why hating on kony 2012 is inherently wrong

[nuba km]

I'll tell you how you can tell if something is right or wrong. It's that little sense of horror in the back of your mind. Ever felt it? It's your conscience.

Your conscience developed over the years of people telling you what is right or wrong, for instance have you ever noticed that someone who is only ever exposed to a group of people who believe homosexuality is wrong will believe that homosexuality is wrong. While someone brought up surrounded by people who teach him right and wrong have to do with what consequences their are won't believe homosexuality is wrong because it has no consequence. There was a gay christian on a TV show being interview about why he though gay marriage was wrong and at one point he said their is always a voice in the back of his head telling him that its wrong he is gay, guess what that voice which you call hi conscience is only telling him its wrong because the christian church is telling him its wrong.

It all comes down to the basic principle of the species surviving, we will to what it takes for our species to survive our brains are hard wired to think so, so we don't murder each other as it won't help our species to survive as humans advanced we called these ideas of not killing and stealing form each other, morality, simply calling murder wrong or saving another of our kind as right. These Ideas advanced as every other concept of humans advanced (language, maths, politics etc.). This means the closest thing you can call inherit morality simply breaks down into what is best for our species, but the view can also be taken that this means that right and wrong are only social constructs as you would be more likely to survive in group of people who think it is morally right to rape by simply agreeing with their ideas, while in another culture that could get you killed, hence calling rape inherently wrong shows a lack of understanding of what morality actually is.

edit:

snip

read what I have written

 

[nuba km]

Your conscience developed over the years of people telling you what is right or wrong, for instance have you ever noticed that someone who is only ever exposed to a group of people who believe homosexuality is wrong will believe that homosexuality is wrong. While someone brought up surrounded by people who teach him right and wrong have to do with what consequences their are won't believe homosexuality is wrong because it has no consequence. There was a gay christian on a TV show being interview about why he though gay marriage was wrong and at one point he said their is always a voice in the back of his head telling him that its wrong he is gay, guess what that voice which you call hi conscience is only telling him its wrong because the christian church is telling him its wrong.

It all comes down to the basic principle of the species surviving, we will to what it takes for our species to survive our brains are hard wired to think so, so we don't murder each other as it won't help our species to survive as humans advanced we called these ideas of not killing and stealing form each other, morality, simply calling murder wrong or saving another of our kind as right. These Ideas advanced as every other concept of humans advanced (language, maths, politics etc.). This means the closest thing you can call inherit morality simply breaks down into what is best for our species, but the view can also be taken that this means that right and wrong are only social constructs as you would be more likely to survive in group of people who think it is morally right to rape by simply agreeing with their ideas, while in another culture that could get you killed, hence calling rape inherently wrong shows a lack of understanding of what morality actually is.

What exactly am I supposed to be getting out of your post?
There is no argument there. There isn't even a thesis.

there is the argument that morality is not inherently right or wrong like you claim and that bring in my own view that these ideas of right and wrong are brought around by the urge fro our species to survive which I believe to be something hard wired in our brain. e.g your claim that making someone is happy comes from the idea that if a person is happy they are much more likely to do their tasks efficiently and for everyone to like each other and help each other survive. While your idea that misery is bad comes from people not trusting each other and trying to make each other miserable leading to the lack of co-work and other things brought around by happiness. Though it could be argued bringing misery is good thing as it makes a person stronger and more likely to fight for what they need which is the kind of attitude which means the most adapt to survive in our species are the one who end up having children which will be more adapt to survive while trying to make each other happy means our gene pool will end up having genes in them less adapt to survive so while we are more likely to survive through our large numbers we are less likely to survive if our numbers drop unlike if we made each other miserable.

in short you only believe what is right or wrong by what your culture thinks makes them more likely to survive.

 

[Averant]

...I do believe this thread got derailed. Better than the previous topic, I suppose. On that note, I'm calling troll. A somewhat clever, very determined troll. I'm also calling stupid on the rest of this site, because if anyone read his original post, they'd have seen him saying, and I quote,

"dont bother commenting trying to excuse your behavior or explain to me why destroying this guys life was the correct thing to do because it wasnt..."

You see that? Don't bother making an excuse because I won't listen to it. And yet people post, expecting him to listen. For at least three pages. Completely ignoring his refusal to listen to logic.

Fucking sigh.

