I am really a little lost here. Where did I make any claim that ethics ought to be based on public opinion?
[QUOTE=Pepin;38962296]I am really a little lost here. Where did I make any claim that ethics ought to be based on public opinion?[/QUOTE]
[quote=Pepin;38962296]You then must know that the the theory "murder is good" can't be true because it fails basic logical tests. If murder is good, then people must want murder. [b]But murder is unwanted[/b][/quote]
Why do you seem to prefer theories that are true as opposed to theories that are false? Is this a subjective preference that you have?
[QUOTE=Pepin;38969550]Why do you seem to prefer theories that are true as opposed to theories that are false? Is this a subjective preference that you have?[/QUOTE]
I never said my preference [b]I only showed you what your theory says of itself[/b]. Frankly if you must know I am a Scientific Non-Realist and a Religious-Realist.
:suicide: does that look right to you?
This thread has become officialy too hard to follow
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38972629]I never said my preference [b]I only showed you what your theory says of itself[/b]. Frankly if you must know I am a Scientific Non-Realist and a Religious-Realist.[/QUOTE]
Can you tell me more about the fundamental conflicts in our views?
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38977909]This thread has become officialy too hard to follow[/QUOTE]
The avatar goes so well with that post.
[i]Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will.[/i]
reality exists, but in the core of everything life is a dream
[QUOTE=Kyle v2;39059022][i]Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will.[/i][/QUOTE]
The law of Thelema as made popular by that maniac Crowley. Forget God, one's own will and ego is the ultimate measure of things as surely as we have not died after eating of the fruit of knowlege.
Adonay 2016
A theory must propose something objective and universal, and must be falsifiable. If a theory is really a subjective claim, that theory is neither true or false, as subjectivity is defined as the inability to be true or false. You can call my preference for chocolate ice cream: true or false; or subjective, but it can only be one at a time.
I prefer theories that are true as opposed to theories that are false. Though my preference for truth might be claimed to be "subjective", this does not make the truth (or falsehood) subjective. Scientist prefer true theories over false theories, but this does not mean they believe in a subjective theory. The point of the scientific method is to overcome subjectivity and mysticism because true theories are better than false theories.
If you prefer truth over falsehood, wouldn't your preference indicate that you'd prefer ethical theories that are true and not false? If one of the ten commandments was "people ought to be in two places at the same time", you wouldn't have a subjective disagreement, but rather an objective one because the statement "people ought to do what they cannot do" can't be true, and is therefore false. Similarly, a theory proposing that "people ought to want what they do not want" can't work. It can't be argued that "she wanted to be raped" because rape is unwanted sex.
To put the argument in a nutshell
1. Truth is better than falsehood
2. Claims can be falsified due to internal consistency
3. The claim "people ought to want rape" is false
Now a good logical test here is to to see if the opposite of the claim is true. The opposite of the claim would be "people ought to want sex they want to have", which is true, though a little redundant.
[QUOTE=Pepin;39080183]A theory must propose something objective and universal, and must be falsifiable. If a theory is really a subjective claim, that theory is neither true or false, as subjectivity is defined as the inability to be true or false. You can call my preference for chocolate ice cream: true or false; or subjective, but it can only be one at a time.
I prefer theories that are true as opposed to theories that are false. Though my preference for truth might be claimed to be "subjective", this does not make the truth (or falsehood) subjective. Scientist prefer true theories over false theories, but this does not mean they believe in a subjective theory. The point of the scientific method is to overcome subjectivity and mysticism because true theories are better than false theories.
If you prefer truth over falsehood, wouldn't your preference indicate that you'd prefer ethical theories that are true and not false? If one of the ten commandments was "people ought to be in two places at the same time", you wouldn't have a subjective disagreement, but rather an objective one because the statement "people ought to do what they cannot do" can't be true, and is therefore false. Similarly, a theory proposing that "people ought to want what they do not want" can't work. It can't be argued that "she wanted to be raped" because rape is unwanted sex.
