• Proctor
    2
    I see many arguments claiming moral authority or superiority so my go to response is that their position is not superior to mine since their position will not exist in 100 years whereas mine will. Any argument claiming moral superiority becomes invalid if said argument ceases to exist. The reason for this is very simple: the existence characteristic precedes all other characteristics. For something to even have a chance of being good, it must first exist.

    This logic applies to ideologies, desires, wills, duties, oughts, etc as well, not just behaviors.

    Assuming the above, does it follow that you ought to perpetuate as much about you as you can? Everything your physical self prescribes to its own self must necessarily exist without end to avoid becoming invalid. A sort of *foreverism.*
  • tim wood
    2.5k
    many arguments claim... moral authority or superiority so my go to response is that their position is not superior to mine since their position will not exist in 100 years whereas mine will.Proctor
    How do you know, and in any case, what does that have to do with now?
  • Proctor
    2
    It has to do with "now" because any argument for moral superiority to me would have to come with the stipulation "invalid in 100 years" whereas mine doesn't. The fact that your moral superiority can only possibly last for 100 years invalidates the very moral superiority you're trying to claim today. Such is the case because the future performance of any moral system is taken into account into present performance of said moral system. If you think it's possible to be morally superior today even though such moral superiority is expiry, then please explain.

    I know because science allows us to predict the future to some extent. You're right that I can't say "your claim to moral superiority will become necessarily invalid in 100 years with 100% certainty" but I can say "I have evidence that suggests your claim to moral superiority will become necessarily invalid in 100 years with 90% certainty." All I have to do is show you the consequences of your moral system onto a real world population. One example is the ancient Greeks. Obviously any claim to moral superiority by ancient Greeks is invalid because their moral system resulted in their own, and their moral system's, demise.

    I take it you do understand the fundamental though, that X has to be, before X can be moral, yes?
  • tim wood
    2.5k
    "I have evidence that suggests your claim to moral superiority will become necessarily invalid in 100 years with 90% certainty."Proctor

    "Necessarily invalid"? What does that mean? And what do you imagine a moral system to be?

    Your argument is akin to arguing that because the rules of baseball will in the future probably be different from what they are today, then you cannot play baseball, and what you are playing is not baseball, and you had better not call it baseball. If it makes any sense, I cannot find it. I think your error is in a kind of reification of understanding and practice.
  • TheMadFool
    3.3k
    Why do they execute bad people?

    Existence itself is probably not enough.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment