ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 20, 2016 Author Posted March 20, 2016 Convincing: capable of causing someone to change their behavior or beliefs. This could well be different for different people, so there always be a certain degree of subjectivity involved. There's no degrees: either you cause someone to change or you do not. It's a binary. I have not accepted that being correct is sufficient answer to this question. The standard is: do these arguments or propositions make me want to change my behavior or beliefs? Yours most definitely do not. Not that they're necessarily correct but just that they convince you? So if I forcibly brainwash you and you're convinced then that's a valid and objective philosophical standard? A person may be convinced the earth is flat but you are convinced is not flat. Both of you would be meeting the standard of "convinced". But both your views contradict. So how is it valid? What's wrong with religion? It asks that you make personal sacrifices in order to secure a spot in an afterlife that is not believable. If the afterlife doesn't exist (which it probably doesn't), than the sacrifices are in vain. No, religion doesn't ask you to make personal sacrifices that are not believable? But if that were true then what's wrong with making personal sacrifices that are not believable? Making sense is not preferable for its own sake: it's just preferable if you want to convince an intelligent person of something. Why is it preferable if you want to convince someone? If the standard is "convinced" why not just torture or threaten them or something? How is making sense objectively preferable?
Torero Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 Quite right: moralism is a hangover from religion, which is why people who claim to be both atheistic and moralistic don't make much sense.You're aware that you're attacking your own straw man? Moralism can be based on religious texts but even so on philosophy. Nothing wrong (haha) with atheist philosophy. The beauty of anarchism is that nihilists like you are served; when there's no state power around you're free to not act moral in any way. But don't complain you're judged by that personal choice of yours. Right now it's the state making immoral behavior possible. Makes sense as statism is intrinsically immoral. 1
B0b Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct. Do you have a valid rebuttal? Pardon me, but isn't "to be moral is to conform to correct moral principles" a perfect tautology? To be immoral is to conform to correct immoral principles. Therefore, we should be immoral. Why? Because it is correct. Did I make a mistake?
pretzelogik Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 Because it's correct. Is this conclusion any different than saying we should be correct because it's moral?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 20, 2016 Author Posted March 20, 2016 Is this conclusion any different than saying we should be correct because it's moral? Yes it is different. It's not moral to be correct. Pardon me, but isn't "to be moral is to conform to correct moral principles" a perfect tautology? Is "to be scientific is to conform to correct scientific principles" a tautology? To be immoral is to conform to correct immoral principles. Therefore, we should be immoral. Why? Because it is correct. Did I make a mistake? The immoral principles would be incorrect by definition. Those principles (like say - it's right to rape or it's good to murder) would result in logical contradiction. If you do those things then you do them knowing that the action cannot be morally justified. It is objectively immoral. Being immoral is knowingly violating valid moral principles, not conforming to immoral principles. I guess you could phrase it that way but it appears to be just another rather awkward way of saying the same thing.
B0b Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 Is "to be scientific is to conform to correct scientific principles" a tautology? If scientific principles are not correct, they are not scientific. Being scientific is simply an adjective that qualifies the person who adheres to scientific principles. So to me, this is a double tautology.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 20, 2016 Author Posted March 20, 2016 If scientific principles are not correct, they are not scientific. Being scientific is simply an adjective that qualifies the person who adheres to scientific principles. So to me, this is a double tautology. You can have incorrect scientific principles. The scientific method is debated by many. The ultimate standard for science is correctness (being in accord with reason and evidence). It's not necessarily synonymous with being correct. We just often use it that way. Same with ethics. Why be moral? Why be scientific? Why be rational? Because if you don't then you'll be wrong. IOW because it's correct. People sometimes then ask "Why be correct?". That in itself assumes correctness as the standard for beliefs, theories, propositions. Anyone insisting you must provide a correct answer to the question "why be correct?" is a troll.
