[TV] Rick and Morty

[Darththeo]

You would have the potential to harm anyone near you. So the potential to harm is still there even if it isn't me you harm. Your context was irrelavent to the potential.

I have the potential to harm people near me.

Near me is context.

But, what if there is no one near me. What if I am 10 miles from the nearest person and threw the rock? And I am in a building and there is no living thing in 2 miles of me save me.

You aren't showing that it is true without context, you are just showing that to you the context is irrelevant. That's not the same thing.

[Triceron]

I like seeing my kid hurting, because then I know they are growing and learning. Is that an immoral sentence to you? I would say the person is an asshole, but I don't see asshole as equal to immoral.
I like seeing my kid happy as he is bullying other kids. Is that a moral sentence to you? No, that's immoral to me, they are encouraging their kid to behave in an immoral way.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but both statements are perceptively immoral, and the context snd intent of both are considered immoral by social standards.

Both can be argued with good intention, both are still ultimately regarded as being immoral by current social standards. There is no excuse for bullying. There is also no excuse for active enjoyment of seeing someone hurt. These are not normal by our social standards.

This is how morality is applied. It's not merely judged by the intent of the person, because personal intent may be motivated by wanting to do good, such as your 'I want my kid to be happy' example. The missing factor here is in whether these people in the example recognize their actions relative to social standards, whether they recognize that liking seeing people be harmed, for any reason, is considered immoral, or that bullying is immoral. It is not 'ambiguously moral' just because there is good intent involved. The statements have morality attached to them by the very context they are presented. And yes, as we add more stipulations and nuance to the examples, the perception of its intended morality may shift. That does not mean there is no inherent moral value, it just means we're talking about complex situations that need further analysis.

And I would argue that even intentional amoral statements, like passing information with no intent of good or bad, have an inherent moral value based on how appropriate the statements would be in the context of being expressed in society. One could argue a doctor straight up telling someone amoral information that 'You are going to die' without regarding the sensitivities of the recipient could be considered morally questionable. Yes, they are merely presenting amoral information, that is what I believe you aim to present, but the way it is expressed can not be removed from the spoken word itself. The spoken word has context in how it is delivered, always.

It is all about the morality in how it is spoken. And even if in good intentions, they are still subject to social norms. Even if you believe being an asshole' would not be immoral (which I broadly agree), we could still consider their actions to be morally questionable.

As for the inherent moral value of statements and words that aren't expressed, I would argue that some statements certainly have moral value associated to their use, depending on what societal norms we are regarding. 'I hate the black ones', for example, has very clear implications if used in our society. Even if talking about jellybeans, most people would still recognize the phrasing to be potentially insensitive and nor morally acceptable as a broad statement. In our society, it should be recognized that clear phrasing should be used when describing what 'Black ones' you are talking about, because there is a broader association of that color to the terminology of an ethnic race in our society. Using this phrase would be morally questionable. Same with 'I'm going to burn your house', there is nothing inherently morally justifiable about using this particular phrasing. No one would use this professionally. Using this particular phrase is morally questionable at best.

[Orange Joe]

I have the potential to harm people near me.

Near me is context.

Is that the only context required for you to harm someone?

[Darththeo]

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but both statements are perceptively immoral, and the context snd intent of both are considered immoral by social standards.

Both can be argued with good intention, both are still ultimately regarded as being immoral by current social standards. There is no excuse for bullying. There is also no excuse for active enjoyment of seeing someone hurt. These are not normal by our social standards.

This is how morality is applied. It's not merely judged by the intent of the person, because personal intent may be motivated by wanting to do good, such as your 'I want my kid to be happy' example. The missing factor here is in whether these people in the example recognize their actions relative to social standards, whether they recognize that liking seeing people be harmed, for any reason, is considered immoral, or that bullying is immoral. It is not 'ambiguously moral' just because there is good intent involved. The statements have morality attached to them by the very context they are presented.

And I would argue that even intentional amoral statements, like passing information with no intent of good or bad, have an inherent moral value based on how appropriate the statements would be in the context of being expressed in society. One could argue a doctor being an asshole and straight up telling someone they are going to die without regarding the sensitivities of the recipient could be considered morally questionable. Yes, they are merely presenting amoral information, that is ehat I believe you aim to present, but the way it is expressed can not be removed from the spoken word itself. The spoken word has context in how it is delivered, always.

At no point is the discussion about the morality of words. It is all about the morality in how it is spoken. And even if in good intentions, they are still subject to social norms. Even if you believe being an asshole' would not be immoral (which I broadly agree), we could still consider their actions to be morally questionable.

I was asked my opinion on those two terms, so I gave my opinion. I was asked if there is a moral difference for me.

