If you don't eat steak just because you believe it is moral to abstain from eating steak then you are using steak as a means to and end of being moral. — m-theory

No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you.

Sure, unless you claim not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something, you are being moral by not eating steak. — m-theory

This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak.

The other person isn't essential. Have you never played with a feeding machine? — Agustino

I wouldn't consider that as playing tennis. But if you're really going to go this route then just read my mention of "tennis" as "two-player tennis".

How else might one come to moral judgement if not through reasoning with the mind the validity of a statement or action through the means of removing all doubt? Can something be moral, however you think of it, if there is doubt surrounding it? — Heister Eggcart

The suicide bomber has no doubt his action is moral. He literally bets his life on it. Yet he is mistaken. Does that surprise you somehow? Or does it surprise you that the man who gives to a beggar out of compassion but is not absolutely sure he has done the right thing is judged to have acted morally? Or that the woman who unthinkingly dives into a pond on seeing a drowning child is?

More to the point, do you actually agree with this statement or not?

The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden

No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you — Agustino

Except your abstinence is not possible without the steak.

This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak. — Agustino

If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating the steak and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral.

Except your abstinence is not possible without the steak. — m-theory

So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :s

If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral. — m-theory

Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it.

So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :s — Agustino

If steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.

Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it. — Agustino

If you are claiming that not eating is moral then you are doing something to the steak.
You are making steak a means to the end of being moral.

The suicide bomber has no doubt his action is moral. He literally bets his life on it. Yet he is mistaken. Does that surprise you somehow? Or does it surprise you that the man who gives to a beggar out of compassion but is not absolutely sure he has done the right thing is judged to have acted morally? Or that the woman who unthinkingly dives into a pond on seeing a drowning child is? — Baden

Lack of doubt doesn't just concern what I think. If you're attempting to blow people up in a market square or fuck bitches at the local bar, then your judgement is not the only one that must be taken into account.

More to the point, do you actually agree with this statement or not? — Baden

Yes and no. We all must still make judgments on the rightness and wrongness of things and what we do/do not do. Such judgement is less ensured by the suicide bomber because he's not removed all doubt through reason, he has merely sunk himself into delusion.

What does the gif matter, folks? It wasn't part of an argument. Can we get on... — Baden

If a gif can't be posted in reaction to something funny or puzzling or whatever else, then why do we have emoticons on the forum? Come on, we gotta be encompassing in our rules, here!

If steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it. — m-theory

:s So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. I simply cannot not abstain from them.

If you are claiming that not eating is moral then you are doing something to the steak.
You are making steak a means to the end of being moral. — m-theory

My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really...........

So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. — Agustino

That is not what I said.

I said if steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.
There is no opportunity to abstain from a thing which does not exist.

Also I did not realize your argument was that it is moral to not do things to stuff that does not exist?

My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really........... — Agustino

Again the problem is with claiming that not doing something is moral.
If not doing something is moral then not doing that thing is a means to the end of being moral.
Otherwise what is the point of not doing it?

I said if steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.
There is no opportunity to abstain from a thing which does not exist. — m-theory

This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it?

Again the problem is with claiming that not doing something is moral.
If not doing something is moral not doing that thing is means to the end of being moral.
Otherwise what is the point of not doing it? — m-theory

Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with me doing something to steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it.

This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it? — Agustino

The definition of abstaining.

1. restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
"abstaining from chocolate"
2. formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.
"forty-one voted with the opposition, and some sixty more abstained"
synonyms: not vote, decline to vote
"262 voted against, 38 abstained"

If something does not exist there is no opportunity to restrain yourself from doing it.

Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it. — Agustino

You are using the steak as means to and end of being moral.
That is doing something to it, it is making a means to an end???
How are you not getting this?

The definition of abstaining. — m-theory

synonyms: not vote

So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct?

If something does not exist there is no opportunity to abstain from it. — m-theory

If so, then this assertion of yours is false.

You are using it as means to and end of being moral. — m-theory

I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral.

So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct? — Agustino

No the definition is to exercise restraint from doing or enjoying something.
Abstinence is a self discipline in the face of an opportunity to do otherwise.
There is no opportunity to do otherwise in the case where the otherwise does not exist.

If so, then this assertion of yours is false. — Agustino

Except it isn't though.

I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral. — Agustino

Again if you claim it is moral to not eat steak, and then you don't eat the steak to be moral.
You have used the steak as a means to justify an end of being moral.

No the definition is to exercise restraint from doing or enjoying something.
Abstinence is a self discipline in the face of an opportunity to do otherwise.
There is no opportunity to do otherwise in the case where the otherwise does not exist. — m-theory

*facepalm* okay redefine terms as you will (because I wasn't using abstinence in that sense). Then I will state:

Not eating steak is moral
I do not eat steak in order to be moral
Therefore I am moral

In no way am I using steak in here in order to be moral - I'm using my non-action - not eating steak - as a way to be moral. Remember, it's the not eating it that is moral. Has nothing to do with restraining or not. I can perceive not eating it as a restraint - but that has to do with my perception, not everyone will so perceive it. So can I not eat steak if steak doesn't exist? Sure. Case closed.

