pipeline_mike Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 http://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/why-philosophy-gets-no-respect-in-society/
PatrickC Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 As philosophers we all know why philosophy is dead for these academics. And of course it's for none of the reasons they cite.
labmath2 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 People do not care about philosophy because it has given way to many new fields that have overtaken it. Natural philosophy has given way to natural science and moral philosophy has given way to law and social science. Instead of trying to understand nature by contemplating it, why not just investigate it. Instead of prescribing what is good or bad, why not just create disincentives for actions that we collectively reject and reward actions we collectively desire.
square4 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Instead of prescribing what is good or bad, why not just create disincentives for actions that we collectively reject and reward actions we collectively desire. If we collectively desire something (meaning everyone wants it), then there is no need to create incentives, because it would be done anyway. But if only a majority desires it, why would their opinion be superior to that of the minority? The game of incentives is won by the strongest party. Although there are automatic incentives that favor the free market, our opponent is using heavy artificial incentives, such as the threat of imprisonment, to promote the opposite. Stronger than incentives is morality, which can cause people to let go of temporal gain voluntarily, for the benefit of those currently victimized, and for a better future. There are large differences of opinion between people, and yet it often happens that people from both sides want to violently enforce what they want, usually through the state. Surely, both sides cannot be both right. These conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful manner, using logical and ethical argumentation. Philosophy provides tools for doing this.
labmath2 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If we collectively desire something (meaning everyone wants it), then there is no need to create incentives, because it would be done anyway. But if only a majority desires it, why would their opinion be superior to that of the minority? The game of incentives is won by the strongest party. Although there are automatic incentives that favor the free market, our opponent is using heavy artificial incentives, such as the threat of imprisonment, to promote the opposite. Stronger than incentives is morality, which can cause people to let go of temporal gain voluntarily, for the benefit of those currently victimized, and for a better future. There are large differences of opinion between people, and yet it often happens that people from both sides want to violently enforce what they want, usually through the state. Surely, both sides cannot be both right. These conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful manner, using logical and ethical argumentation. Philosophy provides tools for doing this. The problem with objective morality is that it implies there is right and wrong regardless of human judgement which i think most people are hesitant to accept (nature does not place value on actions). I think people are much more willing to accept there are actions that are advantageous for individuals and collective and actions that are disadvantageous for the individual and the collective. Sometimes the individual is at odds with the collective and that is where we need laws. Law is the equivalence of moral economy., the more successful ones stay and the less successful ones are discarded.
PatrickC Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 The problem with objective morality is that it implies there is right and wrong regardless of human judgement which i think most people are hesitant to accept (nature does not place value on actions). I think people are much more willing to accept there are actions that are advantageous for individuals and collective and actions that are disadvantageous for the individual and the collective. Sometimes the individual is at odds with the collective and that is where we need laws. Law is the equivalence of moral economy., the more successful ones stay and the less successful ones are discarded. You need to read UPB fella, this topic has been thrashed out ad infinitum on this board. Plus I just wanted to point out, that there is no such thing as a 'collective'. They are all made up of individuals.
labmath2 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 You need to read UPB fella, this topic has been thrashed out ad infinitum on this board. Plus I just wanted to point out, that there is no such thing as a 'collective'. They are all made up of individuals. I have read UPB and i respectfully disagree. Here is a quick list of why i disagree. 1. The axioms are not explicitly stated. One of the axiom is that moral principles must be universal and consistent without reference to how we determine the groups under those classifications. Why can't there be a government exception since there are already multiple exceptions. It also only applies to humans which is a very small group for something that is universal (and not even to all humans equally). 2. UPB is not proven, but defined. I think we all agree preferable behavior exist, but to say universally preferable behavior (the category, not the concept) exists is putting the horse before the cart. Categories are defined by some unique quality that they possess, in this case, a behavior that everyone should prefer. Simple example, everyone should not murder. The obvious question that follows is why? The answer, because it violates UPB, but that is circular as it simply states any rejection of something that is part of the category UPB is a violation of UPB. 3. The definition of UPB, "what (behavior) people should prefer," is prescriptive but there is no condition attached to it. All prescription (to my knowledge is) conditional. "You should do X" has an implicit assumption that you are trying to achieve Y, the thing which X helps you accomplish. "You should follow UPB to be consistent with UPB" is not a very convincing argument. 4. Ownership in the moral sense is not well defined. Self-ownership is automatically assigned without pointing to some concrete demonstration of the quality. If self control=self ownership, then control=ownership. Since ownership is not perceived by the human senses, it must stem from something that can be perceived, which to my knowledge is not defined. On the comment of the collective not existing, i agree and disagree. The collective does not exist in the physical sense, it describes the state of human interaction which is necessary for any moral principle. In a world of only one individual, our moral principles are irrelevant because they are only enforced by the fact that we interact with other people.