Max Hartford Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Not that they're necessarily correct but just that they convince you? So if I forcibly brainwash you and you're convinced then that's a valid and objective philosophical standard? A person may be convinced the earth is flat but you are convinced is not flat. Both of you would be meeting the standard of "convinced". But both your views contradict. So how is it valid? No, religion doesn't ask you to make personal sacrifices that are not believable? But if that were true then what's wrong with making personal sacrifices that are not believable? Why is it preferable if you want to convince someone? If the standard is "convinced" why not just torture or threaten them or something? How is making sense objectively preferable? It's not a standard for what is true, it's a standard for what's going to actually cause people to change their behaviors. Believe it or not, these two are not always aligned. The sacrifices are believable, the afterlife which they're supposed to be for securing a better place in isn't. What's wrong with making pointless sacrifices? Because... it's pointless pain? I think most people would agree that that's not something they really want to pursue. You lack the power to torture or threaten me or anyone else on this forum to come around to your way of thinking. Hence making sense is the only route you have left. In that way, it is preferable.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 It's not a standard for what is true, it's a standard for what's going to actually cause people to change their behaviors. Believe it or not, these two are not always aligned. Torturing them is a standard too. You said it was THE standard in that it was preferable. The sacrifices are believable, the afterlife which they're supposed to be for securing a better place in isn't. What's wrong with making pointless sacrifices? Because... it's pointless pain? I think most people would agree that that's not something they really want to pursue. No that's wrong. It IS believable as clearly people believe it. What's wrong with pointless pain? What's wrong with religion? It's just preference like being correct or liking toast or stabbing yourself, right? What has what most people agree with got to do with anything. Most people agree with religion. So what? You lack the power to torture or threaten me or anyone else on this forum to come around to your way of thinking. Hence making sense is the only route you have left. In that way, it is preferable. Right so if I could brainwash or torture them that would be just as preferable? Making sense is only prefeable in the sense it;s the only realistic option I happen to have, right?
B0b Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 You can have incorrect scientific principles. The scientific method is debated by many. The ultimate standard for science is correctness (being in accord with reason and evidence). It's not necessarily synonymous with being correct. We just often use it that way. Same with ethics. Why be moral? Why be scientific? Why be rational? Because if you don't then you'll be wrong. IOW because it's correct. People sometimes then ask "Why be correct?". That in itself assumes correctness as the standard for beliefs, theories, propositions. Anyone insisting you must provide a correct answer to the question "why be correct?" is a troll. Isn't an incorrect scientific principle unscientific?
Max Hartford Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Torturing them is a standard too. You said it was THE standard in that it was preferable. No that's wrong. It IS believable as clearly people believe it. What's wrong with pointless pain? What's wrong with religion? It's just preference like being correct or liking toast or stabbing yourself, right? What has what most people agree with got to do with anything. Most people agree with religion. So what? Right so if I could brainwash or torture them that would be just as preferable? Making sense is only prefeable in the sense it;s the only realistic option I happen to have, right? Your problem is you keep interpreting everything as a universal, when I am actually speaking subjectively. The afterlife is not believable TO ME, hence religion is wrong FOR ME. People who identify as atheists would probably agree with my evaluations here, and so it would also be wrong for them. What most agree with does have a lot to do with things, because if you want to change their opinions non-violently, then you have to take their preferences into consideration. Just as preferable... I don't know, you tell me, you're the one with the preferences! There's no such thing as a universal preference: preferences are all subjective. If you personally find that sympathetic feelings don't prevent you from brainwashing or torturing people, than to you, those methods would be just as preferable as trying to convince them verbally, assuming that they are realistic options and the costs are not too prohibitive. You're aware that you're attacking your own straw man? Moralism can be based on religious texts but even so on philosophy. Nothing wrong (haha) with atheist philosophy. The beauty of anarchism is that nihilists like you are served; when there's no state power around you're free to not act moral in any way. But don't complain you're judged by that personal choice of yours. Right now it's the state making immoral behavior possible. Makes sense as statism is intrinsically immoral. What I was getting at is that without the divine, afterlife-related incentives for acting morally that religion claims exist, there's no incentive to actually act morally at all times. You may say that others may judge us and ostracize us and such, but this isn't an incentive to act morally at all times, it is only an incentive to act in ways that these specific people deem to be appropriate when such persons are watching.