EDIT: However, troll or not, I have one thing to say to the poster called "the random".

...................

You see these? These are things called "periods".

USE THEM.

 

[ScaryAlmond]

The reason why Kony 2012 is hated upon is because it's so fucking simple all it says is Kony is a bad guy and were the good guys.
Its like saying I hated Hitler and that Stalin was a great guy cos he was on our side.
Really even Ugandans that watched it hated the movie because I goes as far as saying the Ugandan government are the good guys this is just plainly not true.
If I made a movie about how milk can be drunk that does not mean I can explain the complexities of the milk industry.

Everyone hates Kony but this Movie is just stupid and does not explain the other side.
(Plus lastly why are we giving troops to Uganda Kony isn't even there makes no sense)

 

[C2Ultima]

Unless Invisible Children suddenly becomes the international courts or suddenly becomes the US government, they wont change anything. All they do is raise awareness, which is USELESS.

Whoa, wait a minute. Raising awareness is not useless. Invisible Children is a bit shady, and I'd never consider donating money to them, but it's a worthy cause they support. 81 million people have seen the video on YouTube, and if every U.S Senator received letters about Kony from just 1% of that group, that'd still be hundreds of thousands of letters. The U.S government couldn't ignore that.

It seems that all the hate for the Kony 2012 business is, understandably, directed more towards Invisible Children themselves. You don't have to support them to care about the cause, even if the information is really outdated.

 

[boonryan]

okay the reason why is that the internet had opportunity to do something good, yes maybe it wasn't something great and better things could be done but we had opportunity to do something really good by bringing some one who killed hundreds of people, made hundreds of children into drug slaves and destroyed thousands of lives to justice

but instead everyone jumped on a huge hater band wagon mostly for small, petty, illegitimate reasons or even down right lies, its true that there are some legitimate reasons to disagree with invisible children but only 1% of hater's ive seen use them and these people couldn't disagree quietly no they went about trying to destroy all of invisible children's support with the same energy and determination were if the same energy and determination were used to support kony 2012 this guy would probably have been bought to justice by now but instead they destroyed the life work of a guy who was trying to do something good and could have succeeded, and destroyed it to such a degree he got high on drugs and ran round the street naked and now people are dancing on his corpse, i hope your happy haters you win congratulations i hope your really proud of yourself and the worst part is that all this grew from an opportunity to do something good.

dont bother commenting trying to excuse your behavior or explain to me why destroying this guys life was the correct thing to do because it wasnt and under no circumstance would destroying this guys life be acceptable when all he was trying to do was bring an evil person to justice and you destroyed him for it

if you hated in invisible children you should be fucking ashamed of yourself

read more, and stop being so fucking naive
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/kony-baloney
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/kony-2012-state-propaganda-for-a-new-generation/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-international-obsession-with-joseph-kony-is-already-ending/254510/

 

[DarkRyter]

"Conceptual"'s an inappropriate word for what I mean to get across.

I mean to say that, Morality is an idea that is too steeped in individual perspective to have any bearing on objective reality.

Just because personal perspective obscures the truth doesn't mean there is no truth.
An individual's opinion of the existence of a God is equally "steeped in individual perspective" and depending on who you ask, you're likely to receive radically different answers.
That does not mean the question "Does got exist?" loses meaning.
It simply means that the truth is difficult to determine.

Morality exists. Actions that cause misery are evil. Actions that promote happiness are good.
Doesn't get any simpler than that.

It's not a matter of personal perspective obscuring the truth. There is no truth. There never was a truth. There will never be a truth. There can't be a truth.Morality simply isn't a intrinsic quality of the universe. Things can be "red". Things can be "5 miles wide". Things can be "made of Iron". But things can't be "good" or "bad".

The existence of God is entirely irrelevant to perspective. It either exists or does not exist. That is ultimately an unknown.

What causes misery and happiness is different for different people. What causes misery for some causes happiness for others. Your definition of morality is still ultimately reliant on subjective opinion, rather than empirical properties.

 

[DarkRyter]

It's not a matter of personal perspective obscuring the truth. There is no truth. There never was a truth. There will never be a truth. There can't be a truth.Morality simply isn't a intrinsic quality of the universe. Things can be "red". Things can be "5 miles wide". Things can be "made of Iron". But things can't be "good" or "bad".