To put the argument in a nutshell
1. Truth is better than falsehood
2. Claims can be falsified due to internal consistency
3. The claim "people ought to want rape" is false
Now a good logical test here is to to see if the opposite of the claim is true. The opposite of the claim would be "people ought to want sex they want to have", which is true, though a little redundant.[/QUOTE]
If the theory: "People ought to want what they do not want" doesnt work (which I agree it doesnt), then it's actual direct opposite would be: "People ought to not want what they want". While in the case of a child wanting icecream this makes no sense, in the moral case of man wanting to have sex/rape with a woman, he must then not want what he wants in order to avoid temptation.
Also you still haven't mentioned why it is true that "making other people unhappy is bad". There are many case scenarios of people who would disagree with you. Why are they wrong?
Also I think I should elaborate on the word truth.
There are two types of truth depending on whether you are a realist or a non-realist.
Realists say that the truth is a statement that corresponds with the actual world.
Non-realists say that truth is really what works. In so far as why it may not be 100% sure true in the realist sense that there are little particles called quarks that make up hadrons, but the MODEL of the quarks works, and thus is "true".
All in all I must ask you this:
Is there a set fact of the matter about what is good morals? Or are they something that changes with time and society and have no actual objective ends?
i've always wondered why girls complain about cat calling when they go out all tarted up with their tits and ass hanging out.
i know if i went out dressed the same i'd probably get at least 5x the amount of vile responses and the responses themselves would probably have the capability to be much more inflamitory than anything a man could say to a woman strutting her stuff...
[editline]3rd January 2013[/editline]
i never got the whole angle to it either.
what is your solution to this womankind? because you always have this idea stuck in your head you can change things you simply can't...
Have you ever watched a musical and sort of imagining how it would be if real life was like that? Wandering down to the store, discovering that your favorite bread is outsold for the day and you start singing "My favorite bread, my dear routine to be fed!". Then suddenly people start joining in with the singing, a parade of musicians and dancers enter the store in perfect choreography and the store just turns into a glee stage with everybody singing in flawless synchronization.
Which of course ends with the classical happy ending of me receiving my loaf of bread that a dancer happened to have brought with him, and as I leave the store to head home, the music dials down and everyone disappears through every corner and exit available, dancers vanishing behind counters and staff lounge doors.
Then as I arrive home I sing: "And sooo the breaaaad, was finally miiiiiiiineee!"
[QUOTE=Memnoth;39114323]Have you ever watched a musical and sort of imagining how it would be if real life was like that? Wandering down to the store, discovering that your favorite bread is outsold for the day and you start singing "My favorite bread, my dear routine to be fed!". Then suddenly people start joining in with the singing, a parade of musicians and dancers enter the store in perfect choreography and the store just turns into a glee stage with everybody singing in flawless synchronization.
Which of course ends with the classical happy ending of me receiving my loaf of bread that a dancer happened to have brought with him, and as I leave the store to head home, the music dials down and everyone disappears through every corner and exit available, dancers vanishing behind counters and staff lounge doors.
Then as I arrive home I sing: "And sooo the breaaaad, was finally miiiiiiiineee!"[/QUOTE]
Frankly, that's not a philosophy matter really but, since it you brought it into this arena allow me to destroy your hopes and dreams:
In order to evaluate the feasibility of a world where musical numbers actually happen we must take a few things for granted;
-I assume all people have equal rights to playing the main role.
-However every musical number can only have several people be the main role at most.
-People will have to take turns being the main role.
-I assume that on average a musical number will have 1.5 people as main roles. (Average of 1-3)
-I assume that the average musical number is about 5 minutes long.
-I assume that the average musical number requires the participation of 25 people at minimum.
-I assume that while most of the day can be spent in a musical number, there will still be at least 10 hours out of the daily 24 in which a person does not participate in musical numbers.
-I assume the rough world population of 7 billion.
-I assume the world average lifespan is 55 years old.
(7 billion people) x 1 MN (Musical Number)/1.5 people =~ 4.7 billion MN
4.7 billion MN x 5 minutes/MN = 23 billion minutes
23 billion minutes / 60 minutes = 388 million hours
388 million hours / 24 hours = 27 million days
27 million days / 1 year / 365 days = 76103 years
8 billion people / 25 people / MN / 5 minutes = 56 million MN / 5 minutes
However if you divide this number of MN by the speed at which these musical groups can do MN you will find that in this Musical world you will get to be the star of your own show and sing about bread every 83 years or so.