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 Your problem is you keep interpreting everything as a universal, when I am actually speaking subjectively. The afterlife is not believable TO ME, hence religion is wrong FOR ME. People who identify as atheists would probably agree with my evaluations here, and so it would also be wrong for them. Right, so you're just putting forward your entirely subjective opinion and are not using any objective standard. When you say X is preferable you;re saying you like it. That's irrelevant to philosophy. In philosophy you use objective standards to compare your arguments and proposition agianst. As you're not doing that then your arguments are not valid. What most agree with does have a lot to do with things, because if you want to change their opinions non-violently, then you have to take their preferences into consideration. Why? What if I prefer to view brainwashing as non-violent? If it's right for me what's wrong with it? It's just an arbitrary preference no better or worse than yours. There's no such thing as a universal preference: preferences are all subjective. I'm pretty sure not want to be raped is a universal preference. If you personally find that sympathetic feelings don't prevent you from brainwashing or torturing people, than to you, those methods would be just as preferable as trying to convince them verbally, assuming that they are realistic options and the costs are not too prohibitive. Why? Why can't they be preferable and not preferable at the same time even if hate torturing them? It truth is objectively preferable to falsehood then why isn't preferring and not preferring something at the same time preferable? Isn't an incorrect scientific principle unscientific? It is in the sense that "scientific" has become synonymous with correctness. But strictly speaking they are not synonyms. Some scientists argue that certain scientific principles may be incorrect and it's valid to debate that. This shows that science itself is not the objective standard. Same with ethics. You follow ethics or be moral because it's correct. Your problem is you keep interpreting everything as a universal, when I am actually speaking subjectively. The afterlife is not believable TO ME, hence religion is wrong FOR ME. People who identify as atheists would probably agree with my evaluations here, and so it would also be wrong for them. What most agree with does have a lot to do with things, because if you want to change their opinions non-violently, then you have to take their preferences into consideration. Just as preferable... I don't know, you tell me, you're the one with the preferences! There's no such thing as a universal preference: preferences are all subjective. If you personally find that sympathetic feelings don't prevent you from brainwashing or torturing people, than to you, those methods would be just as preferable as trying to convince them verbally, assuming that they are realistic options and the costs are not too prohibitive. What I was getting at is that without the divine, afterlife-related incentives for acting morally that religion claims exist, there's no incentive to actually act morally at all times. You may say that others may judge us and ostracize us and such, but this isn't an incentive to act morally at all times, it is only an incentive to act in ways that these specific people deem to be appropriate when such persons are watching. What I was getting at is that without the divine, afterlife-related incentives for acting morally that religion claims exist, there's no incentive to actually act morally at all times. There is. It's called being correct. If you disagree then stop correcting everyone.
Max Hartford Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Right, so you're just putting forward your entirely subjective opinion and are not using any objective standard. When you say X is preferable you;re saying you like it. That's irrelevant to philosophy. In philosophy you use objective standards to compare your arguments and proposition agianst. As you're not doing that then your arguments are not valid. Why? What if I prefer to view brainwashing as non-violent? If it's right for me what's wrong with it? It's just an arbitrary preference no better or worse than yours. I'm pretty sure not want to be raped is a universal preference. Why? Why can't they be preferable and not preferable at the same time even if hate torturing them? It truth is objectively preferable to falsehood then why isn't preferring and not preferring something at the same time preferable? There is. It's called being correct. If you disagree then stop correcting everyone. If philosophy entirely ignores subjective preferences, than philosophy is entirely useless. So the fact that I'm not talking 'philosophically', according to your definition, does not trouble me in the slightest. There's nothing objectively 'wrong' with it, as I've said a million times. I just doubt that you have the power to actually brainwash people: it's harder than it looks. Actually, rape is a sexual fantasy for some fetishists, so it's not universal. Even if it were though, that would just be by combining the individual, subjective preferences of every single human being, not some magical new kind of 'philosophic' preference. I don't know what you're going on about here: you used the word preferable way too many times. Preferences are about ordering alternatives: an alternative cannot be both higher and lower than another alternative at the same time. If you just want to be correct, than just post the Pythagorean Theorem over and over again, no need to adhere to some oppressive 'moral code'. I don't take pleasure in correcting people: I take pleasure in discussing interesting intellectual issues.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 If philosophy entirely ignores subjective preferences, than philosophy is entirely useless. So the fact that I'm not talking 'philosophically', according to your definition, does not trouble me in the slightest. False dichotomy. No, having objective standards does not mean ignoring subjective preferences. There's nothing objectively 'wrong' with it, as I've said a million times. I just doubt that you have the power to actually brainwash people: it's harder than it looks. So brainwashing IS a valid philosophical standard then? You've already stated that "convinced" is a valid standard and brainwashing can convince people so I assume you agree violence is valid, right? Actually, rape is a sexual fantasy for some fetishists, so it's not universal. Even if it were though, that would just be by combining the individual, subjective preferences of every single human being, not some magical new kind of 'philosophic' preference. Rape fantasy is not rape. It's simulated rape. Rape by definition is unwanted. So it is universal. Also it's not just universal by combining the subjective preferences as you claim. It's universal logically. I don't know what you're going on about here: you used the word preferable way too many times. Preferences are about ordering alternatives: an alternative cannot be both higher and lower than another alternative at the same time. What does that matter? Why can't my preference be both? It's not like being correct is logical an objectively higher standard.
