This is a misunderstanding that my aim is to destroy morality. No, my aim is exactly the same as all ethical systems, albeit the mindset is fundamentally different.

The very fundamental reason behind most murders is murder being considered immoral in the first place. For a transgressor, happiness lies within breaking the most crucial rules of society; so if we have no such ''rules'' in the first place there'd be no transgressors (but that doesn't mean we don't get to have laws; laws are still needed to maintain this ''rulelessness'').

So to answer your question: I would intervene out of empathy, but my grander plan for preventing anyone from attacking children again is to not give a fuck about it, so that child-attackers don't give a fuck about attacking children in return.

Jesus Christ. Even though the argument is over, let me show why it is so:

You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed. For example: when I said you ''don't have to give so much fuck'', I meant that you don't need to hit the transgressor by yourself because last time I checked we've got this thing called the LAW. In my model, moral transgressions themselves are prevented by people not giving a fuck altogether; and transgressors that are ''immune'' to this are taken special care of. However, you're somewhat correct about the fact that the existence of civilization itself is a result of ''giving a fuck'', albeit in a simpler way than what I've been talking about; so confusing the two would be an equivocation fallacy.

That's it, I'm done arguing with you.

Which is exactly why I'm proposing the model in the first place, a hypothetical society that's more progressive than the current one!

I don't see how I'm not slowing you down already. And I don't need to be Einstein to spot a straw man.

Please be patient. I'm subtly showing the progressiveness of my model, how that's the next step of civilization. Think of it like this:

Pre-civilization: you HAVE to give a fuck.

Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck.

Civilization using my model: you don't need to give a fuck.

Straw man fallacy.

All moral transgressors share the mentality of high school goths, but moral transgressors ≠ high school goths.

This is dangerously close to an argumentum ad passiones.

After all, the very foundation of society is to NOT be 100% loyal to our emotions! Before civilization, if someone hits you, the only response is to hit him back, and surprise, that's also what your intuitions tell you to do. But you don't need to hit him back in a civilized society because you'd know he'd get arrested.

All your objections seem to be raw emotional responses to counterintuitive thinking.

In my hypothetical society, I'd be surprised if you were to poke a sharp object at me either because you want to do so in the first place or that society hasn't identified you as a psychopath whom must be taken special care of.

But in the end, I have the right to resist you without breaking my principles. My model is aiming to make the world a better place just like any other ethical model, and individuals breaching the model should be taken special care of (in this scenario, resisting you is the special care).

You're defining morality as a state of emotion, but I thought morality is a label that's applied to what we think each other ought to behave, so that everyone can be in a maximally good emotional state.

And my model is exactly the thing to make it even better, with the very same premise in hand! The truth, you usually earn stuff when you're not thinking too much about it, and you lose stuff when you think too much about it. I'm just expanding this principle to the realm of morality as we know it.

This can be considered necessary evil to maintain the not-giving-a-fuck-ness of said society. No society can exist without necessary evil.

My model is not remotely as extreme as teaching kids not to feel pain. Instead, my model can work even though everyone still feels emotional pain (and frankly isn't relevant to it). Instead everyone simply makes NO claims on how each other should behave.

And my model can also eliminate the problems caused by conflicting desires and empathy-poor communities. You simply don't give a fuck about ousting those with conflicting desire and you'd discuss with them instead. And people can escape from empathy-poor communities because empathy-rich ones would definitely be welcome, and there'd also be no taboo on whom you should live with.

Actually, you wouldn't give a fuck about forcing anyone to do anything in the first place. Unless you're a sociopath, of course, but I believe a society adopting my model would have specific laws and procedures regarding sociopaths. In this case, if John can be identified as a sociopath, he can be simply taken care of.

Exactly, works for me too, heck it had been an epiphany for me after spending my teenage years giving a fuck about how people around me should behave lol

It's not circular if I've got a plan in mind for making everyone not giving a fuck.

Look, we waste a lot of resources teaching kids they don't need to know. How about divert all those resources into teaching them how not to give a fuck?

But before that we can try to develop a whole ethical theory based on the principle of not giving a fuck, so that it can have the potential to be systematically implemented.

You're right; though this is also exactly why my model can only work if everyone in the world stops giving a fuck at the same time together. Highly impractical, but hey, who knows.

I understand. However, the tragedy of the commons happens when people living in a communistic society still give a fuck.

In my model, people would not give a fuck about one person acting on his own will, and that person would also not give a fuck about getting more stuff from other people. And in the end, there'd only be rational discussions on whether the actions of said person are substantiated.