I am not nor have I said anyone or society can't make a moral judgment. So, explaining this over and over is just you lecturing me that you don't like my opinion. I don't disagree with what you are saying, I find what you are saying to be silly because all it comes across as to me is boiling down morality to "I don't like this."

- - - Updated - - -

Is that the only context required for you to harm someone?

No, we already established I must also possess the ability to act. If I lack that ability, I cannot harm someone.
I can only harm someone if I can interact with them, whether that be direct or indirect.

So we have getting that all humans have the ability to harm another human so long as they have the capability of interacting with another human.

We are just spreading out the sentence at this point. The reason it exists is we all know that given the proper circumstances, we can hurt someone. But, how we can hurt them is limited by our interactions. Also, again, I asked you for a defined potential without context.

Right now we have a concept of causing harm, but not a defined potential of harm. What potential harm can I actually cause right now?

Think of all the potential harm you could do right now. Tell me is any of it contextless?

Can you ever cause more harm than a situation allows to happen?

[Triceron]

I was asked my opinion on those two terms, so I gave my opinion. I was asked if there is a moral difference for me.

I am not nor have I said anyone or society can't make a moral judgment. So, explaining this over and over is just you lecturing me that you don't like my opinion. I don't disagree with what you are saying, I find what you are saying to be silly because all it comes across as to me is boiling down morality to "I don't like this."

And yes, if these are your examples and you present them as such, 'I don't like this' is the response you'd get. This is what happens when contentious opinions get presented, I don't think this should be surprising.

You don't think 'I like seeing mt kids being harmed' has any inherent moral value to it. You may even find it morally justifiable with a reason of seeing them grow. Society at large does not agree with that statement. Society does not find 'like seeing my kids harmed' to be morally justifiable for any reason.

That is a very important distinction to make. And your apparent rejection of society's norms is what makes your own arguments in conflict to what you wish to present, because this topic of morality, by and large, is not about how speech and phrasing fits your personal worldview. You may be defending your worldview, but you're using real world examples to do so, and thus we are ultimately talking about real world moral values. That is why people are making these points. Not to say your worldview is wrong, but that your examples don't work in the context of the real world like you expect them to.

'I hate the black ones' has moral inplications in our society. You may feel different about this personally, but if this is your example of an amoral or morally ambiguous statement that has no inherent moral value to it, then it can be reasonable be rejected outside the context of your personal worldview. It would not be amoral if we consider our current social norms, the specific terminology has inherent moral value in direct context of how society currently regards morality.

[Orange Joe]

I was asked my opinion on those two terms, so I gave my opinion. I was asked if there is a moral difference for me.

I am not nor have I said anyone or society can't make a moral judgment. So, explaining this over and over is just you lecturing me that you don't like my opinion. I don't disagree with what you are saying, I find what you are saying to be silly because all it comes across as to me is boiling down morality to "I don't like this."

- - - Updated - - -



No, we already established I must also possess the ability to act. If I lack that ability, I cannot harm someone.
I can only harm someone if I can interact with them, whether that be direct or indirect.

So we have getting that all humans have the ability to harm another human so long as they have the capability of interacting with another human.

We are just spreading out the sentence at this point. The reason it exists is we all know that given the proper circumstances, we can hurt someone. But, how we can hurt them is limited by our interactions. Also, again, I asked you for a defined potential without context.

Right now we have a concept of causing harm, but not a defined potential of harm. What potential harm can I actually cause right now?

Think of all the potential harm you could do right now. Tell me is any of it contextless?

Can you ever cause more harm than a situation allows to happen?

So in short the only "context" needed for the potential of harm I's the ability to act. Making context irrelavent. Don't know why you are unable to grasp this.. and no you don't even have to interact with another human to cause them harm let alone harm in general


@Darththeo let's make this easy. How about you name a context where a human with the ability to act has no potential to cause harm.

[Darththeo]

And yes, if these are your examples and you present them as such, 'I don't like this' is the response you'd get. This is what happens when contentious opinions get presented, I don't think this should be surprising.

You don't think 'I like seeing mt kids being harmed' has any inherent moral value to it. You may even find it morally justifiable with a reason of seeing them grow. Society at large does not agree with that statement. Society does not find 'like seeing my kids harmed' to be morally justifiable for any reason.

That is a very important distinction to make. And your apparent rejection of society's norms is what makes your own arguments in conflict to what you wish to present, because this topic of morality, by and large, is not about how speech and phrasing fits your personal worldview. You may be defending your worldview, but you're using real world examples to do so, and thus we are ultimately talking about real world moral values. That is why people are making these points. Not to say your worldview is wrong, but that your examples don't work in the context of the real world like you expect them to.

Societal morals only exist because of one of two reasons.
They are either enforced by the government of said society; or that the majority of society believe a certain thing to be moral.