Des Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Let me re-state my earlier post in the inverse: I can't come to any profitable (to me) agreement with any of you, that includes from your side, immoral aggression towards me, now can I? Visa-versa applies. We either keep distant from each other, or you agree to treat me morally, or I'll consider killing you. Which option do you like best? How many humans do you prefer to have contemplating killing you? My preference is zero.
Max Hartford Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 False dichotomy. No, having objective standards does not mean ignoring subjective preferences. So brainwashing IS a valid philosophical standard then? You've already stated that "convinced" is a valid standard and brainwashing can convince people so I assume you agree violence is valid, right? Rape fantasy is not rape. It's simulated rape. Rape by definition is unwanted. So it is universal. Also it's not just universal by combining the subjective preferences as you claim. It's universal logically. What does that matter? Why can't my preference be both? It's not like being correct is logical an objectively higher standard. Okay... Then why did you say that my subjective opinion is 'irrelevant to philosophy'? You misunderstand: I really don't care what is or is not a 'valid philosophical standard'. By that definition, you're just making a tautological claim: that which is not wanted is not wanted. Doesn't say anything useful. Because the standard definition of rape is: 'sexual intercourse perpetrated without the consent of the victim'. It is conceivable that a rape fetishist could be surprised in the street and raped without any consent whatsoever: but they might enjoy it nevertheless and secretly be happy that it happened. You're perfectly free to speak in gibberish: but the inevitable consequence is that no one will be able to understand what the heck you're saying. Since this is starting to get tangential, I'll try to bring it back to the main issue. This is how it is: The truth is that we should act morally, because doing so is the correct thing to do. You have won the debate: congratulations! Unfortunately for you, your victory is an entirely Pyrrhic one. This is because most people care more about their own self-interest than they do about conforming to the dictates of some ivory tower philosophy, and hence will not bother themselves about philosophic morality. For those few who genuinely do not place their self-interest above philosophical morality, such as Mister Nathan Metric, I would sincerely advise them to start: for the sake of their own personal well-being and happiness. In sum: you have won the Internet debate, but in the real world, you have achieved nothing by doing so.
B0b Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 We should be moral because it is correct. Now, should we be nice or mean? Also, should we be moral with people that are not moral?
Max Hartford Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 Let me re-state my earlier post in the inverse: I can't come to any profitable (to me) agreement with any of you, that includes from your side, immoral aggression towards me, now can I? Visa-versa applies. We either keep distant from each other, or you agree to treat me morally, or I'll consider killing you. Which option do you like best? How many humans do you prefer to have contemplating killing you? My preference is zero. Why would you insist on people treating you 'morally'? Why not just civilly, or respectfully, or non-aggressively? The concept of morality, a universal code of behavior that is supposedly binding on everyone for non-egoistic reasons, is not required here. Also, I'm sure people treat you 'immorally' all the time: they just rely on the government and their guns to do the dirty work. That way, they don't have to worry about you killing them: the power imbalance is too great.