Ultimately your Musical world is feasible, however progress would be at a standstill as 14 hours of your day incorporate being musical as opposed to concentrating on the task at hand.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541]If the theory: "People ought to want what they do not want" doesnt work (which I agree it doesnt), then it's actual direct opposite would be: "People ought to not want what they want".[/quote]
I think I messed up with what I was saying. What I meant to say was that since the universe doesn't allow people to do to things as once, any statements that proposes "people ought to do x and the opposite of x at the same time" are inherently false.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541]While in the case of a child wanting icecream this makes no sense, in the moral case of man wanting to have sex/rape with a woman, he must then not want what he wants in order to avoid temptation.[/quote]
I'd agree with the point, which is why the the theory ethical claims ought to be based on behaviors that people prefer to act on. Preferences that aren't acted on people can't affect others.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541]Also you still haven't mentioned why it is true that "making other people unhappy is bad".[/quote]
Happiness may be preferred, but it is not a behavior, therefore happiness can't be involved in ethical theories. Also it can't be universalized. A theory that "people ought to be happy" is can never be fulfilled by everyone at the same time. While on the other hand "people ought not to rape" can be done by everyone at the same time. It is also a subjective measure, which is incompatible with UPB as it aims to be objective. In a way, it is just the scientific method applied to ethical claims.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541] There are many case scenarios of people who would disagree with you. Why are they wrong?[/quote]
If ethical theories are objectively false, does someone's disagreement affect the validity of the ethical theory? I think not.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541]Also I think I should elaborate on the word truth.
There are two types of truth depending on whether you are a realist or a non-realist.
Realists say that the truth is a statement that corresponds with the actual world.
Non-realists say that truth is really what works. In so far as why it may not be 100% sure true in the realist sense that there are little particles called quarks that make up hadrons, but the MODEL of the quarks works, and thus is "true".[/quote]
Perhaps I am high, but how are those mutually exclusive? I mean I could take a few guesses, but I feel I'd be wrong.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39083541]All in all I must ask you this:
Is there a set fact of the matter about what is good morals? Or are they something that changes with time and society and have no actual objective ends?[/QUOTE]
They have to universal in that everyone must be able to do it at the same time. "Thou shalt rape" cannot be done at the same time, therefore it can't be a true theory. Thou can't initiate and resist rape simultaneously.
[QUOTE=Pepin;39124878]
If ethical theories are objectively false, does someone's disagreement affect the validity of the ethical theory? I think not. [/quote]
You haven't yet established grounds for why the ethical theory of raping people being good is objectively false. I will go more into this later.
[QUOTE=Pepin;39124878]
Perhaps I am high, but how are those mutually exclusive? I mean I could take a few guesses, but I feel I'd be wrong.
[/quote]
One does not care if it matches up to "reality" so long as it works (non-realist), and the other strives to get facts to match reality, even if they seemingly have no use.(Realist) Go do some philosphy 101.
[QUOTE=Pepin;39124878]
They have to universal in that everyone must be able to do it at the same time. "Thou shalt rape" cannot be done at the same time, therefore it can't be a true theory. Thou can't initiate and resist rape simultaneously.[/QUOTE]
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
-Firstly, it is not impossible to have everyone "rape" eachother at the same time. (Think conga line)
-Secondly, if we are to apply this universality to a different issue (Ie Suicide or theft) your theory crumbles entirely.
We are still no closer to figuring out why causing misfortune upon others and acting deprived is morally wrong.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39126098]You haven't yet established grounds for why the ethical theory of raping people being good is objectively false. I will go more into this later[/quote]
UPB technically doesn't involve the concept of good or bad, but rather whether behaviors can be preferred and universalized. It is a methodology that can be used to falsify preferences that people claim that everyone ought to act on. Currently, you are claiming that the ethical theory of UPB isn't just false for me, or just for you, but that is universally false for everyone. Nobody ought to believe in UPB because it is false, and people ought to believe in theories that aren't false. You are claiming that the ethical theory of UPB is universally false regardless of who is arguing for it.
You don't disagree with UPB because you use it. UPB in essence is a methodology that states that ethical claims can be falsified, and that they ought to be falsified through logic, reason, universality, and evidence. You are falsifying the ethical claim UPB through logic reason, universality, and evidence.
