You're viewing part of a thread.
What an appropriate subject of conversation, because I'm pretty sure by the art style this is Existential Comics.
The use of "in practice" suggests an absolute morality, which I think Lovecraft would object to, and I think many Lemmy users would as well. That aside, pretty much the only counter to this is that we've toned down the war, slavery and brutal exploitation over the last 200 years. The last 10,000 before that and probably the last 200,000 before that are kind of the same thing happening over and over again. What's more, nobody can adequately explain why it's suddenly started to improve, or if it will stay that way. For all we know, we live in the turbulent transition period between agrarian hereditary autocracy and dystopian high-tech hereditary autocracy.
All in all, humanity is (morally) shit by humanity's own standards. By nihilistic or existential standards humanity is neutral, as is everything else. Cthulhu's standards are canonically beyond comprehension.
"The use of "in practice" suggests an absolute morality"
how?
The ability to choose how you act suggests and "absolute morality?"
"which I think Lovecraft would object to"
why?
he had pretty black and white beliefs, like ranking races objectively.
"I think many Lemmy users would as well."
I don't see your polls for all of your conjectures-
"That aside"
oh you're just writing stuff that you don't even care enough about to support.
"the only counter to this..."
a pretty good counter to this is the justification of collective punishment
One person from a city of a million people commits murder, and you agree that The logical conclusion is to execute the population of that City in its entirety.
that's a poorly reasoned and executed reaction.
Why are you executing all those children? Why are you executing all the mothers and fathers and couples, the teachers and firefighters tirelessly working to create a better society?
what about the animals in that city, are they all spared and taken care of after your genocide?
No? cthulhu destroys the entire ecosystem as well?
obviously collective genocide and indiscriminate destruction is not the answer to specific acts of sporadic violence.
it's a lazy , cynical, convenient solution embracing the cowardly destruction of life it purports to censure.
"humanity is (morally) shit by humanity's own standards"
No, humanity is shit by your limited standards.
I'm not sure how to respond to that many one-liner points all at once, so I'll pick and choose (quite) a bit.
Speaking of, your last point is literally just "no u", so no, I'm not going to run a poll of users. It's pretty insulting you'd expect effort that lopsided.
Lovecraft certainly had an (ahem) strong affinity for human, specifically white, specifically Anglo-American morality, aesthetics and general ways of doing things. He also acknowledged and deeply hated that there were other ways of doing things. In fact, the whole point of his Mythos was that, in a universe then-recently discovered to have multiple galaxies full of billions of stars each, nothing may be universal (and that we should be afraid). His letters make that pretty clear.
If you're a moral relativist, there is no practical side to morality separate from the theory, since it's an arbitrary construct. You choose a theory of morality, and then the theory and it's application is all you have.
I'm not agreeing with Cthulhu here. We were talking about the whether these are valid, non-hypocritical reasons he could want to destroy humanity, which is a separate question from if he then should. It's possible to not believe in punishment at all! Then you came in saying humans are pretty great actually, and that's the claim I'm really interested in examining. You didn't substantially respond about that, though.
"I'm not going to run a poll of users"
nobody asked you to, and you not having this knowledge is precisely my point.
I'm specifically pointing out that you're drawing conclusions based on your assumptions about how tens of thousands of people think that you have no evidence for.
"you'd expect effort that lopsided."
I do not expect you to source or logically reason out your conclusions; that is the problem with your assumptions, as I mentioned in my previous comment.
"I'm not agreeing with Cthulhu here."
Great, that's one down.
"Then you came in saying humans are pretty great actually"
you are incorrect.
I said "collective genocide and indiscriminate destruction is not the answer to specific acts of sporadic violence"
"that's the claim I'm really interested in examining[your own claim that humans are pretty great]."
That is a claim you made, not a claim I made, but there's plenty of supporting evidence.
What specifically are you curious about regarding "humans being pretty great"?
