Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
So you are telling me that using arguments that are in any way based on moral considerations are the wrong way to in order to decide how we want our society to look like, yet you provide no alternative?Strazdas said:
Judging from your own statements, you actually believe exactly the opposite. You say you believe that there is some objective "benefit to humanity", a theoretical point, a certain set of rules/laws/practices/etc where human happiness/utility/whateveryouwannacallit is maximized, even though you don't know exactly where this point is. Consequently, you must believe that actions that get us closer to this point are right and actions that don't are wrong. That is, they are morally right or morally wrong.
And you know what? I believe the same. Honestly, I came to believe that you're just a bit confused about the word "moral". You don't seem to like it very much, perhaps because you heard it too often by people pushing their own beliefs without ever really justifying or reasoning them, but this is exactly the opposite of thinking carefully and analytically about morality. Arguments like "this is wrong because the bible says so" are, for example, usually among the weakest moral arguments you can make.
Here's a good & entertaining start if you're interesting in learning more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6
making implication that they are trolling is against the rules, so we cannot discuss that. That person does indeed often either provides nothing to the discussion or gives false information (or just chants "unconstitutional").Hixy said:I know ! I have asked questions several times and I don't get answers just smart little replies! Its like they are trolling. That has to be low content posting
No. i am saying that using arguments that are based only on moral consideration are the wrong way to decide. like i said morals sometimes, in fact one could make a case for often even, coincide with benefits. For example its factually beneficial to be agianst murder. after all simple logic dictates that if we murder eachother the suffering would not be made lower. This is also a moral belief of many people, thus the two coincide.CloudAtlas said:
A practical point of benefit to human community we got set up. It maximizes happyness for everyone in the community. i do not have the golden formula on how to do that, i doubt anyone does. Im sure that if we knew exactly the end goal moving there would be easier, but since we never experienced it in our history we do not know and we always find ways to make life better (be in invention of technology or no sexual discrimination). We learn an improve. its not a static thing, it changes as humans change.
I do not believe in right or wrong actions, at least not in a way term is generally used. I believe in beneficial and damaging actions. That being said, i am aware that what i think is beneficial does not necessary is, because what i think is my own single opinion. I do not deny the possibility that i may be wrong about this whole thing, but so far i got no evidence to believe so and where i was shown evidence i have agreed on my mistakes.
I didnt claim it was better. I claimed it was beneficial. the terms are different. and i admit that my belief is subjective as well, which in fact supports moral relativism.JaneTheDoe said:
Oh, but i can explain why killing a million people is not beneficial to human community - people are dead. that causes suffering, suffering is not beneficial to best of our knowledge, therefore its not beneficial. no morality here, only reasoning.
If you are saying killing fellow humans is wrong because it increases suffering - i.e. decreases utility - for society as a whole, then you are implicitly making a utilitarian argument. As I told you earlier, utilitarianism is a distinct school of thought of moral philosophy, but it is not the only school of thought, and it certainly is not the only valid or objectively correct school either.Strazdas said:
If someone else is saying killing fellow humans is wrong because the right to life is a fundamental human right (because everyone wants to live) that mustn't be violated, he is arriving at the same conclusion here, but with different reasoning. You and her both, though, are making moral judgements, whether you like the term or not.
I really don't know what else I could say to you to convince you that you too are actually making moral arguments when you are making moral arguments. And I don't know either how to convince you that what you believe is pretty much the opposite of moral relativism. Which is good, because I think moral relativism is awful.
Anyway, whether you like the term "moral" or not, at least you seem to be in favour of using logic and reasoning to make decisions on the political issues of our time. And one could only wish that the people who talk about morality the most, the preachy religious kind, would do the same.
Edit: Speaking about reasoning... I wish I could have made my point as succintly as Triligan.
Just a few years ago, his view on homosexuals would have been the status quo and 60-70% of the country would have agreed with him. I'm so happy to see that this is no longer the case. Now people have to hide from their bigotry like those people who would block black students from entering white schools.
Personally, I find the man having an opinion about gay marriage to be his right, and find it atrocious he's been forced out of his job for having one.
Imagine yourself being forced out of your job for posting something unpopular on The Escapist. That's a sleight against your rights to free speech, another ham-fisted victory for groupthink, and something that would have made the Nazis very happy to see. (Hello, Godwin's Law.)
However, I personally don't have anything against LGBT marriage, and I am a bit disturbed about some of the other decisions Mozilla has been making lately [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132204-Built-In-Advertising-is-Coming-to-Firefox], so if his dismissal results in a reversal of those decisions then don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
Imagine yourself being forced out of your job for posting something unpopular on The Escapist. That's a sleight against your rights to free speech, another ham-fisted victory for groupthink, and something that would have made the Nazis very happy to see. (Hello, Godwin's Law.)
However, I personally don't have anything against LGBT marriage, and I am a bit disturbed about some of the other decisions Mozilla has been making lately [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132204-Built-In-Advertising-is-Coming-to-Firefox], so if his dismissal results in a reversal of those decisions then don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
While the free market is nice, it's also one to be an unforgiving and fickle mistress. This kind of short term petty political play only serves you so long as the ideas behind you are favored by the majority, and you can't guarantee that in the long run. You open a can of worms, that I don't think you want open when you start advocating people lose out in their professional lives, for personal convictions. Just wait till opinions you feel strongly about and support become unpopular (deserved or not) and you might be able to see how this behavior is incredibly damaging to the democratic process.JaneTheDoe said:
Personal and Professional. Private verses Corporate. If he had been behind getting the company to give money, sure. If he had been instituting anti gay policy in the company sure. This was not the case. His politics have nothing to do with his job. While you are free to boycott, it's a dangerous precedent you set for yourself and your movement when this kind of action is advocated for.JaneTheDoe said: