Briefest armchair philo

You: what philosophy do you want to talk about?

Stranger: whats your philosophy on life? like, what do you think is the actual purpose of life?

You: I don't think there is really anything innate or forever, but I do believe in something contemporary

You: What about you?

You: weltanschauung

Stranger: nice! well like kurt vonnegut said, "I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different" i dont know i just think we're here to live and experience things that activate our senses and emotions in the most natural way, you know? i dont know, i know it sounds lame but im stoned so its hard to explain in depth without it sounding like stoned brouhaha

Stranger: i just learned a new word cool

Stranger: thanks

Stranger: haha

You: I prefer another comedians outlook...

You: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible

You: Skip to 7:15 

philosophy

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5952/why-are-most-people-not-persuaded-by-rational-arguments

You both like philosophy.

You: hi

Stranger: Hi.

You: What do you want to talk about?

Stranger: nothing specific, I'm afraid.

You: What philosophy do you know?

Stranger: eh, what do you mean?

Stranger: Academically speaking I've mainly studied epistemology and ontology.

Stranger: From Hume to Kant.

You: Is that your major?

You: Philosophy

Stranger: No.

Stranger: My major is Computer Science.

Stranger: You still there?

You: Ya

Stranger: Ok, it feels good to know that I'm not the only one sitting in silence over the internet.

You: So what philosophy courses have you taken?

Stranger: Just the one. It was called philosophy. :D

Stranger: and ethics if you count that

Stranger: I did my own research.

You: Do you ascribe to any one, such as for ethics?

Stranger: I'm not really sure what you mean by ascribe to any one

You: Something you believe in

Stranger: oh. I'm a moral relativist

Stranger: meta-ethical at that.

You: ya, that makes sense

Stranger: I had an interesting talk with someone who posited that just like logic morality can have it's own set of axioms

Stranger: and regardless of the one experiencing it they would hold true.

Stranger: But didn't really manage to convince me.

You: Can I try to convince you?

Stranger: You can try.

You: So you avoid suffering and pain, yes?

Stranger: Not necessarily.

Stranger: Perhaps a better statement would be chose the lesser of suffering?

Stranger: I mean sometimes you just actually punish yourself

Stranger: which later brings relaxation

Stranger: but whatever.

You: Well, besides exercies "pain"

Stranger: no pain - no gain man :D

Stranger: Anyway lets assume that to be true. I'm wondering where this is going.

You: =)

You: So, most try to avoid, lessen or eliminate physical pain

You: What is suffering then?

You: (Socratic method)

Stranger: But I mean that's just self-preservation instinct. no?

You: Perhaps (but it will be expanded, and applied...soon)

You: What is pain in relation to suffering?

Stranger: I don't know. It's 2:44 AM don't ask me to think of your arguments :D

You: Aww, but then it won't be meaningful

Stranger: it sure will, just answer your own damn question.

You: Any guess is invited

Stranger: Ok, I think this is semantics, so we need definitions

Stranger: Suffering is defined by OED as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

Stranger: Therefore any continued or impulsive stretch of dislikeable experience can be considered as suffering

You: Sorry, but my arguments involve both parties having a say

You: And, yes

You: time

You: pain over time

Stranger: Now the "seriousness" of suffering can be different to different people

You: Yes, but I'll say something new:

You: suffering exists, outside of yourself

You: I mean...

You: Other people suffer?

Stranger: eeh no?

Stranger: I mean outside myself

Stranger: sure

Stranger: outside any consciousness .. no?

Stranger: Even so some philosophers would have say about the first one as well.

You: I simply mean that other people suffer--even though we (usually) don't feel it

Stranger: And I mean I can let that slide for the sake of the argument and common sense, but still I could argue that

You: (Are you going to continue?)

Stranger: no

Stranger: you have the stage

You: Oh, it just seemed how that sentence was left. Anyway

You: Would you agree that other people suffer much more than yourself?

Stranger: some other people, yeah.

You: May I ask who? (You don't have to know or have seen them.)

Stranger: A guy who got burned in a recent protest due to police brutality

Stranger: or sex-slaves of Isis

Stranger: anyone not suffering from the first world shit that I do/

You: lol

You: I'll take it. Can you do anything to lessen one or more of others' suffering?

Stranger: I guess I can.

Stranger: oi you there?

You: Oh, yes sorry

You: I have to scroll down every time for some reason

You: That's pretty much my argument. I left out the efficiency part, but altruism is what I'm getting at.

Stranger: bugs - another first world issue.

You: ha

You: I'm talking about preference utilitarianims

Stranger: Yeah this was anti-climatic

You: ooops

You: well, I don't know a better way

Stranger: utilitarianism sucks so does John Stewart Mill.

You: why

Stranger: It was the easiest topic to write the final essay on :D

Stranger: you just copy Kant and voila you get critique that was written before Mill was born.

Stranger: Because you can't measure "overall happieness"

You: That is why I said *preference* utilitarianism

Stranger: sooo If I help a guy hide his 6th body

You: Again, that is classical utilitarianism

Stranger: I kinda do what *preference* utilitarianism says is the right way to go.