The existence of God is entirely irrelevant to perspective. It either exists or does not exist. That is ultimately an unknown.

What causes misery and happiness is different for different people. What causes misery for some causes happiness for others. Your definition of morality is still ultimately reliant on subjective opinion, rather than empirical properties.

That's what I am saying though. Morality exists regardless of perspective. The value of actions in promoting happiness and causing misery can be measured through neuroscience.

What causes happiness and what causes misery is essentially universal in all examples of human life.
There may be minor differences but essentially we all want to live and have fundamental needs that must be met.

Mass murder is objectively wrong because it serves no good purpose and one can evaluate the effects of the action objectively.
Morality exists empirically. You can reduce it to numbers if you like.
Just because human experience is subjective doesn't mean morality doesn't exist.

Now, it can be difficult to determine the morality of an action without knowing the repercussions, but once all the information is known, it's easy to determine whether an action is good or bad.
It's extremely straightforward.

Some actions cause misery and others bring about happiness. Happiness is good. Misery is bad.
A five year old could tell me this.

What if one were to disagree? What if Steve were to say mass murder is a good thing because it makes Steve happy? What would make your assertion that mass murder is bad any more valid than his?

 

[DarkRyter]

Numbers. Hundreds of people shouldn't have to suffer the ultimate misery of impending death to please Steve.
Not only that, but if murderers were free to do as they pleased, most people would live constantly in fear.
This will cause untold suffering, and so Steve must be stopped.

Argumentum ad Populum.

You asserted that things are objectively good or bad. If this was true, then numbers shouldn't matter. It's either good. Or it's bad. However many people agree that it's good is irrelevant, truth isn't a democracy.

This is not a discussion about whether murderer's should be free to murder. Moral Relativism DOES NOT equal social darwinism or normlessness.

Norms and popularly concieved notions of what is proper and improper exist, but there is ultimately no logical basis behind them.

 

[DarkRyter]

You misunderstood me. I couldn't care less how many people agreed with me.
An appeal to the people is when I say that most people believe what I believe, therefore I'm right.
That's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that it's morally wrong because many people have to suffer a lot for the satisfaction of "Steve."
Understand the terms before you use them.

What do you mean "numbers shouldn't matter"?
The number of people that suffer for an act that grants you gratification absolutely matters.
Morality is about two things, the intent and the consequences.
Murdering for the sake of personal entertainment is wrong because the cost is too great for the benefits.

And I told you it's not about social norms. Morality isn't relative regardless of what society believes.
If there was a society in which people murdered for entertainment on a regular basis, that doesn't make it okay.
It's still morally wrong because the cost vastly outweighs the benefits.

You're over-thinking the issue. It's incredibly simple.

You're still assuming several premises.
Also, Steve isn't the reason for the mass murder. He's just the guy who says it's a good thing.

Murdering for the sake of personal entertainment is wrong because the cost is too great for the benefits.

Here, you place objective value on "cost" (people's lives and feelings and whatnot) and "benefit" (Whatever Steve thinks the benefit is.). Whatever worth they have comes from your individual opinion.

The number of people that suffer for an act that grants you gratification absolutely matters.

Why? Explain why 8 people's suffering is any more significant from 7 people's suffering. Or 10,000 people suffering. Or 19 penguins. Or a large rock.

And I told you it's not about social norms. Morality isn't relative regardless of what society believes.
If there was a society in which people murdered for entertainment on a regular basis, that doesn't make it okay.

Nothing makes it okay. Nothing makes it not okay, either. There is nothing in the universe to physically define what is good and what is evil, so nothing can for a fact be good or evil.

 

[CrazyDave DC]

So much for this thread being a simple question of "what do you feel about X issue?" Now it seems like anyone who disagrees with Invisible Children is a modern day Stalin or something.

Honestly, I don't disagree with shifting the public eye on Kony or trying to bring him to justice, but when I do not immediately respond by giving money to Invisible Children, suddenly I'm branded a Kony supporter. Seriously?

When a large chunk of the money goes to Invisible Children, and when one of their plans is to fund the armies of different African countries, then I see no reason why I should support this organization. Congrats are in order for making more people aware of this guy, but that's as far as my appreciation goes for Invisible Children.

 

[CrazyDave DC]

...................

You see these? These are things called "periods".


USE THEM.

Nah man, those are a whole bunch of ellipsis strung together.