B0b Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 Suppose a person is drowning, is it immoral not to save him?
shirgall Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 Suppose a person is drowning, is it immoral not to save him? No, but if you could without danger to yourself or others, you'd be considered worthy of scorn and derision. You might even get downvoted.
Max Hartford Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 Suppose a person is drowning, is it immoral not to save him? Who cares: save him if you want to, don't if you don't.
B0b Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Who cares: save him if you want to, don't if you don't. This is very deep and philosophical an answer. So there is nothing more than that that is at stake here?
B0b Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 No, but if you could without danger to yourself or others, you'd be considered worthy of scorn and derision. You might even get downvoted. There is no reason to assume that there would be witnesses in this hypothetical situation. If I could save the man without danger to myself but did not bother doing it, this would not be considered an immoral behavior, if I understand correctly.
shirgall Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 There is no reason to assume that there would be witnesses in this hypothetical situation. If I could save the man without danger to myself but did not bother doing it, this would not be considered an immoral behavior, if I understand correctly. The lack of action of a man in coma cannot be considered immoral, and neither can the lack of action of a regular person.
B0b Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 The lack of action of a man in coma cannot be considered immoral, and neither can the lack of action of a regular person. For the man in coma, I think I understand. Could explain for the man not in coma?
shirgall Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 For the man in coma, I think I understand. Could explain for the man not in coma? It has to be universal to be consistent that inaction is not evil. Just because you could do something about something that's mean you "must", although it can be argued that you "should".
Des Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Why would you insist on people treating you 'morally'? Why not just civilly, or respectfully, or non-aggressively? The concept of morality, a universal code of behavior that is supposedly binding on everyone for non-egoistic reasons, is not required here. Also, I'm sure people treat you 'immorally' all the time: they just rely on the government and their guns to do the dirty work. That way, they don't have to worry about you killing them: the power imbalance is too great. I don't mind how it is labelled, I need for it to be non-aggressive. I could also say "according to minimum basic ethics". In fact, I derive that minimum basic ethic as the prohibitions to which you agree because if you fail to agree to those, nothing else you agree to is worth anything to me. Actually, leaders in South Africa worry a lot about being killed, it is a job hazard. Sure, I won't do the killing, I'm just typing the words which will undo what they have organised,
Max Hartford Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 It has to be universal to be consistent that inaction is not evil. Just because you could do something about something that's mean you "must", although it can be argued that you "should". I am lost. Good: means that you haven't been duped Moralists like to speak in universals in order to preserve an appearance of objectivity. But the question is: why does the mere fact of being able to be applied universally make a behavioral command binding? This is the question that no one has really been able to answer satisfactorily, at least to my knowledge.
shirgall Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Good: means that you haven't been duped Moralists like to speak in universals in order to preserve an appearance of objectivity. But the question is: why does the mere fact of being able to be applied universally make a behavioral command binding? This is the question that no one has really been able to answer satisfactorily, at least to my knowledge. I never claimed universality makes anything binding, but rather that it was a necessary element of a moral rule.
B0b Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 It has to be universal to be consistent that inaction is not evil. So, is inaction evil or not? Is it universal or not?
shirgall Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 So, is inaction evil or not? Is it universal or not? Inaction isn't evil, because applied universally, you can't say some guy in a coma is evil for not acting.
neeeel Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Inaction isn't evil, because applied universally, you can't say some guy in a coma is evil for not acting. surely by this argument, the initiation of force isnt evil, because applied universally, you cant say some guy initiating force on a man to save his ( the mans) life is evil?
shirgall Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 surely by this argument, the initiation of force isnt evil, because applied universally, you cant say some guy initiating force on a man to save his ( the mans) life is evil? No. Wrong for the person initiating force but it's highly likely the one acted upon will forgive him.
neeeel Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 No. Wrong for the person initiating force but it's highly likely the one acted upon will forgive him. that just seems like equivocation to me. So 1) initiation of force is evil ( this is universal) 2) using force to save someones life is the initiation of force therefore C) using force to save someones life is evil either 1) is universal or not. If its universal, then its evil to save someones life using force. Whether the person forgives him or not is irrelevant. I dont think anyone would agree with C) , so it cant be universal. I must be missing something here
Recommended Posts