Red Raiding Safari

[Voytek]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1280200860' post='2390754']You never know around here. The kind of people who like to trot out "There's definitely certainly no such thing as an objective definition of morality" are the kind of people I wouldn't put it past.[/quote]
There is certainly an objective [i]dictionary[/i] definition of what morality is (set of beliefs regarding etc etc etc). There is not, however, an objectively correct [i]personal[/i] definition of what the most correct set of morals is. To try and claim otherwise is pure arrogance.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280204136' post='2390833']
There is certainly an objective [i]dictionary[/i] definition of what morality is (set of beliefs regarding etc etc etc). [b]There is not, however, an objectively correct [i]personal[/i] definition of what the most correct set of morals is.[/b] To try and claim otherwise is pure arrogance.
[/quote]

What you're making here is an unabashedly absolute truth claim regarding morality.

As for the arrogance bit, I don't think you should get so down on yourself about it.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Zombie Glaucon

[Voytek]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1280219895' post='2391028']What you're making here is an unabashedly absolute truth claim regarding morality.[/quote]
Too bad it isn't in itself a moral position. Whoops!

Absolute truths and facts do exist. Absolute morality does not. If all you can come up with to counter the objective truth of moral relativism is "lol dats an absolute claim ownd!!" then you need go back to the drawing board.

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1280219895' post='2391028']As for the arrogance bit, I don't think you should get so down on yourself about it.[/quote]
Phoning it in again?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Voytek

[o-dog]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280204136' post='2390833']There is not, however, an objectively correct [i]personal[/i] definition of what the most correct set of morals is. To try and claim otherwise is pure arrogance.
[/quote]

It is epistemically and metaphysically possible for there to be an objectively correct personal definition of the most correct set of moral rules/beliefs/imperatives etc etc.

Unless you have either a completely coherent and utterly compelling argument against the existence of an objecvtive morality, or a completely coherent and utterly compelling argument why knowledge of an objective morality is impossible, then I would suggest it is you riding the arrogance train.

Edited July 27, 2010 by O-Dog

[Voytek]

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1280229904' post='2391085']It is epistemically and metaphysically possible for there to be an objectively correct personal definition of the most correct set of moral rules/beliefs/imperatives etc etc.[/quote]
Except it isn't. lol.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1280229904' post='2391085']Unless you have either a completely coherent and utterly compelling argument against the existence of an objecvtive morality, or a completely coherent and utterly compelling argument why knowledge of an objective morality is impossible, then I would suggest it is you riding the arrogance train.[/quote]
All I've seen from you has been a bunch of nice-sounding words. You say that it's ~epistemically and metaphysically possible~ for moral absolutism to be true but you don't give any ~epistemic and metaphysical~ reasons why. You then have the nerve to turn around and go GIVE ME A 100% IRONCLAD AND UTTERLY DEVASTATING ARGUMENT [b]OR ELSE[/b]? Cool story bro.



ps: burden of proof is on you to prove an objective morality, not me to disprove it. get cracking~

Edited July 27, 2010 by Voytek

[o-dog]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280230893' post='2391091']
You say that it's ~epistemically and metaphysically possible~ for moral absolutism to be true but you don't give any ~epistemic and metaphysical~ reasons why. You then have the nerve to turn around and go GIVE ME A 100% IRONCLAD AND UTTERLY DEVASTATING ARGUMENT [b]OR ELSE[/b]? Cool story bro.



ps: burden of proof is on you to prove an objective morality, not me to disprove it. get cracking~
[/quote]

What tosh.

I may not believe in an objective morality, but I am not arrogant enough to claim one does not exist. In the absence of [i]proof[/i] that x does not exist, then you cannot [i]know[/i] that x does not exist.

So, are there any known metaphysical facts that would make the existence of an objective morality impossible? No? Then it is [i]possible[/i] that an objective morality exists.

So, if it is possible that an objective morality exists, are there any known epistemic facts that make it impossible for an individual to correctly define said objective morality? No? Therefore, it is possible that an individual may correctly define an objective morality.

Belief can work with possibilites and probabilities. Knowledge requires greater justification. As you are the one claiming to [i]know[/i] that something does not exist, I ask you to provide the justification for your knowledge claim or admit you acted in an intellectually arrogant manner.

Edited July 27, 2010 by O-Dog

[Bob Janova]

The fact that \m/ take pride in their 'ruining the game' tag, and old GOONS adopted the ' GOONS ' meme, shows that at least some raiders are perfectly aware they're violating ethical codes, they just don't care, rather like habitual criminals repeatedly violating the laws of their nation. No philosophical argument will help against those people, you just need to show them enough enforcement that they go away.

