the "Kölner Thesen").[1]

The seven-man committee prepared the Program over three drafting meetings.

You should probably read your sources.

Spectators are spectating.

In 1942, an "Extraordinary Zionist Conference" was held and announced a fundamental departure from traditional Zionist policy[21] with its demand "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth."[22] It became the official Zionist stand on the ultimate aim of the movement. — Your source.

So we see in 1942 is when they announced a departure from the traditional Zionist policy. To create a commonwealth for the Jews. Rather than an inclusive supranational state.

The big problem here is I'm considering the philosophers who delve into Zionism vs you considering non-philosophers. For example, Trump is a Zionist. Who doesn't really know a damn thong about Zionism other than "Jewish Homeland in Israel." Which is what most Zionists are... doesn't mean they know shit about Zionism. I know more about the history of Zionism than most Jew.

Basic talking points vs the philosophy behind it.

It's like saying you know all of Kant because you know the talking points: "Thing inside itself", "Categoical Imperatives," "Deontology" and "Apriori Faculty!" ... Here, I'll throw your claim of reality right back at you...

I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. — EricH

"Get real bruh."

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal.

Apply above to the rest.

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. — Philosophim

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. Are you imaginary?

So if I desire to murder a child is that good? — Philosophim

Just as "Count" Timothy tried to, either earlier today, or yesterday, and there have been more times between that with other people...

And Im tired of seeing that bs being posted as if it's some end all be all to objective morality. Cause it aint.

Greeks had Virtue which was free from moralic acid. Ares was a champion of war and cruelty, and he was cherished all the same as the rest of the Gods (many of which were cruel, jealous, and unjust). They all had their place. The greek were a deterministic society, time is a circle... all things hitherto and heretofore have happened and will happen over and over again, so there is no wrong choice in the gateway of this moment...

You should probably try to brush up rather than just sound like a whiner...

The inuit, and Hindi aren't rigid dogmatic systems of morality that detail good and evil, and niether is Buddhism (which came after Judaism)...

Just throwing names of old societies doesn't do shit in terms of discussing morality which dictates good and evil.

That's what we call a swing and a miss. If you said something that is actually contrary to what I said, then you'd have a point. But you've failed in that.

Don't make me wrong either. Especially in light of the fact that your theory contradicts blatant evidence, such as that previously offered. — javra

Nothing you've said contradicts me.

What can that even mean? Let me guess, it means that in Greek antiquity, if they'd so want, they'd stomp on their own babies heads for the fun of it without any moral compulsion. Thereby being "premoral". — javra

Bruh doesn't know the Greek antiquity were famous for leaving babies on the hillside...

Because Buddhist, Hindus and all others, the Inuit included, don't experience any of these ... not being themselves of a Judeo-Christian morality.

Yea. No. I disagree. — javra

That's fine if you don't agree, doesn't make you right. It's common knowledge that Greek antiquity were premoral. As were many other. It's why Zarathustra created the concept of Light and Darkness. Because he noticed people internalize war differently.

The moral wrong here is that someone set up the contraption.
— Banno

That’s where I would have gone with the experiment. — Fire Ologist

You and Banno are just not thinking creatively enough. The contraption could have been set up for a completely different purpose. Say it allows one side to inherit the other. It just so happens that two people place something unknown to the other in each side. Someone places their child in hopes of them inheriting a boon or favor of some kind. Where as someone places a rabid pet, hoping the pet inherits a cure. The self destruct a fail-safe when things get out of hand.

Moral principals.
And objective “good.”
Sound like things a thought experiment won’t be able to dispel, especially one that relies on some notion of good in order for it to make any sense. — Fire Ologist

Don't even know wtf you're trying to say here other than "it can't work because notion of "good" ... which has already been addressed in other posts. The "doing good" is assumed by the objective moralists stance that reducing pain and suffering is good. Thus THEY come to the crossroads of "damned if I do, damned if I don't," because one way they kill, breaking theor morality, the other way they neglect reduction of pain and suffering... pretty simple.

Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? — javra

No, moralizing, the bad conscience, ressentiment, and responsibility are trade marks of the Judeo-Christian morality:

Aristotle draws an example of acting from the sphere of private life, in the relationship between the benefactor and his recipient. With that candid absence of moralizing that is the mark of Greek, though not of Roman, antiquity, he states first as a matter of fact that the benefactor always loves those he has helped more than he is loved by them. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

Even the Titans do not yet know the incredible Semitic
and Christian inventions, bad conscience, fault and responsibility. — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy

