🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@stux Nintendo and others threatened to sue me once... youll be fine :)

@Bradley_JF I am using killing and murder interchangeably here.

@Clementulus

> But you do see that that framework for an ethic is itself a subjective choice?

Choosing to adopt the perspective the earth is flat is subjective. If the earth is flat or not is objective.

Same for moral frameworks, your choice of one is subjective. If it it correctly represents good and evil is objective.

> Because the weight you give to those various factors changes the morals drastically.

What factors, there was only one factor, all the other questions you listed werent factors, they were attempts at narrowing the scope, there is no narrowing it, it is absolute.

> If Thanos appeared tomorrow and said that the most intelligent supercomputer in the galaxy predicted that humanity would be extinguished in 1000 years but if he instanly vaporizes all but 1000 select individuals that we would regain our population and humanity would then go on to thrive for 100 000 years, he could claim the moral right to do so using a utilitarian ethic by citing all the immense happiness that the unborn trillions would be denied if he allowed the current billions to keep on living.

As long as that computer is guaranteed to be correct, then yes thanos would be doing the moral thing. However if there is any possibility such a system could be wrong then thanos would be exercising moral intent, not moral action.

> Also, it is actually not entirely logical to posit that happiness could be proven to be objective if a hypothetical machine existed to measure it properly (you can't prove something based on a hypothetical).

Yes it is a hypothesis till proven, and must be true for my stance to work. I think for most who understand the brain know these things are quantifiable by the chemical state of the system. But until it is demonstrated it is certainly free to be debated.

@skykiss at least Biden has theexcuse of senility, lol

@Clementulus

For starters its important to note moral intent (the intention to create net-happiness) is distinct from moral action (the results of our actions). Below we discuss mostly moral actions, not intent.

> How do you measure relative happiness / suffering?

Well we dont have the technology to do so, but to objectively measure it is possible in theory if we had an MRI with high enough resolution and a computer with sufficient computing power to analyze it and quantify it.

Just because we dont have the ability to measure a quantity objectively yet doesnt make it any less objective.

> There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable;

That doesnt make the measure any less objective, it only makes the actions which are moral rely on the context. A particular action may make some people happy and others suffer, but so long as the net result is more happiness than suffering then the act is moral.

> Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well?

We are considering all of the future. An action may be moral in the short term but turn out to me immoral in the long term. And while it would be impractical to measure it doesnt make it any less objective as it is, measurable in theory.

> If so, how many?

Infinite, the morality of an action will forever be in flux, but objectively measurable at any moment.

> should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy?

I would posit that using drugs to make everyone happy would be unsuccessful and would instead result in a net loss long term by not being able to reach the same levels of happiness we could without drugs, and in fact with most modern drugs would long term result in suffering.

> Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them?

All species, all of time, and all of space (should we ever interact beyond our planet).

> I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are "objective" as you correctly point out.

They were all quite trivial to answer and were consider in my original statement, so no worries. And as I pointed out all of them were answered objectively.

@wholemilk If you are comfortable soldering its worth it... Each of the three components took me about half a day, and thats with hot swap. Would have taken less time with direct solder.

@Mondobizarrro you always have tactiles for that,all the feel none of the sound.

I myself love the sound, the louder the better. In fact I added a speaker built into this keyboard and controlled from the firmware directly. I intend to use it to make additional clicky sounds when I type.

@Mondobizarrro I just wish they made hot swappable modern switches that were buckling spring types with the nice loud click of a model m... oh well the switches I have are still pretty nice with a fairly unique and distinctive sound and feel.

@Mondobizarrro Yes I have a model T as well and used it for quite a while. One of the keys however has gotten a little funky and I havent had a chance to fix it.

I do love the buckling spring old stuff.

@creamqueen LOL is making up random shit with no connection to reality supposed to upset me? Cause all it does is show your a nut job.

@creamqueen awesome, triggering you just makes this all the more awesome... thanks for that!

@Clementulus While we can choose our morals, the morals we choose are not nessecarly ethical (what I mean when I say moral, not our **choice** of morals, but whether a particular more is ethical or not).

My guess is you are of the opinion (which i find incorrect, but it is common) that morals are objective. Your choice of them may be subjective, but what is or is not moral/ethical/right is objective.

The measure is quite simple, and similarly objective. That which is ethical is that which reduces net suffering (or to put it another way increases net happiness). While it may not be easy to determine before hand if a particular adoption of a moral rule will fit that, in the end it is objectively measurable as either ethical or not based on its results.

With the correct technology all it would require would be an mri to objectively measure how happy people are and one could, in theory, objectively measure the net result.

@Mondobizarrro Yea I picked the keycaps myself. I really liked the retro look.

I also picked navy box kahle switches (it along with the jade are the loudest switches on the market, the navy being significantly heavier.)

Words can not express how fricking cool my new keyboard is. And now just cause i soldered it from scratch, but it just has so many extras. My favorite is the three oled (one arrives tomorrow) which shows thi gs like my WPM.

#Nullbits #Keyboard

@admitsWrongIfProven haha you sure did.

@TammyGentzel

> Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning.

> I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.

I know and I explained why your argument for that case is invalid. Who is or isnt a human has very little to do with who is or is not justified in killing. plus its a metaphysical question that is completely fabricated, unlike my position which is based on the known facts and science (development of neurons).

> As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human

I never said it was a "human" after 10 weeks.. but if you want to go there, it is a human before gametes even meet by definition. Sperm are human cells and thus human, as are eggs. So if "human" is the criteria you've already lost that argument. What you did try to do however was specify "independent human" in which case its independence seems of importance not if it is human, and I have debunked that perspective as well.

> you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is **possibly** capable of thought, and is therefore human.

Correct, prior to 10 weeks we know for a fact it is capable of thought. After 10 weeks we dont (and cant) know the exact point where it will be capable of thought but we know for certain it happens after 10 week period.

> But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.

Wrong on both accounts. An embryo by definition is human prior to being birthed.. a hell a fingernail is human by definition, thus this is a horrible definition. Being "birthed" has never been required for the definition of what is or is not human. you are just trying to seperate yourself fromt he independence argument now that you realize it is a failed argument.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Dont worry, being blocked by sandwich puts yo uin excellent company to be sure! I've gotten into the habit of following him just so I can follow the people he blocks cause they have interesting points of view, and often nuanced and worth considering (even if i ultimately disagree).

@TruthSandwich

@Clementulus

> all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in.

I am asking what is morally just, not what motivates you. I am also not asking what reality you want to live in, I am asking what is morally right. A person may want to live in an immoral society, that doesnt make it moral.

> Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty;

I cant agree with that. I can think of plenty of ugly things which are objectively morally right and beatuiful things that are objectively morally wrong. Even though the beauty itself is subjective.