Annur Philosophy Thread

[MarioManiac4]

i like this thread

[MarioManiac4]

Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".

[MarioManiac4]

Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".

This is just begging the question. Good and evil are subjective because good and evil are subjective?

no the statement "charity is good" is subjective because "good" is subjective but whatever.
There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good." "good" is basically something we approve of in our flawed opinions. No person's "good" is better than anothers.

[MarioManiac4]

There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good."

So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?

In a world where it was universally agreed on that sexism is good, is sexism suddenly good?

In society, the word "good" does indeed turn towards meaning what the majority thinks is true. Therefore, this would be the accepted meaning of "good", yes.

Personally, I believe that good things have no, or very sparce, physical and mental pain and prevent physical and mental pain. My votes in society reflect this. Everyone else's vote reflects their opinion. Generally democracy is the best current way to limit "physical" and "mental" pain

as long as it is a true democracy where no group is unable to vote and anyone gets a say.

[MarioManiac4]

What if more than 60% of the people in a democracy believes in a law that would cause great hurt to the other 40%?

I wouldn't like that. I would welcome them to another democracy that didn't provide these restrictions.
If there was none then I would go to the country where there was the most opposition to the new law and help protest and change people's views in order to provide a safe area where oppressive laws do not exist.
Alternatively we could try to talk to these people and explain logically what these laws would do.

[MarioManiac4]

What if the democracy resulted in a law being passed which prevented people from leaving?

Then you break the democratic law.

[MarioManiac4]

Do you think that anti-leaving law harms people physically and mentally? If so, hasn't democracy failed in its job of doing the least harm?

Yes. Democracy, has, indeed, failed in its job. That is because democracy is not a perfect system.
However, I do not see any superior option to democracy.

[MarioManiac4]

What if I told you that a benevolent dictatorship would lead to less harm because it doesn't have the same flaws democracy does?

What if I told you that a benevolent dictatorship system is even more flawed and is also unsustainable?

[MarioManiac4]

The response to you will be in your thread, Accountant.