Stranger: no no

Stranger: that's preference

Stranger: moting actions that fulfill the interests (preferences) of those beings involved.

Stranger: Those being involved is me not wanted to get into shit and guy who killed 6 people

Stranger: and wants to go off merrily killing others

Stranger: *promoting

You: Do you have a real argument?

Stranger: How is that a fake argument?

You: I thought you were joking around

Stranger: Nah that was a legit thought experiment

You: If not, then I assume you haven't heard of preference utilitarianism before this conversation

Stranger: That assumption would be half-true

You: If you don't mind me asking, how?

You: I have other philosophy we can talk about too

You: instead

You: (I think it bums people out to talk about extreme poverty and such things)

Stranger: I did hear about it. I just had to refresh my memory, because at the time it wasn't interesting

Stranger: and it was about 2 years ago

You: Yes, my last philosophy class was about that long ago too.

Stranger: I mean what they say about weighing preference mathematically, to me it's just impossible

You: I'm glad I met you, moral relativism is really what preference utilitarianism is today =J

You: There is no weighing in preference utilitarianism

Stranger: Moral relativism claims that morality is subjective and there is no inherent "moral" or "immoral" good or bad

Stranger: wait a minute

Stranger: aren't we talking about Hare and his theory?

You: ha, no

Stranger: THe point of this conversation was that you tried to convince me that there in fact is objectively true shit

Stranger: Then I'm lost

You: Wikipedia will only get you so far

Stranger: true

Stranger: although no

Stranger: false

Stranger: Wikipedia gets you everywhere :D

You: I'm also a little embarrassed, I never heard of Hare before today!

Stranger: If you don't wanna cite wiki, cite the citations cited in Wiki

You: I remember the calculating though

You: Anyway, I don't want people to necessarily lessen extreme (survival needs not met) poverty

Stranger: YOu don't

Stranger: ?

Stranger: You monster/

You: I just want others to lessen some kind of suffering--not necessarily the worst kind

Stranger: oh

You: Child sex slaves, women's rights, etc

Stranger: Anyway getting back to topic how is this proving existence of objective moral axioms?

You: Can you say that another way?

Stranger: The conversation started with you trying to prove that to me

You: I understand all the words. It's just

Stranger: :(

Stranger: I'm confused

You: That's probably my fault, let me try to summarize it in brief:

You: i.a) Suffering exists
i.b) Unnecessary physical suffering (pain) is bad
i.c) When possible, suffering ought to be avoided, lessened, or eliminated

You: Shall we go from there?

Stranger: That's assuming I'm a sensible person. not a psychopath raised

You: lol

Stranger: in a culture where hurting people is good

Stranger: so, no we can't continue from there

Stranger: that shit isn't yet established

You: well, the (ii) is all messed up (unfinished)

You: You remind me of a relevant question though...

You: just a sec

You: ough, it's being difficult to find...

You: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5952/why-are-most-people-not-persuaded-by-rational-arguments

Stranger: lol

You: Forget about my argument

Stranger: It's just funny to see question like that on stack

You: I realized from this question (answer) that I've been going about this all wrong

You: (I lovvvee stackEx)

Stranger: The title was funny

Stranger: the content seems goof

Stranger: *good.

You: It's so hard to convince people (I've convinced no one, here nor in person)

You: hell, in person everyone is against philosophy

Stranger: I have, and have been convinced on multiple accounts.

Stranger: Maybe it's yuo?

Stranger: *you

You: Well, I make it sound like they've been living their life wrong

You: (So yes, it's definitely me.)

You: It's all about the approach

You: How else should I go about it (even if you don't agree with anything I've said so far)

You: to convince people to 'find a cause'

You: lessen suffering, be altruistic

Stranger: To convince me, all you need is a good argument.

Stranger: I mean it's all nice and dandy about helping others

Stranger: but what relation does it have to our initial topic?

You: philosophy?

You: I don't know what initial topic you're referencing?

Stranger: about morality

Stranger: having a set of true axioms analogous to logic that exist regardless

Stranger: of the consciousness experiencing it.

Stranger: In logic you have shit like this

Stranger: Something cannot be A and not A at the same time

Stranger: which is true

Stranger: Always

Stranger: does morality have shit like that?

Stranger: you said yes. And the whole thing was for you to convince me in that/

You: So, how can I have you agree with something that will inevitable prove the acts of altruism true (since going against the axiom would contradict your agreement in the first place)?

Stranger: Well the same way if I tried to convince you that logic axioms such as the one already presented

Stranger: exist

Stranger: trying to prove by contrapositive

You: I think I follow.

Stranger: or by inability to bring counter example

Stranger: I mean If from A follows B that implies that from not B follows not A.

You: yes, yes

Stranger: This is pefectly justifiable

You: I understand what you mean

Stranger: *perfectly

You: I would start talking about consequentialism...

You: but I kind of should go

You: cool, I will have to think this over more to simplify the logic of preference utilitarianism