No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The desire to oppress is not free desire. It is oppression. If someone has desire to go and shoot up a school, this is called a massacre, not free desire, as it very obviously stratifies desire, yes? This is the contradiction in the statement that | The desire to oppress is not free desire. It is oppression. If someone has desire to go and shoot up a school, this is called a massacre, not free desire, as it very obviously stratifies desire, yes? This is the contradiction in the statement that there cannot be anything to stratify desire: it permits people to stratify desire, thus it argues for what it thinks ought not to be done, making it an inconsistent system, as by definition, stratifying desire is not permitted; but also stratifying desire is permitted. | ||
Also, morality is not 'context-independent'. What a morality is is a system of establishing what is permitted as right and what is wrong. This does not mean context-independent. You seem to think that just because your system is a diagonalization makes it inherently better. Why is there no morality? Why is there no god? Why do these cause everything to be permitted? If your exigence for smashing the child rapist's skull is 'i wanted to', what prevents the child rapist from making the same argument? Are they not wrong in bashing in the skulls of any who try to prevent them? If you feel no sense of objective wrongness in the idea of such a thing, there is no more I can say to you. | Also, morality is not 'context-independent'. What a morality is is a system of establishing what is permitted as right and what is wrong. This does not mean context-independent. You seem to think that just because your system is a diagonalization makes it inherently better. Why is there no morality? Why is there no god? Why do these cause everything to be permitted? If your exigence for smashing the child rapist's skull is 'i wanted to', what prevents the child rapist from making the same argument? Are they not wrong in bashing in the skulls of any who try to prevent them? If you feel no sense of objective wrongness in the idea of such a thing, there is no more I can say to you. | ||
Revision as of 08:55, 27 January 2024
The desire to oppress is not free desire. It is oppression. If someone has desire to go and shoot up a school, this is called a massacre, not free desire, as it very obviously stratifies desire, yes? This is the contradiction in the statement that there cannot be anything to stratify desire: it permits people to stratify desire, thus it argues for what it thinks ought not to be done, making it an inconsistent system, as by definition, stratifying desire is not permitted; but also stratifying desire is permitted.
Also, morality is not 'context-independent'. What a morality is is a system of establishing what is permitted as right and what is wrong. This does not mean context-independent. You seem to think that just because your system is a diagonalization makes it inherently better. Why is there no morality? Why is there no god? Why do these cause everything to be permitted? If your exigence for smashing the child rapist's skull is 'i wanted to', what prevents the child rapist from making the same argument? Are they not wrong in bashing in the skulls of any who try to prevent them? If you feel no sense of objective wrongness in the idea of such a thing, there is no more I can say to you.