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39126098]One does not care if it matches up to "reality" so long as it works (non-realist), and the other strives to get facts to match reality, even if they seemingly have no use.(Realist) Go do some philosphy 101.[/QUOTE]
Different sciences have different requirements for truth. A theory of physics requires complete universality. Electrons always have negative charges. If it doesn't have a negative charge, it isn't an electron. A theory of biology on the other hand requires a looser definition of truth, because the process of biology is the result of millions and millions of years of random genetic mutations. A baby born with six fingers would not invalidate the sciences of biology/genetics, but rather confirm them.
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39126098]That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
-Firstly, it is not impossible to have everyone "rape" eachother at the same time. (Think conga line)[/quote]
Rape can't be universally preferred behavior because people cannot prefer to be raped. Ethical claims that propose that people prefer to be raped, murdered, to be stolen from aren't exactly understanding that people can't prefer what they don't prefer. The claim doesn't make any sense, therefore it can't be true.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39126098]-Secondly, if we are to apply this universality to a different issue (Ie Suicide or theft) your theory crumbles entirely.[/quote]
Suicide is not universally preferable behavior, because suicide is a positive action, and positive actions can't be independent of time. The main issue is that it is an unchosen positive obligations. Unchosen positive obligations can't be UPB because they can't be universalized.
Theft can't apply universally because for it to be theft it must be unwanted. A theory that people prefer theft, is false being people cannot prefer what they do not prefer.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39126098]We are still no closer to figuring out why causing misfortune upon others and acting deprived is morally wrong.[/QUOTE]
Can you expand?
[QUOTE=Pepin;39129575]UPB technically doesn't involve the concept of good or bad, but rather whether behaviors can be preferred and universalized. It is a methodology that can be used to falsify preferences that people claim that everyone ought to act on. Currently, you are claiming that the ethical theory of UPB isn't just false for me, or just for you, but that is universally false for everyone. Nobody ought to believe in UPB because it is false, and people ought to believe in theories that aren't false. You are claiming that the ethical theory of UPB is universally false regardless of who is arguing for it.
You don't disagree with UPB because you use it. UPB in essence is a methodology that states that ethical claims can be falsified, and that they ought to be falsified through logic, reason, universality, and evidence. You are falsifying the ethical claim UPB through logic reason, universality, and evidence.
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
Different sciences have different requirements for truth. A theory of physics requires complete universality. Electrons always have negative charges. If it doesn't have a negative charge, it isn't an electron. A theory of biology on the other hand requires a looser definition of truth, because the process of biology is the result of millions and millions of years of random genetic mutations. A baby born with six fingers would not invalidate the sciences of biology/genetics, but rather confirm them.
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
Rape can't be universally preferred behavior because people cannot prefer to be raped. Ethical claims that propose that people prefer to be raped, murdered, to be stolen from aren't exactly understanding that people can't prefer what they don't prefer. The claim doesn't make any sense, therefore it can't be true.
Suicide is not universally preferable behavior, because suicide is a positive action, and positive actions can't be independent of time. The main issue is that it is an unchosen positive obligations. Unchosen positive obligations can't be UPB because they can't be universalized.
Theft can't apply universally because for it to be theft it must be unwanted. A theory that people prefer theft, is false being people cannot prefer what they do not prefer.
Can you expand?[/QUOTE]
I dont support UPB, as it crumbles. Just because I humor your and show some of the results that UPB suggests, I dont think morality can be justified using language. That same way the feeling of anger cannot truly be expressed in language. You are chasing down a rabbit hole of logic that will just keep on ending in dead ends. Morality is a difficult thing, and so far you haven't really gotten past Euthyphro. It seems that now you have just changed the word happiness to the word preferable. What makes preferable things objectively better?
I have said what I believe morally, and I will say it again. I believe that a healthy conscience is the ultimate guage (yet not limiter) of ones moral actions. If someone was damaged as a child (ie raped or otherwise abused) then their concience will likely be weaker as it was screaming to him when he was getting beat (Why is this ok?) and then through your logical trial and error the child decides that if his dad or whatever can do it, then logically its OK for him to do it too. I am saying that no its not.
A person's conscience is like a woman's vagina, if you rough it up too often it will end up dry and poorly suited for its original purpose.