If you claim not eating steak is moral then you have used steak to make a moral claim.

If steak does not exist then you have made no claim at all.

Case closed indeed.

If you claim not eating steak is moral then you have used steak to make a moral claim. — m-theory

So we go from using steak as a means to the end of not eating steak to using steak to make a moral claim >:O

If steak does not exist then you have made no claim at all. — m-theory

Not riding unicorns is moral
Unicorns don't exist
Therefore you have made no claim at all

Right - that certainly follows :-} . Something doesn't have to exist for me to make moral claims about it. Worshipping the devil is immoral. That speaks of what morality is - because the devil could, logically speaking, exist.

So we go from using steak as a means to the end of not eating steak to using steak to make a moral claim — Agustino

So now you are admitting that you have used steak?

So now you are admitting that you have used steak? — m-theory

Yeees, yeeees that's exactly what I've said >:O

You said that not eating steak was moral.
You have used steak to make a moral claim.

Before you refused to admit that you had used steak for anything.

If steak is required for the claim to be moral, then it is a means to an end of being moral.

You said that not eating steak was moral.
You have used steak to make a moral claim. — m-theory

Yeah I have used it - in this case the word - to make a moral claim. So?

Before you refused to admit that you had used steak for anything. — m-theory

Only in your mind. I refused to admit that I used steak as a means of being moral only.

If steak is required for the claim to be moral, then it is a means to an end of being moral. — m-theory

The moral claim isn't equivalent to being moral... really your logic is pathetic.

I see you are getting upset and resorting to insults.
Perhaps it is best if just agree to disagree.

I see you are getting upset and resorting to insults.
Perhaps it is best if just agree to disagree. — m-theory

If that's what you need in order to leave this discussion with your head high and sleep well tonight, sure :D

I'd be interested how one ought to solve this situation?

Is it because of the erosion of a strong public ethos? Is it the sense of 'individualism' instilled on American's? Maybe people have become egocentric to a large degree... due to, what? Is it rampant consumerism?

Any hypothesis on the topic would be appreciated.

Not everyone can become a Cynic or move to India, close to the Dalai Lama.

I'd be interested how one ought to solve this situation? — Question

In my opinion:

1. First and foremost do not participate in such a culture regardless of what you give up in order not to participate in it - similar to Schopenhauer's denial of the Will
2. Second of all, look to form around you small Noah's Arks, where people with different kind of mentalities live their lives. These would become small islands that appear everywhere and in different locations around the globe. So educate people, or try to educate them wherever you go. Stay close to people who are like-minded and gather them around yourself.
3. Third of all fight against capitalism (production for the sake of production, not for the sake of satisfying human need)
4. Fourth, fight for religion and morality - which are virtues which can direct the public at large towards a different kind of culture - doing much as what the media is doing today, except that in the other direction
5. Gather money - to beat capitalism you need money. A lot of it. Gather money, and then use that money to turn the forces of capitalism against itself. Open TV stations promoting virtue - buy nightclubs only to close them down and convert them into different businesses - this will gather you media attention. Use the media attention to make it cool again to take different attitudes - fight the mechanisms of peer pressure. Turn the media against itself - they will be forced to report on your actions because they are new and sensational - this will enable you to attract attention to your message, even though the media doesn't want that. This is the strategy that Donald Trump has been using in fact, only that unfortunately he's probably not fighting against capitalism >:O

Remember that Planned Parenthood Ad:

Food. Sleep. Sex.
It's simple. These are our basic human instincts. Sexuality is as basic to life as food and sleep

>:O - so do well and defund it.

Now that we have e gotten sex out of the way, we can talk about masturbation.

One of Planned Parenthood's tag mottos is "Every child a wanted child." Most of Planned Parenthood's efforts go into family planning. What have you got against that?

One of Planned Parenthood's tag mottos is "Every child a wanted child." Most of Planned Parenthood's efforts go into family planning. What have you got against that? — Bitter Crank

Repeal and replace! :D

Now that we have e gotten sex out of the way, we can talk about masturbation. — Question

In my opinion masturbation is immoral, but since it only involves the self and not another person there are few grounds for "campaigning against it" so to speak. When you masturbate you're not harming anyone except at most yourself - so it's a sin like gluttony is a sin. The fact that someone commits such a sin is a personal matter, and doesn't trouble anyone else. Having sex though involves other people, hence sexual sins are more significant because they are also social sins - those are the sins which trouble us.

This discussion was interesting. Now I don't agree with Muhammad Ali that women should "cover up", but neither do I agree with indecent ways of dressing which are clearly undertaken to sexually provoke. There needs to be a balance. Decency is a virtue - of course decency differs from culture to culture - for example from Islam to Christianity, but there are some universalities between them - some limit below which a way of dressing becomes indecent, and hence immoral.