Huwmanbeing
@huwmanbeing.bsky.social
Part ocular bat, part unusual hoon, part designer. Loves to discuss adventure games, fantasy world-building, philosophy, ethics, atheism, science.
Also the family's patriarch got wrecked on booze and passed out bottomless with his junk exposed while his kids were around.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 9:21 - English Standard Version
He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
www.biblegateway.com
November 30, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Also the family's patriarch got wrecked on booze and passed out bottomless with his junk exposed while his kids were around.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
Exactly right.
And even if we can't fully explain certain phenomena in natural terms, that still doesn't mean gods exist... it just means we have more to learn about the natural world.
And even if we can't fully explain certain phenomena in natural terms, that still doesn't mean gods exist... it just means we have more to learn about the natural world.
November 21, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Exactly right.
And even if we can't fully explain certain phenomena in natural terms, that still doesn't mean gods exist... it just means we have more to learn about the natural world.
And even if we can't fully explain certain phenomena in natural terms, that still doesn't mean gods exist... it just means we have more to learn about the natural world.
The issue (at least to me) is that such a standard tends to be opaque and unreliable: something that's bad today may suddenly become good tomorrow, since good and bad is nothing more than what's commanded at the moment.
IMHO cleaving to fixed principles yields a more robust and consistent morality.
IMHO cleaving to fixed principles yields a more robust and consistent morality.
November 9, 2025 at 1:49 PM
The issue (at least to me) is that such a standard tends to be opaque and unreliable: something that's bad today may suddenly become good tomorrow, since good and bad is nothing more than what's commanded at the moment.
IMHO cleaving to fixed principles yields a more robust and consistent morality.
IMHO cleaving to fixed principles yields a more robust and consistent morality.
Dude...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
You also largely dont decide your culture or religion, your life experiences and relationships, these are all fundamental aspects of your person/soul that you dont get to choose.
November 8, 2025 at 11:29 PM
Dude...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
Wait, you're claiming people don't get to choose any of those things in their lives?
Wow.
Sorry, but that's sufficiently detached from reality that I think going farther is probably pointless, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the chat.👋
Wow.
Sorry, but that's sufficiently detached from reality that I think going farther is probably pointless, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the chat.👋
November 8, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Wait, you're claiming people don't get to choose any of those things in their lives?
Wow.
Sorry, but that's sufficiently detached from reality that I think going farther is probably pointless, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the chat.👋
Wow.
Sorry, but that's sufficiently detached from reality that I think going farther is probably pointless, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the chat.👋
You just did.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
You also largely dont decide your culture or religion, your life experiences and relationships, these are all fundamental aspects of your person/soul that you dont get to choose.
November 8, 2025 at 10:23 PM
You just did.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
bsky.app/profile/happ...
Our physical form does have an impact.
Other things also have an impact: lived experiences, relationships, cultural associations, religion, etc.
The idea that these would have no bearing on how we make moral determinations is bizarre.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
Other things also have an impact: lived experiences, relationships, cultural associations, religion, etc.
The idea that these would have no bearing on how we make moral determinations is bizarre.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
But we dont decide those things. We are fundamentally bound by material being,, we are born with limitations and preferences based on our physical form...
November 8, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Our physical form does have an impact.
Other things also have an impact: lived experiences, relationships, cultural associations, religion, etc.
The idea that these would have no bearing on how we make moral determinations is bizarre.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
Other things also have an impact: lived experiences, relationships, cultural associations, religion, etc.
The idea that these would have no bearing on how we make moral determinations is bizarre.
bsky.app/profile/happ...
I think you're conflating having a physical form with the idea that physical form by itself predetermines every aspect of one's existence regardless of culture, religion, experiences, relationships, etc... which is frankly a bit bonkers. 🤪
November 8, 2025 at 9:38 PM
I think you're conflating having a physical form with the idea that physical form by itself predetermines every aspect of one's existence regardless of culture, religion, experiences, relationships, etc... which is frankly a bit bonkers. 🤪
Our natural physical form certainly influences us, but it doesn't bind us.
Our outlook on the world, our feelings, our emotions, our preferences, and even our moral values are shaped by our relationships, lived experiences, cultural expectations, religious beliefs, etc.
Our outlook on the world, our feelings, our emotions, our preferences, and even our moral values are shaped by our relationships, lived experiences, cultural expectations, religious beliefs, etc.
November 8, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Our natural physical form certainly influences us, but it doesn't bind us.
Our outlook on the world, our feelings, our emotions, our preferences, and even our moral values are shaped by our relationships, lived experiences, cultural expectations, religious beliefs, etc.
Our outlook on the world, our feelings, our emotions, our preferences, and even our moral values are shaped by our relationships, lived experiences, cultural expectations, religious beliefs, etc.
That's implied: "This is good because it benefits me" assumes that I personally prefer to benefit.
November 8, 2025 at 9:04 PM
That's implied: "This is good because it benefits me" assumes that I personally prefer to benefit.
And the determination of whether that outcome is good or bad is one that we as humans make ourselves, relative to our goals, preferences, desires, etc.
That's the point.
That's the point.
November 8, 2025 at 8:59 PM
And the determination of whether that outcome is good or bad is one that we as humans make ourselves, relative to our goals, preferences, desires, etc.
That's the point.
That's the point.
Hence my position on morality.
As far as we can see, good is dyadic ("good for us" or "good relative to this context") rather than monadic ("objectively good in itself").
As far as we can see, good is dyadic ("good for us" or "good relative to this context") rather than monadic ("objectively good in itself").
November 8, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Hence my position on morality.
