Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Strazdas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

You still haven't told me how you determine something as vague as "benefit to our society". What alternative benefits society the most? The one that maximizies GDP? The one that maximizes aggregate happiness? The one that protects whatever individual rights you deem important the most? And which rights do you deem important, and how important, in the first place? And what if the goals are at conflict with each other?

What logic, reason, and critical thought enable you is to make better, more consistent moral judgements, but they're moral judgements nonetheless. You'll realize then that, say, "because the Bible says so!" is generally a rather poor argument, but you still won't be able to find the objectively right answer to question of, say, under which circumstances the principle of non-intervention is superseded by the responsibility to protect fundamental human rights in a country where those are violated.
Seriously, I could give you dozens of real life examples like the latter one. But yea I repeat myself: Do tell me how you make judgements that are absolutely totally not moral in any way here... I'm waiting.

Humans have been looking for an answer to that question for 3500 years of written history and perhaps even more. A random internet poster will not come up with an answer just because you asked (btw, you didnt before).
What we do is we stumble around in the dark hoping to find food rather than poison. but now we got a flashlight and we call it science.

 

[Strazdas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

Bzzt. Wrong.

What makes them better? Why is that good?

I said answer without morals.

you have posted this while i was editing my post above yours to respond to Atlas, therefore i would like to point you to that post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.846451-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?page=16#20883493] instead of repeating myself.

also proclaiming somone is wrong while providing no evidence but only question does not actually make you correct.

 

[Strazdas]

Still waiting.

I asked you to explain what a benefit to society is without using morality. You have yet to do it (because it's impossible). Stop avoiding the awkward truth and admit you are wrong, or answer the question.

Keep waiting then. I have already explained what it is to the best of my abilities, and i also noted why i cannot give you a precise formula. I could easily tell you to stop avoiding the truth and admit morals are relative, but that would accomplish just as much as you doing it - nothing.

 

[tangoprime]

snip

Based your assertions in this thread, can I count on you joining my boycott of OKCupid due to their co-founder/CEO's $1,000 contributions to anti-gay candidate's campaigns between 2004 and 2008? I would really like to see him pressured into to resignation due to his speaking bigotry with his wallet by donating $500 to representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) in 2004, a rep who voted against gay marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation discrimination in the workplace, and against gay adoption, and a $500 donation in 2008 to then Senator Barack Obama's campaign, who, at the time, stated that marriage was by definition between a man and a woman, and even until 2011 held the position that he hadn't "signed on to same-sex marriage."

In doing so, despite this being many years ago, he showed his bigotry, and it's our duty to make his employer feel the pain he caused, right?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

This is a non-answer. What actually makes life better for the society, that is the question. And that kinda depends on what people "think is good or bad", doesn't it? And sometimes people want different things. And how do you decide whose wants should supersede the others without thinking about how morally justified these wants are? You already said before that the majority isn't always right, so that can't be the solution.

Oh, and by the way, the benefit of society as a whole, as you seem to think is what matters, without considering individual rights of some sort, that's just utilitarianism. A distinct school of thought of moral philosophy. So should you really have this point of view, welcome aboard - you care about morals after all.

Keep waiting then. I have already explained what it is to the best of my abilities, and i also noted why i cannot give you a precise formula.

If you cannot give a sensible answer, then either your abilities are rather poor, or it is because you're trying to defend an nonsensical opinion.

I could easily tell you to stop avoiding the truth and admit morals are relative, but that would accomplish just as much as you doing it - nothing.

Saying that morals are relative, i.e. subscribing to moral relativism, wouldn't be the same as saying morals don't matter though, as you do. Presumably Jane doesn't subscribe to this, though, and neither do I, for that matter.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Well I find this disgusting with these gay rights groups being bullies with the if you don't follow my belief then SHAME! He never publicly spoke about his believes and gave a private donation against gay marriage something that I agree with since marriage is a religious ceremony and demanding a religion to put aside their beliefs to allow a marriage in their place of worship according to their holy rituals screams of a lack of respect and understanding of their religious practices (hypocritical gay rights activists).

On the other hand I do believe that there should be a legal agreement that gives all the same benefits of marriage without that pesky religious overtone getting in the way (isn't it called a civil union). Great for same sex partnerships and heterosexual atheists (myself included) who while not believing in their god won't slap a priest in the face saying marry us even if we don't follow your doctrine and act in a way that is heretical to your beliefs.

Now I will need to don a flame retardant suit since people will be trying to shame me and call me a homophobe etc. etc. all because I don't hold the pro gay marriage viewpoint for what I believe very justified reasons.

 

[gagagaga]

Well I find this disgusting with these gay rights groups being bullies with the if you don't follow my belief then SHAME! He never publicly spoke about his believes and gave a private donation against gay marriage something that I agree with since marriage is a religious ceremony and demanding a religion to put aside their beliefs to allow a marriage in their place of worship according to their holy rituals screams of a lack of respect and understanding of their religious practices (hypocritical gay rights activists).

On the other hand I do believe that there should be a legal agreement that gives all the same benefits of marriage without that pesky religious overtone getting in the way (isn't it called a civil union). Great for same sex partnerships and heterosexual atheists (myself included) who while not believing in their god won't slap a priest in the face saying marry us even if we don't follow your doctrine and act in a way that is heretical to your beliefs.

Now I will need to don a flame retardant suit since people will be trying to shame me and call me a homophobe etc. etc. all because I don't hold the pro gay marriage viewpoint for what I believe very justified reasons.

I don't think you're a homophobe - you don't think gay people or sex is inherently wrong or anything. But I think your assertion that gay people are going to force priests of whatever religion to marry them against said priest's will ridiculous. How the hell would that even work, and why would gay people go to an anti-gay priest instead of one who will marry them willingly?

 

[Strazdas]

This is a non-answer. What actually makes life better for the society, that is the question. And that kinda depends on what people "think is good or bad", doesn't it? And sometimes people want different things. And how do you decide whose wants should supersede the others without thinking about how morally justified these wants are? You already said before that the majority isn't always right, so that can't be the solution.

Oh, and by the way, the benefit of society as a whole, as you seem to think is what matters, without considering individual rights of some sort, that's just utilitarianism. A distinct school of thought of moral philosophy. So should you really have this point of view, welcome aboard - you care about morals after all.

If you cannot give a sensible answer, then either your abilities are rather poor, or it is because you're trying to defend an nonsensical opinion.

Saying that morals are relative, i.e. subscribing to moral relativism, wouldn't be the same as saying morals don't matter though, as you do. Presumably Jane doesn't subscribe to this, though, and neither do I, for that matter.

It indeed is a question. One i have no answer for, because i am not a omnisentient god. Yes, i am unable to determine the ultimate benefit for humanity, but do you?

I never tried to put a sticker to my views, i dont know if its similar to itlitiarianism or not. I know that personal morals are not part of it. according to wikipedia "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering." Based on some of the info in that article, i would not be a utilitarianism, at least not a complete one.

Indeed i am aware of my abilities to put forth the idea being rather poor. that is my fault and i only hope people who are better than me in literacy can produce a more coherent version of my ideas.

Morals on large scale does not exist because morals are relative. Morals being relative, they are as useful as opinions and opinions are not facts.

Moral relativism is a fact. unless you can prove existence of being that throws universal morals on us (like a GOD). You may not "subscribe" to it if you dont want to. Does not make you correct just like flat earth society does not make earth flat.