[Voytek]

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1280232659' post='2391107']words[/quote]
If all you're going to do is throw around nice-sounding words and hope that you've included a decent argument somewhere in the mess then I'm done here. You ask questions and answer them as a rhetorical device - too bad the answers you provide for them (or anything else for that matter) aren't backed up or explained in any way.

Get back to me when your debating style consists of more than arguing by thesaurus.

[o-dog]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280233225' post='2391115']
NO, you!
[/quote]

I answered my questions with what I hold to be the correct answers. I was hoping you'd have the nous to respond with answers that supported your claim. I guess I miscalculated the philosophical tools you have at your disposal.

TBH, this issue (the reason for this thread) was never about the moral justification of raiding, it is about the shabbiness of attacking weaker third parties in order to antagonise the NPO (or to prove that you are stronger than the NPO: it is a willy waving contest).

Edited July 27, 2010 by O-Dog

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280099062' post='2388852']
The vast majority of the protection that NPO provided on red wasn't direct action, like military enforcement. It wasn't even "this guy came to us after getting raided" diplomacy.

It was the fact that for a very long time, most alliances who raid had rules that included "do not raid on red". Some, I suspect, still have that rule now.

The only reason red is being targeted now is because CnG would love to roll NPO again, so they are pushing for an excuse. They get their friends to raid red over and over, and if NPO does anything, they use that for the excuse.

It's essentially terrorism, attacking people who aren't involved for a political purpose.
[/quote]

An interesting allegation.

However, you are correct in that many alliances that allow raiding had for a very, very long time a prohibition against raiding Red team. I think what we're seeing is what amounts to the opening of new raiding territory, something that hasn't happened on this scale ever.

It will be fun to watch to see what happens next. It could be that it actually causes significant growth for NPO, Invicta, and a handful for small soon to be medium sized alliances.

Edited July 27, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280220463' post='2391034']
Too bad it isn't in itself a moral position. Whoops!

Absolute truths and facts do exist. Absolute morality does not. If all you can come up with to counter the objective truth of moral relativism is "lol dats an absolute claim ownd!!" then you need go back to the drawing board.
[/quote]

I always find this to be an interesting tactic. Does saying "lol" somehow resolve the self-contradiction (or logical paradox if that's more to your liking) of making an absolute truth claim that negates itself?

Your claim that questions about properties of a thing are not questions regarding the thing itself is also quite interesting to me. Next you'll be telling me that the properties of a set are somehow completely different from, and have absolutely no bearing on, the properties of the elements of that set. "Oh yes, this set sums to 2 and has order 3, but it still contains only odd numbers."

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280220463' post='2391034']
Phoning it in again?
[/quote]

Bo-rrrring.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1280232964' post='2391111']
The fact that \m/ take pride in their 'ruining the game' tag, and old GOONS adopted the ' GOONS ' meme, shows that at least some raiders are perfectly aware they're violating ethical codes, they just don't care, rather like habitual criminals repeatedly violating the laws of their nation. No philosophical argument will help against those people, you just need to show them enough enforcement that they go away.
[/quote]Or maybe they're just making fun of people who whine about petty details like tech raiding. Maybe.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280220463' post='2391034']
Too bad it isn't in itself a moral position. Whoops!

Absolute truths and facts do exist. Absolute morality does not. If all you can come up with to counter the objective truth of moral relativism is "lol dats an absolute claim ownd!!" then you need go back to the drawing board.


Phoning it in again?
[/quote]
Your claim that absolute morality does not exist is, in itself, assuming knowledge you cannot possibly have. I assume, from your continued protests that O-dog provide evidence, that you can cite some sort of universal law proving your side of the debate? Somehow I doubt it.

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280233225' post='2391115']
If all you're going to do is throw around nice-sounding words and hope that you've included a decent argument somewhere in the mess then I'm done here. You ask questions and answer them as a rhetorical device - too bad the answers you provide for them (or anything else for that matter) aren't backed up or explained in any way.

Get back to me when your debating style consists of more than arguing by thesaurus.
[/quote]
To be fair, he's debating someone whose style apparently consists entirely of yelling, "Nuh uh! Prove it!" without the validation of having scientifically proven his own assertion first.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1280297629' post='2392250']
Or maybe they're just making fun of people who whine about petty details like tech raiding. Maybe.
[/quote]

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Solaris wins!

Sorry, Bob Janova, better luck next time.