James3's Ideology Thread

[Shaziro]

In this thread we discuss (With James3 of course), James3's ideas and thoughts that don't fit in other threads.

Keep in mind, this is a general discussion thread.

[James3]

You'll need to explain why an appeal to the natural order of things is faulty.

Because nature is not inherently good. Death is natural. Suffering is natural. Bugs that can burrow out of children's eyes are natural. None of those things are good. In addition, many unnatural things are good, like medicine.

Do you know what natural law theorists mean by "natural"?

[Dwlee99]

You'll need to explain why an appeal to the natural order of things is faulty.

Because nature is not inherently good. Death is natural. Suffering is natural. Bugs that can burrow out of children's eyes are natural. None of those things are good. In addition, many unnatural things are good, like medicine.

Do you know what natural law theorists mean by "natural"?

Not specifically, no. I would be interested in hearing what you mean by it?

[Ether]

There was something about seeing Accountant and James3 debate each other earlier that was really delightful to me, even though the magic was ruined when other people started jumping in. Could we also get a thread just for the two of them?

[Shaziro]

There was something about seeing Accountant and James3 debate each other earlier that was really delightful to me, even though the magic was ruined when other people started jumping in. Could we also get a thread just for the two of them?

I mean, either could debate it out in the other's thread pretty easily. I don't know how to lock a thread in the GD or SE to only two participants and some manner of "moderator" to have started the thread.

[theplague42]

There was something about seeing Accountant and James3 debate each other earlier that was really delightful to me, even though the magic was ruined when other people started jumping in. Could we also get a thread just for the two of them?

Honestly, it might be self-sustaining once it got started.

[James3]

You'll need to explain why an appeal to the natural order of things is faulty.

Because nature is not inherently good. Death is natural. Suffering is natural. Bugs that can burrow out of children's eyes are natural. None of those things are good. In addition, many unnatural things are good, like medicine.

Do you know what natural law theorists mean by "natural"?

Not specifically, no. I would be interested in hearing what you mean by it?

It starts with the premise that things have natures which incline them toward certain ends. Something is "natural" if it is in conformity with or not contrary to the end of the thing in question. Death is the complete corruption of a nature, which is why all living things are naturally inclined to avoid it. Likewise bodily impairment is bad because it also is a corruption of a nature (although obviously not complete corruption). The bugs that you mention are most likely engaged in acts that are good for themselves, but there's nothing in natural law theory which makes their behavior good for their victim. Medicine of course aids the natural function of those who make use of it.

Contraception is bad, in this view, because it involves deliberately impeding the natural function of the sexual faculty.

[Shaziro]

You're ignoring that people are also naturally inclined to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Pregnancy and childbirth are painful, sex is (typically) pleasurable.

[James3]

That general observation doesn't affect the specific issues at hand. If it did, it would equally apply to any moral imperative whatsoever.

[Sesq]

actually, humans were evolved to want to fuck all the time and we're merely filling that desire to our ability

we're erasing a conflict within evolution

Cool story. Doesn't change the reason why "evolution" made us want to have sex.

yeah its to have kids

but society isnt really structured that way right now where you just have a ton of kids

also naturalistic fallacy look it up

[Dwlee99]

The "natural end" of each human's (and animal's) life is to reproduce. With this in mind how can you claim immorality of trying to have sex with as many people as possible (outside of wedlock) in order to reproduce as much as possible? This is seen in the animal kingdom.

[Shaziro]

In fact, kids not being cared for could mean that only the strongest kids can survive. Lots of animals use this system, works pretty well for them. Basing your morals on what you consider natural is non-functional imo.

[James3]

actually, humans were evolved to want to fuck all the time and we're merely filling that desire to our ability

we're erasing a conflict within evolution

Cool story. Doesn't change the reason why "evolution" made us want to have sex.

yeah its to have kids

but society isnt really structured that way right now where you just have a ton of kids

also naturalistic fallacy look it up

See above.

The "natural end" of each human's (and animal's) life is to reproduce. With this in mind how can you claim immorality of trying to have sex with as many people as possible (outside of wedlock) in order to reproduce as much as possible? This is seen in the animal kingdom.

Cads don't reproduce

well

, in Aristotelian terms. Human beings need a father for proper psychosocial development.

I'd also point out that we aren't the only monogamous species either.

In fact, kids not being cared for could mean that only the strongest kids can survive. Lots of animals use this system, works pretty well for them. Basing your morals on what you consider natural is non-functional imo.

I'm not honestly sure what this has to do with anything. Death is bad for a living creature regardless of its aptitude.

[Dwlee99]

How do you determine what is "natural?" Isnt it all subjective? Couldnt I argue that it is

really

natural for humans to try to reproduce as much as possible?