Is it weird to think you would be better off without empathy? I get that it benefits society as a whole, but I can't shake the feeling that I would be capable of more if I were able to just pretend I have it. I feel like this thought makes me slight sociopathic, in most people's eyes at least. I feel for other people but I always question why I don't do more things for personal gain, I don't want to hurt people... yet I do? If that makes sense
This whole morality is subjective thing makes me question why I do things and I feel if I realized this when I was younger I would grow to be a much greedier person
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
Wow I sound crazy, oh well
-snip wrong thread-
[QUOTE=GhettoGeek;39135661]Is it weird to think you would be better off without empathy? I get that it benefits society as a whole, but I can't shake the feeling that I would be capable of more if I were able to just pretend I have it. I feel like this thought makes me slight sociopathic, in most people's eyes at least. I feel for other people but I always question why I don't do more things for personal gain, I don't want to hurt people... yet I do? If that makes sense
This whole morality is subjective thing makes me question why I do things and I feel if I realized this when I was younger I would grow to be a much greedier person
[editline]7th January 2013[/editline]
Wow I sound crazy, oh well[/QUOTE]
na man you're actually right, its scientifically proven that you can't be empathetic and logical at the same time, your brain just can't do it.
I would say empathy and strong emotions [I]suppress [/I]logic, but don't necessarily kill it.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;39141467]I would say empathy and strong emotions [I]suppress [/I]logic, but don't necessarily kill it.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/humans-cant-be-empathetic-and-logical-same-time[/url]
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;39141824][url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/humans-cant-be-empathetic-and-logical-same-time[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't see how this disproves my idea. It never mentions anything about the analytical/logic pathways being completely shut down whenever you are emphatic, only that it is repressed, which is pretty much what I said previously.
Faith doesn't necessarily have to be bad. You ever heard the saying that the lottery is a tax for people who can't do math? If a mathematician hold it in his good faith to buy one anyway and won, wouldn't that be the most ironic thing in the history of mankind?
Edit: And this is completely unrelated to above discussions since I'm rolling so hard I can barely read, just to make that clear in case I'm skydiving into a third world war of debating.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Debating? That would actually be the future form of war.
Einstein once said: "I do not know which weapons the third world war will be fought with, but I do know the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones."
He didn't know because he was a physicist, that was his obsession. As we're verging on a new type of globalized united nation in the future, we will behold the most violent and obscure form of online debating.
faith is the belief in something that isn't necessarily there for one reason or another, or isn't provable to any extent that it exists, correct?
i'd say that sounds pretty dumb to me.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;39145839]faith is the belief in something that isn't necessarily there for one reason or another, or isn't provable to any extent that it exists, correct?
i'd say that sounds pretty dumb to me.[/QUOTE]
No not quite. Faith is something deeper, it is a word that gets thrown around a lot by religious people these days, but it isn't as simple as you put it.
Faith is a complex thing, true faith is something that is rare today, and is unfortunately getting rarer.
Faith is not simply the scapegoating of all your beliefs into a piece of writing or a prophet. Faith is the belief simply that we are not the most advanced form of intelligence, and that there is SOMETHING out there that is greater than the rest, or at least has the greatest explanatory power in existence.
People claim belief but do they really have it? If people truly had faith they would be worrying day in and out about the true ramifications of this reality, about what path is the true one. They would devote themselves to the search, and understanding of this higher power. Faith is not the proud idea that you know the ultimate truth and believe in it, faith is the humbling of oneself before the ever expansive greatness and potential of this reality. The sheer oddity of it all. Ultimately faith is something that cannot be taught. Contrary to many over-zealous Missionaries throughout history, Conversion is not the way to go, those who find faith already had it, those who don't have it never will. All I can do is plant a seed.
Also on the topic of Logical thinking vs Empathetic thinking:
While it is true you cannot follow both paths of reasoning at once, we as humans have this brilliant sense of time.
A hearthrob would think empathetically
Spock would think logically
A wise man would consider both, then go with his gut
faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Yeah, nice quote out of a dictionary. I don't think you get what I am trying to say.
It doesn't matter though, I am going to keep trying to convey a feeling of existential humility, and you will keep quoting the dictionary.
Try quoting the dictionary on the [b]feeling[/b] of anger.
There will be a definition, but is that really truly defining it? It seems more like the definition of anger would be established only by similes and metaphors. Then what of faith?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.