If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that slavery is wrong if said society deemed it moral.
If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that same sex marriage is moral, if society deemed it immoral.

All you are doing is saying "Societal morals exist." And I say, no one makes moral judgments based on what society says.

- - - Updated - - -

@Darththeo let's make this easy. How about you name a context where a human with the ability to act has no potential to cause harm.

You are changing the argument.

Context is irrelevant is not the same statement as context defines potential. Just because the context is irrelevant doesn't mean the potential to cause harm isn't defined by it.

But since you want to be stupid, let's be stupid. I am in a space suit where I am physically incapable of causing to myself harm flying away from Earth at 2/3rds the speed of light in the direction of nothing. And I am fully capable of talking and moving some of my limbs in a limited fashion.

[Orange Joe]

Societal morals only exist because of one of two reasons.
They are either enforced by the government of said society; or that the majority of society believe a certain thing to be moral.

If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that slavery is wrong if said society deemed it moral.
If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that same sex marriage is moral, if society deemed it immoral.

All you are doing is saying "Societal morals exist." And I say, no one makes moral judgments based on what society says.

- - - Updated - - -



You are changing the argument.

Context is irrelevant is not the same statement as context defines potential.

If you can't name a context where there is no potential..... then by definition context is irrelavent.....

That doesn't mean there is no context. It just means it doesn't change the potential.

[Darththeo]

If you can't name a context where there is no potential..... then by definition context is irrelavent.....

That doesn't mean there is no context. It just means it doesn't change the potential.

But the context is still what is defining the potential. You can't have a potential without a context for it to exist it.

Potential isn't independent of context. Just because you find the context irrelevant or even if we agree that particular context is irrelevant, it doesn't alter the reality potential is defined by context. The potential harm a person can cause cause is limited by the circumstances they are found it.

People can cause harm because they can act, but that doesn't give them any defined potential of harm.

[Triceron]

Societal morals only exist because of one of two reasons.
They are either enforced by the government of said society; or that the majority of society believe a certain thing to be moral.

If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that slavery is wrong if said society deemed it moral.
If you are judging morality at a societal level, you cannot make a moral judgment other than personal that same sex marriage is moral, if society deemed it immoral.

All you are doing is saying "Societal morals exist." And I say, no one makes moral judgments based on what society says.

The problem is that IS how morality is generally defined.

Slavery is considered immoral because our current societal standards deem it to be. It is not acceptable by our current standards. It was morally acceptable by the society in which it was happening, and that is a product of the morality of the time. Even back then, it was acceptable but also questionable, to the point where the disputes of ethics lead to a war. Society changing is what influences our own recognition of it being immoral.

Just like right now, the slaughter of animals for their meat is by and large not considered immoral. Certain religions or groups may consider it to be, but that is not reflective of our current standards at large. If in the future everyone goes vegan and looks back at this time as being immoral, then that is defined by the standards of that future society. Morals absolutely can change and are subjective to society and culture.

What your argument seems to imply is a flat rejection of societal morality, in favour of prioritizing the recognition of personal morality. I cna understand the sentiment for this, but morality is ultimately subject to societal standards regardless of what is personally regarded to be right or wrong. When we look at the things in human history or other cultures and judge ourselves what we consider right or wrong, our own moral code is heavily being influenced by the society we currently live in. That we consider racism or bullying a bad thing is a product of our own society's moral standards, even if you choose it to believe it is a personal belief that has no direct connection to what society chooses to believe.

Just because there is no universal arbiter for what is morally right or wrong does not mean there is no inherent moral value in speech and action. For the things that ride the line of being morally acceptable or morally wrong, we can say is it is ambiguous or questionable at best, not that it does not have a value to it. The inherent value would be subject to how current society regards it. It is very context sensitive.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We're way outside the scope of "Rick and Morty" here people... even taking the Justin Roiland shit into account.

[Darththeo]

The problem is that IS how morality is generally defined.

Slavery is considered immoral because our current societal standards deem it to be. It is not acceptable by our current standards. It was morally acceptable by the society in which it was happening, and that is a product of the morality of the time. Even back then, it was acceptable but also questionable, to the point where the disputes of ethics lead to a war. Society changing is what influences our own recognition of it being immoral.

Just like right now, the slaughter of animals for their meat is by and large not considered immoral. Certain religions or groups may consider it to be, but that is not reflective of our current standards at large. If in the future everyone goes vegan and looks back at this time as being immoral, then that is defined by the standards of that future society. Morals absolutely can change and are subjective to society and culture.

What your argument seems to imply is a flat rejection of societal morality. That isn't how our world regards morality, and it is not simply defined by personal morals. Otherwise one could argue that 'immorality doesn't exist, so long as individuals believe their intents are all done in good faith'. That is not how morality is defined.