Good thing is that we can agree to disagree on this. My proposition is that to not give a fuck is a solution to problems that morality can't solve, and your proposition is that morality is a solution to our inherent incapability of not giving a fuck.

My model still works, though. Jane giving a fuck about John's sexual desires towards her would make John want her even more, yet get equally more frustrated in the process. So if she instead gives no fuck, then John actually would have no reason to make any transgressions as well.

And the reason why David would shoot anyone for such a trivial cause is that he had a bad childhood; and according to what I've seen, the reason why a childhood could be bad is because the adults around you give a negative fuck about you giving a positive fuck.

I gotta admit, I wouldn't. But again, my solution only works in everyone stops giving a fuck together at once.

According to my understanding of psychology, some fundamental reasons why rapists rape are:

1) they haven't got what they want
2) forbidden things are TEMPTING because if you do them you'd be ''triumphing over the rules of society

And here's how my solution would work. You don't get women if you want them too much because you'd come across as being desperate and needy. And once we stop forbidding anything in the first place, then those wannabe rule-breakers would not be tempted.

Well, no, because I'm not asking for John's respect in the first place, and I don't feel proud of owning anything because I know I'd lose them anyway in the future.

We put a LOT of resources into teaching kids how to care about things that they don't need to care about...perhaps divert all those resources into training them how not to give a fuck, and my solution would finally work.

I read it as a teenager and it only gets more and more mind-blowing as time goes by. Also, prepared to be awestruck at the third book!

You consider the Big Bang to be an actual natural event, but I think it's just a label we apply to ''the beginning of the universe'', and nothing else. And again, if the spacetime is within the universe then we didn't need anyone to start the Big Bang.

What's more, it doesn't matter if, say, entropy were instead maximally high, or the universe is expanding into the shape of a tap-dancing crocodile; because the universe itself doesn't need to be bound by the laws of nature at all, so we don't need to be surprised that it acts unnaturally.

Sure, you can speculate that the universe had a creator anyway even though it didn't need one...but yeah, that's just a speculation. I can speculate that time travelers created the universe. Wanna bet?

You consider the Big Bang to be an actual natural event, but I think it's just a label we apply to ''the beginning of the universe'', and nothing else. And again, if the spacetime is within the universe then we didn't need anyone to start the Big Bang.

What's more, it doesn't matter if, say, entropy were instead maximally high, or the universe is expanding into the shape of a tap-dancing crocodile; because the universe itself doesn't need to be bound by the laws of nature at all, so we don't need to be surprised that it acts unnaturally.

Sure, you can speculate that the universe had a creator anyway even though it didn't need one...but yeah, that's just a speculation. I can speculate that time travelers created the universe. Wanna bet?

This is pretty fallacious...is Zuckerberg a reptilian just because he looks like one?

And if something's out of spacetime, then by definition it isn't bound by the laws of causality...I thought we've already established that.

I don't see how that's the case, unless you can demonstrate that God himself matters, or that he thinks that we matter.

OK, fair enough--but just wonderin' though, on what basis do you argue for the existence of God using PSR?

As we've established, if spacetime is within the universe, then the universe is self-sustaining which excludes the necessity of a creator. So I assume that you believe that the universe is within spacetime instead--do you?

Poetic, but actually this is kind of contradictory.

First of all, you got the conclusion ''we don't matter'' from a cosmic standpoint, yet the cosmos is not a sentient thing, so talking about how much we mean to the cosmos is as pointless as talking about how much we mean to rocks, given that both the cosmos and rocks are not sentient things. As such, it doesn't matter that we ''don't matter''.

However, what you said can be intended as a good reminder to people who still buy the notion that the world is intended for us and that there must be some ''hidden plan'' for mankind.

How do you know that God exists and that Cantor talked to him?

Thanks for clearing things up. I'll replace time with spacetime.

Yes, if spacetime is within the universe instead of something that encompasses the universe, then ''let there be the universe'' is one of these ''brute facts''.

Yes, everything in TIME needs a cause, and you may argue that therefore the universe had a creator. But that's assuming that the universe ITSELF is bound of the laws of time.

So here's the conundrum: Is time within the universe, or is the universe within time?

If time is just within the universe, then the universe itself isn't bound by the laws of time. Think of it like a fish tank: ''being full of water'' is one of its properties, but the tank is not inside an environment that's full of water.

Likewise, the universe does not need to be in time even though everything inside is in time. As such, the universe can be perfectly described as uncaused and self-sustaining.

I agree with the premises of your revised PSR, yet I don't come to the conclusion that there is a God.