The tale of Prometheus is an original possession of the entire Aryan family of races, and documentary evidence of their capacity for the profoundly tragic; indeed, it is not improbable that this myth has the same characteristic significance for the Aryan race that the myth of the fall of man has for the Semitic, and that there is a relationship between the two myths like that of brother and sister. The presupposition of the Promethean myth is the transcendent value which a naïve humanity attach to fire as the true palladium of every ascending culture: that man, however, should dispose at will of this fire, and should not receive it only as a gift from heaven, as the igniting lightning or the warming solar flame, appeared to the contemplative primordial men as crime and robbery of the divine nature. And thus the first philosophical problem at once causes a painful, irreconcilable antagonism between man and God, and puts as it were a mass of rock at the gate of every culture. The best and highest that men can acquire they obtain by a crime, and must now in their turn take upon themselves its consequences, namely the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended celestials must visit the nobly aspiring race of man: a bitter reflection, which, by the dignity it confers on crime, contrasts strangely with the Semitic myth of the fall of man, in which curiosity, beguilement, seducibility, wantonness,—in short, a whole series of pre-eminently feminine passions,—were regarded as the origin of evil. What distinguishes the Aryan representation is the sublime view of active sin as the properly Promethean virtue, which suggests at the same time the ethical basis of pessimistic tragedy as the justification of human evil—of human guilt as well as of the suffering incurred thereby. The misery in the essence of things—which[Pg 79] the contemplative Aryan is not disposed to explain away—the antagonism in the heart of the world, manifests itself to him as a medley of different worlds, for instance, a Divine and a human world, each of which is in the right individually, but as a separate existence alongside of another has to suffer for its individuation. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy

“The weak” are those who have a conscious and who via its quiet affirmations experience shame and guilt for wrongdoings.

“The strong”, in turn, must then be those devoid of a conscious and who thereby experience no shame or guilt for any wrongdoing whatsoever (maybe not even recognizing that the concept of wrongdoing can apply to them). — javra

Nope it actually reads that the weak internalize negatively and gain a bad conscience, which the strong internalize positively and don't have a bad conscience.

It's been a while since my reading of him, granted, but this is not the Nietzsche I know of, limited as my knowledge of him is, who I’m guessing would have for example likely kicked Hitler in the groin where he to have been around – as painfully as possible, if not worse – and who can be quoted as admiring the Jewish community at large. — javra

Duh... A letter Nietzsche wrote to his sister:

You have committed one of the greatest stupidities — for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or melancholy… It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to Anti-Semitism, namely, opposed to it, as I am in my writings.

— Nietzsche, Letter to His Sister, Christmas, 1887

The fact that the Jews, if they wanted (or if they were forced, as the anti-Semites seem to want), could already be dominant, or indeed could literally have control over present-day Europe — https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred

...

The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favorable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Hence... (whoops editing cause I forgot to post the hence)

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948. — DifferentiatingEgg

Would you like more to show you how much of a friend he was to the marilginalized Jew? A point which I've been arguing Nietzsche is a fan of Jews this whole time?

Noone needs this Holub to detail Nietzsche's appreciation of Jews if they're a discerning reader of Nietzsche. It's common knowledge that Jews appreciate and appropriate Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology precisely for this reason: because he found the Jew to be an incredibly potent people capable of the greatest of feats of power.

I wonder how often you say this in the mirror... :chin:

The language makes it clear that Egg is looking for a fight rather that a discussion. I'm not that interested, but I'll outline an approach that might help others. — Banno

Boring. If you can prove it wrong, do so. The only one looking for a fight is you, hence why you came here to do just that, silly. Notice I made this post dedicated to exposing the bunk argument "It's always wrong to kill." And to list out other bunk arguments for objective morality... if you have arguments for objective morality, post em.

The apparent suggestion is that there is no good or evil becasue one can set up a situation in which there is no good outcome. That's not an argument which supports that conclusion. — Banno

"no good outcome" begs the question.

Kicking puppies for fun is about the character of the one doing the kicking. As is setting up intractable thought experiments. Anyone can kick a pup, and perhaps find it pleasing; cruelty is part of being human. Another part of being human is growing; of realising that one is part of a community, of developing the ability to consider the long-term consequences of one's actions, of moving from self-interest to nuanced considerations of fairness, reciprocity, and social responsibility. — Banno

Already overcame this accusation in earlier replies. *Yawn*

PM me if you want further discusion. I don't think this thread worth further response. — Banno

Russell fanboi showing his ressentiment. But of course you're just "joking" as Russell was right? :lol:

Moral judgments, like preferring to prevent suffering, can be deeply felt and socially reinforced without appealing to objective moral truths. — Tom Storm

:fire:

The relativist can still say that pushing the button is "good" within their framework of values, even if those values are not grounded in an absolute, external moral reality. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Absolutely, I mean ffs, I'm not looking to kill anyone or advocate the killing of others. I'm looking to kill a bad argument that's often used as a trump card here...

