The point of studying ethics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2017, 01:24 AM
RE: The point of studying ethics
(06-08-2017 11:43 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  It is indeed subjective to dislike having certain things done to you. However, once you've stated that you don't like those things, it's no longer a matter of discussion for anyone but yourself. So a society can have the objective fact to work with that virtually all of its populous dislikes in the extreme having a particular thing done to them, and this is a sensible thing to try and discourage by law as far as is practical.

It's entirely rational for a society made up by people to try and prevent things happening that those very people don't want to happen. This isn't arbitrary, as Charlie says. It's more of a feedback loop.

That no person likes being raped, murdered, robbed or assaulted is not arbitrary in the least. Of course there are other things a person may not like, such as gay marriage, working in the sabbath, or not praying five times a day. But things like that are not on the same level as torture, murder, and slavery.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
10-08-2017, 03:41 PM
RE: The point of studying ethics
(06-08-2017 01:51 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  By logical I mean formally logical as it is meant in mathematics and analytic philosophy, it seems you are referring to subjectively logical, since you are claiming that the notion of logical requires a human mind to judge.
Formal logic is a creation of the human mind.
It is utilitarian to the extent that it furnishes a reasonable explanation of certain aspects of the real world, and allows the prediction of certain types of events with a degree of accuracy.

(01-08-2017 05:15 PM)Dr H Wrote:  On what basis do you define an object as "rational?
Quote:An agent is rational when its actions can be clearly and consistently expressed within a finite formal system.
I didn't ask how you define an agent as rational, I asked how you define an object as rational. 'Agent' is not synonymous with 'object'. And agent is a very particular kind of object, one which acts in the world. An object need not act in the world; it only needs existence.

Quote:Is a program that does nothing but instruct a robot to turn itself off every time it is turned on "logical"?
Quote:As long as there are no hardware or software malfunctions and errors involved, yes.
So "logical", in this case, means "consistently fulfilling a described mechanical function" -- albeit, to no particular purpose.

Quote: Or a program that does nothing but loop back on itself endlessly?
Any piece of error-free, executable code is logical. Errors can be an indication of irrationality in programming. For example, if you assume an object called X is a Car and also an Animal in an object-oriented programming language, errors will show up, because you have been illogical in your programming. But if there are no compile time or runtime errors, it means the program is logical.[/quote]
Infinite loops are generally considered errors in programming.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2017, 09:55 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2017 10:02 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The point of studying ethics
(10-08-2017 03:41 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 01:51 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  By logical I mean formally logical as it is meant in mathematics and analytic philosophy, it seems you are referring to subjectively logical, since you are claiming that the notion of logical requires a human mind to judge.
Formal logic is a creation of the human mind.
It is utilitarian to the extent that it furnishes a reasonable explanation of certain aspects of the real world, and allows the prediction of certain types of events with a degree of accuracy.

(01-08-2017 05:15 PM)Dr H Wrote:  On what basis do you define an object as "rational?
Quote:An agent is rational when its actions can be clearly and consistently expressed within a finite formal system.
I didn't ask how you define an agent as rational, I asked how you define an object as rational. 'Agent' is not synonymous with 'object'. And agent is a very particular kind of object, one which acts in the world. An object need not act in the world; it only needs existence.

Quote:Is a program that does nothing but instruct a robot to turn itself off every time it is turned on "logical"?
Quote:As long as there are no hardware or software malfunctions and errors involved, yes.
So "logical", in this case, means "consistently fulfilling a described mechanical function" -- albeit, to no particular purpose.

Quote: Or a program that does nothing but loop back on itself endlessly?
Quote:Any piece of error-free, executable code is logical. Errors can be an indication of irrationality in programming. For example, if you assume an object called X is a Car and also an Animal in an object-oriented programming language, errors will show up, because you have been illogical in your programming. But if there are no compile time or runtime errors, it means the program is logical.
Infinite loops are generally considered errors in programming.

Quote:Formal logic is a creation of the human mind.
True, but I don't think that means we need a human mind to judge whether something is logical or not. We can create some AI to do the judgement for us.

Quote:I didn't ask how you define an agent as rational, I asked how you define an object as rational
If an object performs actions it's an agent, if it doesn't, I don't think the rational label would be meaningful. I don't quite get why you are asking this question and how it is relevant.

Quote:So "logical", in this case, means "consistently fulfilling a described mechanical function" -- albeit, to no particular purpose.
Exactly. The rational and objective agent derives his purpose from the established facts, i.e. scientific facts. I don't think there is any "logical" purpose.

Quote:Infinite loops are generally considered errors in programming.
I think this is not true. Development environments might show "warnings" when there is an infinite loop. But I don't think it is considered an error. A game for example, is essentially an infinite loop to render an image on the computer screen based on player inputs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 08:47 PM
RE: The point of studying ethics
(16-08-2017 09:55 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 03:41 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Formal logic is a creation of the human mind.
True, but I don't think that means we need a human mind to judge whether something is logical or not. We can create some AI to do the judgement for us.
Something has to give the parameters to the AI -- unless you are proposing an AI created in an infant state, and left to learn about the world on it's own.

Quote:Dr H: I didn't ask how you define an agent as rational, I asked how you define an object as rational
Quote:If an object performs actions it's an agent, if it doesn't, I don't think the rational label would be meaningful. I don't quite get why you are asking this question and how it is relevant.
To define something as "objective" is to define it in reference to an "object". The object need only be an object-in-being, and not necessarily an active agent. It doesn't make sense to say that something which merely exists is necessarily "rational", which is what I thought you were saying. Your clarification seems to indicate that you agree.

Quote:Dr H: So "logical", in this case, means "consistently fulfilling a described mechanical function" -- albeit, to no particular purpose.
Quote:Exactly. The rational and objective agent derives his purpose from the established facts, i.e. scientific facts. I don't think there is any "logical" purpose.
This is a very tricky juxtaposition of language. I might agree as far as a description of "objective", but it is not clear that something having an illogical (or perhaps non-logical) purpose is accurately described as "rational".

Quote:Infinite loops are generally considered errors in programming.
Quote:I think this is not true. Development environments might show "warnings" when there is an infinite loop. But I don't think it is considered an error. A game for example, is essentially an infinite loop to render an image on the computer screen based on player inputs.
An "infinite" loop never ends unless you disrupt the computational environment.
What you describe in the game is a conditional loop.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: