Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

history_fan40 t1_j6c15vs wrote

Reply to comment by vkstu in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214

> I beg to differ by a lot

With what logical basis?

> why would I judge the actions of a tiger

They are a species of animals, just like humans. Or do you need another ape species to judge? How about chimpanzees and bonobos, the two species most similar to humans?

> hurts their species’ viability

That doesn’t make it “objectively bad”.

1

vkstu t1_j6c6s6p wrote

On the basis of various examples within ethical objectivism, Plato's writings among others, and various things I've already said to you.

As for the tiger. Yes, they're also animals, as are we. And yet, as we're different species and different brains, we cannot lay down judgment. Goes for chimpanzees and any other animal you can think of. I thought that would've been more than obvious.

And it does make it objectively bad, for the tigers, which was the point.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6czjrp wrote

About ethical objectivism, we invented these concepts, and all of it is opinion-based, so no, it is not objective.

> objectively bad

You’re subjectively saying that a reduction in members of the species is bad. That’s not objective.

You do realize that all species, whether humans, chimpanzees, tigers, or any other animal, are all going to go extinct at some point no matter what, right?

1

vkstu t1_j6d5tja wrote

No, it's not all opinion based at all. Like math, they're build upon logic. Not all may be arriving at the same logical conclusion though, but they may've erred, like one may in math. When there's multiple logically sound conclusions, then your limiting parameters in the question aren't sufficient. Like one can't know in certain equations whether x is positive or not.

And yes, I do know they will at some point go extinct. Is that not bad for the species itself? There's nothing subjective about that. Secondly, we are talking about a species genociding itself, not an outside force making them go extinct. So you're slippery sloping the argument.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6d6bf7 wrote

Going extinct is not objectively bad. In general, the ceasing of life, whether from internal or external factors, is not objectively bad. It’s only considered bad if life is considered necessarily a positive, which is not objective. Tigers have to do the work to hunt to get their food, and if they overdo it, it would disrupt part of the food chain temporarily, causing chaos on a small scale.

1

vkstu t1_j6d8347 wrote

You fail to see the point yet again. It's not about whether it's objectively bad for the universe at large. It's objectively bad, or a negative if you will, for the species itself. It's all in the limiting parameters that one can arrive at a logical conclusion.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6d92h1 wrote

Again, it’s only bad if the species’ existence in large numbers is considered good. That’s not objective at all. It is objectively obstructive of said species existing in large numbers, good or bad is a subjective thing building on top of that.

1

vkstu t1_j6d9uaz wrote

You are adding on a parameter. If the species is getting non-viable due to overpopulation, a reduction in size is indeed not necessarily bad. It might be good. That's your parameter you work with to reach a logical conclusion. It doesn't change whether something cannot be objective or not, you just changed the prior equation and thus changed the logical conclusion. It's like having you change a 2+2=4 into a 2+2+1=5 and then argue the previous equation wasn't objective for there's a new result in the new equation.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dban6 wrote

No, you’re misunderstanding. A species’ existence in general, or its stability in numbers, is not objectively good either.

1

vkstu t1_j6dbt6m wrote

It is for the species itself. You're changing parameters by making it be about the universe at large.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6djjdo wrote

You’re placing a subjective positive value on existence. Even for the species, if it didn’t exist, none of its members would have had to suffer (they by definition suffer). Lower numbers also means less of them are suffering (which by definition is the case), and I think you may hold a different view on this than me, but I subjectively view suffering as bad. It’s not objective that existence is good.

1

vkstu t1_j6dldcn wrote

We've been over this before. You're equating some hardship to suffering because by definition hardship is suffering. Yes, yet you fail to see that there are also joyful moments where for example they get to enjoy food, family, etcetera. Ergo, they may not in total, be suffering. If one argues that because they experience some hardship they therefore are suffering, I'll put forward that because they experience some joy, they are therefore joyous. It's nonsensical. It has nothing to do about subjectivity, you're using a false representation of what is, only looking at one side of the equation and therefore reaching an incomplete conclusion.

I'm not placing any subjective positive value on existance. Existance by its very nature is existing, ending such existance is a negative to said existance. That's objective.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dmaqz wrote

I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.

Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.

1

vkstu t1_j6dmrhe wrote

> Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.

That makes no sense. Unless you view it from a universe perspective again, which isn't the point.

> I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.

Nor would there be joy if they hadn't existed. You're still arguing that existing is suffering, while existing is or can be joyous as well if not more so.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dn8br wrote

> makes no sense

It does. Existence is not necessarily a positive.

> existing is suffering

It is. You’re saying it’s not always net suffering, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition. Whether the things one considers positives outweigh that suffering in that person’s opinion is subjective.

1

vkstu t1_j6dnqpn wrote

> It does. Existance is not necessarily a positive.

Is 1 a positive?

> I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition.

It isn't, you fail to realize one needs to look at a net equation, is there more suffering than joy. You only focus on the suffering part. I can very much argue and focus solely on the joy part and then say that life is joyful and suffering is irrelevant to this discussion. It's creating an argument that denies one part that is very much integral to existing (as is suffering).

1

history_fan40 t1_j6duyv4 wrote

> Is 1 a positive

Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.

> is there more suffering than joy

Sometimes.

I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.

1

vkstu t1_j6dw2tu wrote

> Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.

It cannot, that makes zero sense. You can't have -1 peoples on the planet for example. Or -1 planets. You can have 9-1=8 planets however. But not 1-2=-1 planet.

> I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.

Funny how you are here arguing suffering apparently is an objective truth and an universal constant, is it not? Do you seriously not see the paradox of that statement?

1