As far as we can see, good is dyadic ("good for us" or "good relative to this context") rather than monadic ("objectively good in itself").
As far as we can see, good is dyadic ("good for us" or "good relative to this context") rather than monadic ("objectively good in itself").
It affects both ethics and morality.
November 8, 2025 at 8:33 PM
It affects both ethics and morality.
No, physics and metaphysics work a bit differently. 🚀
November 8, 2025 at 8:26 PM
No, physics and metaphysics work a bit differently. 🚀
Yes, certain positions, behaviors, etc. are better for achieving the kinds of states that we as humans broadly prefer to live in, but they aren't necessarily better in themselves.
What's good for us may not be good for a host of other material beings and species.
What's good for us may not be good for a host of other material beings and species.
November 8, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Yes, certain positions, behaviors, etc. are better for achieving the kinds of states that we as humans broadly prefer to live in, but they aren't necessarily better in themselves.
What's good for us may not be good for a host of other material beings and species.
What's good for us may not be good for a host of other material beings and species.
My only point is that our natural predispositions toward certain states doesn't mean those states are objectively good in themselves. For example, as social beings we consider isolation bad; a solitary species might consider it good. It's all still subjective, even at the very broadest scales.
November 8, 2025 at 8:07 PM
My only point is that our natural predispositions toward certain states doesn't mean those states are objectively good in themselves. For example, as social beings we consider isolation bad; a solitary species might consider it good. It's all still subjective, even at the very broadest scales.
No argument here. Achieving what we think is best — or more precisely, encouraging behaviors that are optimal for achieving the kinds of states that we find most desirable as social beings — is what morality is all about.
November 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM
No argument here. Achieving what we think is best — or more precisely, encouraging behaviors that are optimal for achieving the kinds of states that we find most desirable as social beings — is what morality is all about.
To be fair, I don't claim that there absolutely cannot be some transcendent moral source that objectively exists beyond the human mind or human social agreements. Maybe there is. I just don't see evidence for it.
Your mileage may vary. 🤷
Your mileage may vary. 🤷
November 8, 2025 at 7:54 PM
To be fair, I don't claim that there absolutely cannot be some transcendent moral source that objectively exists beyond the human mind or human social agreements. Maybe there is. I just don't see evidence for it.
Your mileage may vary. 🤷
Your mileage may vary. 🤷
That said, we can obviously still form broad agreements about the kinds of music, food, and art that we generally consider better because we're all wired similarly.
Likewise we can form broad agreements about what kinds of behaviors we consider better. And that's intersubjective morality.
Likewise we can form broad agreements about what kinds of behaviors we consider better. And that's intersubjective morality.
November 8, 2025 at 7:51 PM
That said, we can obviously still form broad agreements about the kinds of music, food, and art that we generally consider better because we're all wired similarly.
Likewise we can form broad agreements about what kinds of behaviors we consider better. And that's intersubjective morality.
Likewise we can form broad agreements about what kinds of behaviors we consider better. And that's intersubjective morality.
If someone disagrees with that, are they objectively wrong?
The point is simply that aesthetic preference is not a matter of pure objectivity but rather is shaped in many ways by our subjective experiences, emotions, backgrounds, cultures, etc. — things that also shape our moral sense.
The point is simply that aesthetic preference is not a matter of pure objectivity but rather is shaped in many ways by our subjective experiences, emotions, backgrounds, cultures, etc. — things that also shape our moral sense.
November 8, 2025 at 7:47 PM
If someone disagrees with that, are they objectively wrong?
The point is simply that aesthetic preference is not a matter of pure objectivity but rather is shaped in many ways by our subjective experiences, emotions, backgrounds, cultures, etc. — things that also shape our moral sense.
The point is simply that aesthetic preference is not a matter of pure objectivity but rather is shaped in many ways by our subjective experiences, emotions, backgrounds, cultures, etc. — things that also shape our moral sense.
That food objectively exists doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding it are objective.
Likewise, that actions objectively occur doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding them are objective.
That's the point, and seemingly the root of our disagreement. 🤷
Likewise, that actions objectively occur doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding them are objective.
That's the point, and seemingly the root of our disagreement. 🤷
November 8, 2025 at 7:37 PM
That food objectively exists doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding it are objective.
Likewise, that actions objectively occur doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding them are objective.
That's the point, and seemingly the root of our disagreement. 🤷
Likewise, that actions objectively occur doesn't mean that our responses and opinions regarding them are objective.
That's the point, and seemingly the root of our disagreement. 🤷
Not at all: I think artistic expression has value, just as I think morality has value. Neither of them needs to be objective to be useful, valuable, etc.
November 8, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Not at all: I think artistic expression has value, just as I think morality has value. Neither of them needs to be objective to be useful, valuable, etc.
Who determined that "material effort" is the means of distinguishing good music from bad music?
November 8, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Who determined that "material effort" is the means of distinguishing good music from bad music?
You said specifically, "Taste is objective."
I'm just testing that assertion.
(Most people agree that such tastes are simply subjective, and that there's no independent, universal property about those tastes that makes one "objectively" better than the other.)
I'm just testing that assertion.
(Most people agree that such tastes are simply subjective, and that there's no independent, universal property about those tastes that makes one "objectively" better than the other.)
November 8, 2025 at 7:21 PM
You said specifically, "Taste is objective."
I'm just testing that assertion.
(Most people agree that such tastes are simply subjective, and that there's no independent, universal property about those tastes that makes one "objectively" better than the other.)
I'm just testing that assertion.
(Most people agree that such tastes are simply subjective, and that there's no independent, universal property about those tastes that makes one "objectively" better than the other.)