PatrickC Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I have no wish to get into a debate about this, as there are plenty of resources on this forum to guide you. But respectfully you do not understand UPB. It's not a prescription. UPB is a methodology for testing moral theories.
square4 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Why can't there be a government exception since there are already multiple exceptions. It also only applies to humans which is a very small group for something that is universal (and not even to all humans equally). An exception should pass the tests of consistency, and must point to a fundamental difference that is ethically relevant. Let me analyse and test the government-exception. Do all governments count, or only democratic? Suppose, someone would say, only democratic, because they (supposedly) represent the majority of the people. If a majority of people in a certain region within this country want to secede, then consistency would demand that they are allowed to secede and form their own government. Since there can exist only one ruling government in a region at the same time, this creates a contradiction. It follows that democratic government, in the sense of majority rule in a region, cannot be applied consistently as a principle. The principle of democratic governments cannot be majority-rule, because they actively deny majority-rule in subregions, and actively deny majority-rule by the world population. This is a useful result that can be obtained using logical reasoning. There are other possible formulation of the governments-exception. I think they fail invariably. If you propose a specific formulation, we could try examine it philosophically. All prescription (to my knowledge is) conditional. "You should do X" has an implicit assumption that you are trying to achieve Y, the thing which X helps you accomplish. I wonder how you view the act of making a promise to do something. Suppose you borrow money, and promise to pay it back after one year, then after one year, you should pay it back, right? This obligation does not depend on you wanting to follow UPB or be a good person. The word "ought" seems to be derived from the past-tense of to owe, as in: he aught me ten pounds. Suppose that, instead of writing down in the contract the obligation to pay back, you would write down that paying back would be advantageous to the lender. Would the lender consider that sufficient? Would he not insist on another wording of the contract? Then the next step would be to realize that even if we have not voluntary entered into a contract, there are some things we should not do.
labmath2 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 An exception should pass the tests of consistency, and must point to a fundamental difference that is ethically relevant. Let me analyse and test the government-exception. Do all governments count, or only democratic? Suppose, someone would say, only democratic, because they (supposedly) represent the majority of the people. If a majority of people in a certain region within this country want to secede, then consistency would demand that they are allowed to secede and form their own government. Since there can exist only one ruling government in a region at the same time, this creates a contradiction. It follows that democratic government, in the sense of majority rule in a region, cannot be applied consistently as a principle. The principle of democratic governments cannot be majority-rule, because they actively deny majority-rule in subregions, and actively deny majority-rule by the world population. This is a useful result that can be obtained using logical reasoning. There are other possible formulation of the governments-exception. I think they fail invariably. If you propose a specific formulation, we could try examine it philosophically. There is a problem with the idea of an exception passing a test of consistency since the very nature of an exception is that it does not follow the rule. Even if you insist on the exception being consistent, another exception can just be layered on top of the first exception. The problem of saying something is ethically relevant is to put the cart before the horse. The entire point of UPB is to demonstrate ethics, it cannot do that on the basis of what is ethically relevant as that is the question. I wonder how you view the act of making a promise to do something. Suppose you borrow money, and promise to pay it back after one year, then after one year, you should pay it back, right? This obligation does not depend on you wanting to follow UPB or be a good person. The word "ought" seems to be derived from the past-tense of to owe, as in: he aught me ten pounds. Suppose that, instead of writing down in the contract the obligation to pay back, you would write down that paying back would be advantageous to the lender. Would the lender consider that sufficient? Would he not insist on another wording of the contract? Then the next step would be to realize that even if we have not voluntary entered into a contract, there are some things we should not do. There is no obligation to pay back the loan (at least a naturally occurring obligation). People pay back because it affects their standing in society or it there is a system in place to guarantee the lender gets back their money (like putting up an asset). This does not mean people do not pay back because of some internal motivation, but the point is that it helps them accomplish something.
square4 Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 There is a problem with the idea of an exception passing a test of consistency since the very nature of an exception is that it does not follow the rule. Even if you insist on the exception being consistent, another exception can just be layered on top of the first exception. The problem of saying something is ethically relevant is to put the cart before the horse. The entire point of UPB is to demonstrate ethics, it cannot do that on the basis of what is ethically relevant as that is the question. Ethical theories implicitly presuppose which aspects are ethically relevant. In order to be valid, the ethical theory must apply universally across all variations that are claimed by the ethical theory itself to be ethically irrelevant (here the ethical theory is not UPB, but the theory under test, for example democracy). If this fails, the ethical theory cannot be valid. To me, universality of ethics means that moral rules must apply regardless of differences that are ethically irrelevant. In this sense, there are no exceptions.
labmath2 Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Ethical theories implicitly presuppose which aspects are ethically relevant. In order to be valid, the ethical theory must apply universally across all variations that are claimed by the ethical theory itself to be ethically irrelevant (here the ethical theory is not UPB, but the theory under test, for example democracy). If this fails, the ethical theory cannot be valid. To me, universality of ethics means that moral rules must apply regardless of differences that are ethically irrelevant. In this sense, there are no exceptions. This is why the axioms need to be explicitly stated, otherwise you will presuppose things that others think is still up for grabs.
James Dean Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 They basically said what Stef says which is stop talking about philosophy and go and live philosophy.
Recommended Posts