"You didn't substantially respond about that, though."
a natural response to not having received any questions.
Alright, since you seem like the kind of person that appreciates hyper-literalness:
Yeah, that one rings a bit hollow, although I guess it could use it as an argument we’re dumb, because we’re doing it to ourselves. All the rest could theoretically apply, though.
“could, theoretically”, sure.
but in practice those condemnations are too broadly applied and don’t reflect the constant struggle for progress or range of human success.
Do you intend to imply that "the constant struggle" makes humanity more worthy than our actions would imply, yes or no?
If yes, than you're saying, relative to what was previously implied, that humans are pretty great. I supplied some reasons that they aren't.
If no, why do you have a problem with what I said?
Alternately, if you do not have a problem with what I said, why are you here?
"you seem like the kind of person that appreciates hyper-literalness"
not really, I'm more of a stickler for accuracy, consistency and intention, and you really noodle around with those.
"Do you intend to imply..."
nope
"why do you have a problem with what I said"
you were defending the reasoning for global genocide(I know you're whistling a different tune in later comments, I'm talking about why I refuted your earlier defense of genocide) as a response to me saying that global genocide is not an appropriate punishment for humanity's failings.
I don't have a particular problem with you as a person, I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning and I feel that your affirmation of genocide as a viable punitive response to humanity is disgusting.
maybe distasteful now, rather than disgusting, since you've backpedaled your support for genocide in recent comments.
it's not you in particular, I feel the same way about everyone in this thread who are cynically giving genocide the thumbs up as a concept or "joke" while probably posting "supportive" Palestinian flags and comments on social media.
I’m more of a stickler for accuracy, consistency and intention,
Same thing. Most people find it abrasive and unnatural, but I can roll this way too.
you were defending the reasoning for global genocide(I know you’re whistling a different tune in later comments, I’m talking about why I refuted your earlier defense of genocide)
Please quote the earlier defense of genocide.
"Please quote the earlier defense of genocide."
it's kind of long, but sure.
bear in mind that the topic is global genocide, the context to your comment is my disagreement that global genocide is justified, and you are arguing that cthulhu's reasoning is valid:
"...the only counter to this is that we’ve toned down the war, slavery and brutal exploitation over the last 200 years. The last 10,000 before that and probably the last 200,000 before that are kind of the same thing happening over and over again. What’s more, nobody can adequately explain why it’s suddenly started to improve, or if it will stay that way. For all we know, we live in the turbulent transition period between agrarian hereditary autocracy and dystopian high-tech hereditary autocracy.
All in all, humanity is (morally) shit...
you further claim that humanity is shit by humanity's standards, but are speaking only for yourself and by your own reasoning, thereby identifying your own personal and singular standards, rather than "humanity's".
you have robustly defended the reasoning for global genocide.
I robustly defended humanity being unsavory. I did not robustly defend genocide. To justify Cthulhu's premise is to not to justify his conclusion. I left the logical connection between the two unexamined.
"I robustly defended humanity being unsavory."
defending a position that nobody is attacking.
"I did not robustly defend genocide."
The comic is making the joke that because humanity is so bad, cthulhu will commit global genocide.
your argument, in response to my comment that condemns global genocide, is that cthulhu largely makes good points points.
for global genocide.
you're defending the reasoning for global genocide.
"To justify Cthulhu's premise is to not to justify his conclusion."
his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.
"I left the logical connection between the two unexamined."
you say "all the rest could theoretically apply" referring to your agreement with cthulhu's reasonings for global genocide.
you explicitly make that connection.
his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.
It is not inextricable. From a utilitarian perspective, for example, humanity could still produce far more utility that it's many indiscretions remove.
It was not pointed - it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency, along with commentary on the fictional nature of Cthulhu, or the fact that in cannon he does not speak English.
you say “all the rest could theoretically apply” referring to your agreement with cthulhu’s reasonings for global genocide.
To say "could theoretically" is not the same as "does" - there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.