And I am not arguing against societal norms existing because one way they exist is an emergent pattern from people sharing a moral value. You can't have a group of people and lack "societal norms." Even if the societal norm is "You can do whatever you want." Society is defined by social interactions, as long as humans have consistent social interaction society exists. As long as a society exists, it will have at least one societal norm.

If your only argument is "It isn't moral because society says so" that has no meaning to me because you haven't given me anything beyond an appeal to either authority or mass opinion. I don't find value in that kind of argument. I really don't care what other people think, I care about who I am arguing with thinks.

- - - Updated - - -

We're way outside the scope of "Rick and Morty" here people... even taking the Justin Roiland shit into account.

Do you really want to take specifically about what he did?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Do you really want to take specifically about what he did?

I just don't want to spend any more pages talking about unrelated shit that isn't going to be resolved. Nobody is backing down from their positions here...everyone is just arguing in a circle.

Talk about what Roiland did. Talk about how Rick and Morty will continue without his involvement. Talk about your favourite episode of interdimensional cable. Talk about Rick and Fuckin' Morty.

[TrollHunter3000]

I am not arguing speech doesn't have intent.
I am arguing speech doesn't have inherent moral value. So, you aren't judging the words, you are judging what you perceive the intent to be be; which is exactly what I do, I just wait for more information than you do.

These aren't the same thing. Just because something has intent doesn't mean it has inherent morality because not all intents have a moral value. Intents can be moral, immoral, or amoral.

You keep saying I am saying "Speech doesn't have intent" or that I am arguing that, I never have.

bruh you don't know what the fuck you're arguing. Didn't I tell you to shut the fuck up?

- - - Updated - - -

Speech has more than one definition there, chief.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...0%3A%20address

Speech can just be an "exchange of spoken words"

And speak does not require "expression" either. As speaking can just me meant to convey information which would not be expressing thoughts or feelings which is what expression is.



Speech can be by definition just spoken words, it does not require expression of a thought. Expression of a thought by speaking is only one kind of speech, not the only kind. So, yes, I am am talking about speech.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

- - - Updated - - -

Which is on you and the rest making assumptions of my argument rather than actually argue with my point. But, I always was from my first post. I don't care what you were doing, by this you are admitting you weren't addressing what I was saying, but rather arguing with me because I voiced an opinion you didn't like. I have always been defending my personal viewpoint.



In this specific example, yes, because the potential harm and potential removal of joy from other beings is outweighs the joy he gets. Notice: I am still 100% judging by measures of harm, I can measure potential harm in this example.

Keep in mind this example we know the intent. So, we can measure the potential harm.

what units are you measuring your harm in?

[Darththeo]

what units are you measuring your harm in?

Morty's.

Now go to bed.

[TrollHunter3000]

Wtf kind of asinine stupid fuck logic is potential is only based on context.... one of the dumbest fucking statements ever said on mmo champ....

dude thinks you have to study the art of puppy torturing before you're capable of knowing that shit's bad. Def not possible to know torturing something is wrong unless you yourself imagine doing it.

[Darththeo]

dude thinks you have to study the art of puppy torturing before you're capable of knowing that shit's bad. Def not possible to know torturing something is wrong unless you yourself imagine doing it.

Wow, I must apologize to everyone else in this topic for saying they strawmanned what I said, because clearly they are mere beginners to a master such as yourself. I am in awe of your sheer ignorance to actually fail to understand a simple point a simple point so badly.

I am in awe by your sheer godly power to be able to determine the morality of an event without thinking about the event in question.

[TrollHunter3000]

Wow, I must apologize to everyone else in this topic for saying they strawmanned what I said, because clearly they are mere beginners to a master such as yourself. I am in awe of your sheer ignorance to actually fail to understand a simple point a simple point so badly.

I am in awe by your sheer godly power to be able to determine the morality of an event without thinking about the event in question.

Thinking about the event doesn't mean I have to literally imagine the fucked up details you dumb fuck retard. How the fuck, in the same god damn post, are you going to argue that I both straw manned your argument then double down on that exact same argument I was saying you made????

[Malkiah]

Def not possible to know torturing something is wrong unless you yourself imagine doing it.

this is something of a derail but this statement amused me so much that i feel compelled to take a moment to appreciate it.
you actually managed to trip over your dick and fall into a good point, and that good point is nearly entirely opposite to what you were trying to convey, and that's hilarious.

it IS in fact definitely not possible to know something is wrong unless you imagine yourself doing it and then determine it feels wrong.
you can be told something is wrong, and then never once in your life think about that thing, but then you just know that you were told it's wrong... you don't know yourself that it's wrong.

anyways it's mostly an ontological quibble but i was incredibly entertained by it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

bruh you don't know what the fuck you're arguing. Didn't I tell you to shut the fuck up?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You need to take your foot off the pedal, bruh.