I'm not here to discuss the merits of whether or not it is ever acceptable to kill babies. — T Clark

Neither am I, Im here to trash the fallacy of using that as a defense towards objective morality that many seem to love employing here.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Not sure why it even matters to my argument as I didn't even use/discuss it, but thanks for that?

For instance, appealing to pity when asking for help. — T Clark

Sure sure there are times when the fallacy fallacy occurs with every fallacy, no?

As I see it, it is a fundamental human value that we protect the vulnerable members of our community, especially our children and more especially babies. — T Clark

I don't necessarily disagree, though if the vulnerable don't eventually work towards making themselves less vulnerable with aid, then let them be vulnerable, it's obvious they wish it. And many hate reaching out for assistance, cause then they lose a certain autonomy.

Any objective moralist — Fire Ologist

...is obviously forgetting objective morality doesn't exist.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother? — Fire Ologist

As I clarified for Clark, the post is about overcoming a stupid argument that objective moralists love throwing out on TPF. Not about what people do and don't do with their babies... that's just some strawman of this thought experiment.

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? — Fire Ologist

Because those are the presuppositions of the objective moralists who claim there is no reason to ever end an infant's life. The dilemma arises for the objective moralist such that "Killing is objectively evil" w/ "reduction of pain and suffering is objectively good." Thus when presented with the only option to kill in order to reduce pain and suffering... there is a disconnect.

Basically objective moralists throw in the noun "baby" for dramatic effect on "killing is always evil."

It's a rhetorical device used to appeal to several fallacies, but we can remove "baby" all together to really get at what they're implying.

This attempt to make sense of all senseless and useless suffering can (as we already have seen) occur in two ways. Either guilt is attributed to “someone else,” or one looks for the blame in oneself.

It is one of the deepest and most certain principles of national psychology that the Jewish people are the first—and perhaps the only—nation that has only sought solely within themselves the blame for world events.

Jewish doctrine has, since ancient times, responded to the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Many great Jewish thinkers have perceived the central core of Jewish teaching in this formula “Because we are guilty” and in the experience of Jewish communal attribution of guilt and communal responsibility.

It's important for the reader to realize that, as in the viddui, the key to the pathology of our national consciousness lies in this acknowledgment of guilt, emphasized in the mighty Judeo-Christian ethic.

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” Within this concept of suffering as punishment lies the beginning of understanding the concept of Jewish “self-hate.”

It is different among happy, victorious peoples. They have no reason for self-flagellating, self-tormenting analysis that endangers a healthy attitude toward life and naturalself-esteem. They answer “Why does misfortune happen to us?” with a forceful accusation against those who, in their opinion, caused the misfortune.

The Jewish situation is thereby doubly endangered. First, because the Jew repliesto the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Second, because other nations answer the question “Why are the Jews not loved?” with “He says so himself—he is guilty." — Theodore Lessing, Jewish Self-Hate.

It is this internalization that causes within the weak, feelings of ressentiment, and bad conscience and being responsible for said shame and guilt. This is the pathology of Judaism—its own backbiting virtue.

But make no mistake, it is this very notion that makes Jews leaders in many fields, as they hold themselves accountable. Because the number one aspect of a strong leader is accountability.

The weak, however, outnumber the strong more than 1000 to 1.

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948.

I get it from Zionist philosophers, not a 7 man swiss committee making propositions on land, you'll notice none of the names I mentioned are even on that committee.

Heck people on that committee like Brinbaum even became anti-Zionists...

Bodenheimer joined the revisionist party of Zionism founded by Jabotinsky—

Jabotinsky's writings state, "we do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri, or the 'Jewish Land of Israel'] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled."

Hrm, what is substance then?

The mind is a substance — MoK

So then the mind is physical?

It's always funny when a religious person tries to mask "Good and Evil" as "Good and Bad." Sorry, but under the "Good and Bad" system of Virtu, children were regularly killed off to prevent spending limited resources on what was considered a "bad" baby.

The "bad" tend come up with the cheapest tactics in arguments, including "killing a baby is Evil." Well, not always.

Suppose you come upon a screen that shows you a particular contraption... that contraption houses a rabid carnivorous beast on one side, an infant on another... between them is a impenetrable barrier. However, you see a count down begins as you become the observer of this contraption. 120 seconds is on the clock. 119 now... There is only 1 button, and that button blows up the entire contraption, baby and rabid beast.

Waiting out the countdown releases the barrier between beast and baby to which the beast would eviscerate the baby alive, a very painful and traumatic way of dying although it would be fast, the baby would experience unimaginable pain and suffering...

Or you can blow up the contraption, saving the baby from unimaginable pain and suffering. Killing it in an instant.

What do you do?

Got anything for me on ontological realism?