Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

No you haven't. If you are sure you have, point me to one of your prior posts, repeat yourself or copy+paste it.

Tell me which part you're unclear about. Is it the actual content of my philosophy? Or the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world?

Both.

My philosophy is simple. There are a set of correct truths in which every sentient being should live their lives by. This is "good". Sometimes, in fact most of the time, sentient beings do not life their lives by these truths. This is "evil". We should aim to promote good and eliminate evil.

As for the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world, I believe that the best way to promote good is to get people to live their lives by the correct truths, making them "good people". In order to do this, I wish to create schools and educational systems to teach people about the truths. Once that happens, everyone will become in agreement and the world will turn into a utopia.

[Accountant]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

Yes, yes, we've established that my system is above logic already. Stop pretending that calling my system illogical is relevant in any way.

[Accountant]

But if he needed to be forcibly reeducated to get to the top, who would do that? You'd need someone on top who was forcibly educated first. Also, people can change their minds.

When I say theology, it's because of how much of a leap of faith (hehe) you're taking to this objective moral system, and how you follow it as if it is a god.

I see what you mean - at some point there has to be an initial re-educator, who can educate others without being educated himself. This, of course, is my goal.

Nobody with sufficiently high conviction will change their mind.

Finally, that's an acceptable comparison. I suppose it shares some similarities with theology in that respect, but I think the two are different enough that it's a bad idea to make assumptions about one based on the other.

[Accountant]

1) Morality is simply what you believe is right, and you can disobey your morals. You can also disobey other people or governments in accordance with your morals.

2) Being self-righteous means you're a pretentious halfwit.

3) But it'd need to have logic backing it first.

1) If you disobey your own morals, you don't really believe those morals, obviously.
2) No, it means you're right. Hence the "right" in "righteous".
3) Why the fuck would that be necessary?

[Accountant]

Doesn't the fact that people disagree on this invalidate the supposed objectivity?

It's an objective fact that the earth is not flat, and yet people disagree on it.

[Accountant]

Said every cult leader ever.

What makes you different? At least be self-aware enough to acknowledge how comparatively dumb this looks.

Look... you're neglecting the big,

big

difference between a cult and me.

I am actually right.

Once you accept that, then everything else becomes irrelevant.

[Accountant]

I'm going to assume you meant that you'd rather tell a lie and kill someone. Well and good. But what about betraying your principles?

my principles are simply to bring as much happiness and little sadness into the world as possible. I don't see the point in applying moral absolutism to actions because every situation is different and due to lesser of two evils situations it is always possible for a rule ethical theory to be wrong.

Would you kill someone if it meant making the world happier?

Stopping sadness is more important. If that person was causing harm to others and killing them was the only way to stop them, if it was bad enough I would (e.g. assassinating an evil despot if it would improve the situation.

Would you re-educate someone if it meant making the world happier?

[Accountant]

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

I literally just said I wouldn't. Are you claiming to know my utopia better than me? I'll have you know that I'm the world's foremost expert on Accountant's utopia.

[Davsto]

Said every cult leader ever.

What makes you different? At least be self-aware enough to acknowledge how comparatively dumb this looks.

Look... you're neglecting the big,

big

difference between a cult and me.

I am actually right.

Once you accept that, then everything else becomes irrelevant.

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

[Accountant]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

[Sesq]

No you haven't. If you are sure you have, point me to one of your prior posts, repeat yourself or copy+paste it.

Tell me which part you're unclear about. Is it the actual content of my philosophy? Or the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world?

Both.

My philosophy is simple. There are a set of correct truths in which every sentient being should live their lives by. This is "good". Sometimes, in fact most of the time, sentient beings do not life their lives by these truths. This is "evil". We should aim to promote good and eliminate evil.

As for the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world, I believe that the best way to promote good is to get people to live their lives by the correct truths, making them "good people". In order to do this, I wish to create schools and educational systems to teach people about the truths. Once that happens, everyone will become in agreement and the world will turn into a utopia.

While there are definitely some solid things that most people think are evil, such as murder, people have disagreements over what is moral and what is not. Some people think being gay is wrong. Some people think thinking being gay is wrong is wrong. Some people believe all sentient life is equal, some believe humans are elevated. You can have your opinions on these matters, and many more, but what makes your system more objective than any other outside of the fact that it is yours? And if it is so self-evident, why is there so much diversity in people's individual moral compasses?

So, you want to promote your idea of good, and shit on your idea of bad, as most people do. However, the difference here is that, while I may have a stance of freedom (to certain extents, of course, anarchy is dumb), you have an authoritarian mindset, which is kind of not good at all. First of all, the above should be considered, as your morals are not necessarily going to be right by the rest of the world, and if there are objective moral truths, you might be mislead. There is nothing about your opinion that is inherently better than anyone else's, and due to your lack of understanding of relativity you want to be a giant chungus about it and push it onto everyone else, which I thoroughly disagree with on principle. Even if we had identical moral beliefs I would still oppose you. While you can have schools to re-educate people, this assumes (or projects, as I may) a level of complacency onto the populous which does not exist, especially with morality they may happen to disagree with. To assume there will be perfect agreement is foolish, as are the majority of your thoughts.

[Sesq]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

Yes, yes, we've established that my system is above logic already. Stop pretending that calling my system illogical is relevant in any way.

If it is not logically possible for your system to begin, function, or sustain itself, I consider that

extremely fucking important.

[Sesq]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

It's an insult youngun.