[Accountant]

It's painful to read this, because james3 is on the cusp of understanding something very insightful but then gets it all wrong. Yes, it's true that everything has a function and that to disrupt the proper functioning of such things is equivalent to an evil act, but to think that this function comes from nature is misguided. The function is assigned by none other than the correct path and allows the things of the world to synchronize in order to create utopia. Blind evolution has precisely nothing to do with it.

[wgeurts]

Wait, we have two accountants now?

[Randomnamechange]

It's painful to read this, because james3 is on the cusp of understanding something very insightful but then gets it all wrong. Yes, it's true that everything has a function and that to disrupt the proper functioning of such things is equivalent to an evil act, but to think that this function comes from nature is misguided. The function is assigned by none other than the correct path and allows the things of the world to synchronize in order to create utopia. Blind evolution has precisely nothing to do with it.

best post in the thread
who needs fights when you can have this

[Psyche]

Contraception is bad, in this view, because it involves deliberately impeding the natural function of the sexual faculty.

that's the naturalistic fallacy

[CooLDoG]

You'll need to explain why an appeal to the natural order of things is faulty.

Because nature is not inherently good. Death is natural. Suffering is natural. Bugs that can burrow out of children's eyes are natural. None of those things are good. In addition, many unnatural things are good, like medicine.

Do you know what natural law theorists mean by "natural"?

Not specifically, no. I would be interested in hearing what you mean by it?

It starts with the premise that things have natures which incline them toward certain ends. Something is "natural" if it is in conformity with or not contrary to the end of the thing in question. Death is the complete corruption of a nature, which is why all living things are naturally inclined to avoid it. Likewise bodily impairment is bad because it also is a corruption of a nature (although obviously not complete corruption). The bugs that you mention are most likely engaged in acts that are good for themselves, but there's nothing in natural law theory which makes their behavior good for their victim. Medicine of course aids the natural function of those who make use of it.

Contraception is bad, in this view, because it involves deliberately impeding the natural function of the sexual faculty.

Phil person translation:
Every entity has a telos. Conforming to the telos is what is the good (Hello plato, how u doin?). Death is is contrary to the telos, immortality/everlasting-life is the goal of all things (*facepalm*). Fuck the cripples although sometimes you get dealt bad cards [I'm sorry, but this is what this theory amounts to and I think it is valuable to expose its true "nature" even if it involves saying say a bad word.]. Being differently abled is caused by your own action (lol, wtf????). But, fuck those ppl, amir? But medicine good.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. This is worse than accountant. But actually though >.> . At least Accountant isn't

blatantly abalist

. And he at least offers us tacit pleasure if we buy his utopia (alla 1984). In your system, I don't know... Jesus, I would have to read camus on the daily to get through life.

[

The "natural end" of each human's (and animal's) life is to reproduce. With this in mind how can you claim immorality of trying to have sex with as many people as possible (outside of wedlock) in order to reproduce as much as possible? This is seen in the animal kingdom.

Cads don't reproduce

well

, in Aristotelian terms. Human beings need a father for proper psychosocial development.

I'd also point out that we aren't the only monogamous species either.

COME AT ME. How old are you? A real fucking question. Because Aristotle says you have to be of a certain age to know what virtue is. You have to make mistakes. Does your "ideology" (to give it that name is even generous) permit mistakes to happen as a means to growth? Test question: do you know what Aristotle says about happiness [what your pathetic translation calls it]? If so, how does this reckon with the prescription. Also, what do you make of the golden mean? What do you make of the hemlock Aristotle took? In other words, try again, you suck at virtue ethics.

[Accountant]

To be technical about it, I'm not offering *you* pleasure, I'm offering you righteousness, and I'm offering the righteous pleasure.

[CooLDoG]

accountant, get out of this thread. You are above engaging in such trash. At least you allow for a form of contentment....

[Accountant]

It is the duty of the righteous to confront the unrighteous and explain why they are wrong, even if the person seems morally reprehensible. I would have no problems talking to a child rapist or a mass murderer and explaining why they did was wrong and why they should change their ways, and james3 is nowhere near that level of "trash".

[CooLDoG]

No. He is. Accountant, this is the difference: You would at least try to understand what they did. You would talk to them and try to understand what they did because it is so incomprehensible to you and explain why you think it is wrong. This shows good character. This fucking guy would send them to the chair straight up, no conversation. That is the difference between you and him. And this is why you are a better person and at least tolerable to talk to .

[CooLDoG]

Also, @ james, explain the medicine point, should we not treat those who are "inferior", if so, are not we all?

[Accountant]

I'd send the murderer to the chair as well, to be perfectly frank.