this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
846 points (87.2% liked)

Memes

45660 readers
1817 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That it is benefiting those involved instead of being to their determent.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is benefiting others morally justifiable?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is the moral justification for your answer?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is an appeal to the one true scotsman fallacy

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look up axioms. You'll see they are the staring points of logical arguments.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do you get to define axioms to exclude my definition?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Words have the meaning we give them, not always just the original meaning

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. And the general meaning is the one I just gave.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But general definition is not stable it changes. You're just saying this in a way to negate my definition. Why do you get to define it?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The majority/community defines it has hasn't changed it yet.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're trying to say words have actual meanings?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So words have settled meanings when you say they do?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean you feel confindent saying that a word has a meaning that is agreed upon

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes? Sometimes multiple in the case of homophones.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?