[Sesq]

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

I literally just said I wouldn't. Are you claiming to know my utopia better than me? I'll have you know that I'm the world's foremost expert on Accountant's utopia.

I am going directly off of what you said. If you have changed your mind, inform me.

[Davsto]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but the point is that I guarantee you that

every single one

of those cult members also thought they were 100% right with absolute certainty based on things that they think should be obvious (despite them being unwilling/unable to back it up), just like you. You asserting that you're right is just like them asserting that they are right.

[Davsto]

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative.

But re-education to force people to love something that they originally didn't like the idea of? Nah, not manipulative at all.

[Accountant]

While there are definitely some solid things that most people think are evil, such as murder, people have disagreements over what is moral and what is not. Some people think being gay is wrong. Some people think thinking being gay is wrong is wrong. Some people believe all sentient life is equal, some believe humans are elevated. You can have your opinions on these matters, and many more, but what makes your system more objective than any other outside of the fact that it is yours? And if it is so self-evident, why is there so much diversity in people's individual moral compasses?

So, you want to promote your idea of good, and shit on your idea of bad, as most people do. However, the difference here is that, while I may have a stance of freedom (to certain extents, of course, anarchy is dumb), you have an authoritarian mindset, which is kind of not good at all. First of all, the above should be considered, as your morals are not necessarily going to be right by the rest of the world, and if there are objective moral truths, you might be mislead. There is nothing about your opinion that is inherently better than anyone else's, and due to your lack of understanding of relativity you want to be a giant chungus about it and push it onto everyone else, which I thoroughly disagree with on principle. Even if we had identical moral beliefs I would still oppose you. While you can have schools to re-educate people, this assumes (or projects, as I may) a level of complacency onto the populous which does not exist, especially with morality they may happen to disagree with. To assume there will be perfect agreement is foolish, as are the majority of your thoughts.

What makes my system more objective? Well, there is no "higher thing" that makes my system more objective. We start from the premise that it is the most objective and correct thing in the universe and move on from there. A question like that is as silly as asking who created God.

Why is there so much diversity in people's individual moral compasses? My theory is that people are just born misguided. However, with proper care and education, they can be moved into the correct path.

"assumes a level of complacency onto the populace which does not exist" - well, the thing is, we can sit here and argue back and forth as to whether or not the population will change their views to match mine. But in the end if they don't change their views to match mine they simply won't be allowed to leave the re-education centers.

[Accountant]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

Yes, yes, we've established that my system is above logic already. Stop pretending that calling my system illogical is relevant in any way.

If it is not logically possible for your system to begin, function, or sustain itself, I consider that

extremely fucking important.

Well, suppose it was not logically possible for my system to begin. Then we can look at it as Logic ordering my system "not to exist" because it is logically impossible(in much the same way that logic would "order" - although it is of course not sentient - the existence of B if we take A -> B && A to be true). However, because my system is above logic, it simply "countermands the lesser order" and imposes itself onto reality.

Therefore, all that's necessary to do to create my utopia is to disobey logic. This may seem a difficult task, but I'm sure that with all of humanity working towards it, we'll be able to accomplish our goal eventually.

[Accountant]

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

I literally just said I wouldn't. Are you claiming to know my utopia better than me? I'll have you know that I'm the world's foremost expert on Accountant's utopia.

I am going directly off of what you said. If you have changed your mind, inform me.

Where have I said that I will create Minitruth or Room 101?

[Accountant]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but the point is that I guarantee you that

every single one

of those cult members also thought they were 100% right with absolute certainty based on things that they think should be obvious (despite them being unwilling/unable to back it up), just like you. You asserting that you're right is just like them asserting that they are right.

And Christians will think they are right about God 100% with absolute certainty. So will Muslims. Atheists too. Republicans think they are 100% right with absolute certainty. There's probably someone out there who thinks that toilet paper should be rolled with the paper facing the wall, and believes they are right 100% with absolute certainty.

In general, people think they are right. This is not a startling new insight.

[Accountant]

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative.

But re-education to force people to love something that they originally didn't like the idea of? Nah, not manipulative at all.

It's not manipulative. I'm very open and honest about what the schools do.

[Annadog40]

Accountant's plans are more like dr. Eggman and will turn everyone into robots.

[Accountant]

Accountant's plans are more like dr. Eggman and will turn everyone into robots.

not really

[Annadog40]

"I imagine very few people would still be purely flesh."

[Davsto]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but the point is that I guarantee you that

every single one

of those cult members also thought they were 100% right with absolute certainty based on things that they think should be obvious (despite them being unwilling/unable to back it up), just like you. You asserting that you're right is just like them asserting that they are right.

And Christians will think they are right about God 100% with absolute certainty. So will Muslims. Atheists too. Republicans think they are 100% right with absolute certainty. There's probably someone out there who thinks that toilet paper should be rolled with the paper facing the wall, and believes they are right 100% with absolute certainty.

In general, people think they are right. This is not a startling new insight.

...Right. You're really good at missing the point aren't you?

Actually, you've provided a good example - out of all of those groups, some of them are inevitably wrong. What makes you think that there's no chance that you're wrong, even though you know that there are groups of people who are wrong about things that they believe they are 100% right about?

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative.

But re-education to force people to love something that they originally didn't like the idea of? Nah, not manipulative at all.

It's not manipulative. I'm very open and honest about what the schools do.

That's not the definition of manipulative.

exercising unscrupulous control or influence over a person or situation.

I'm pretty sure that forcing people into re-education facilities definitely is manipulative.