Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:06 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 07:47 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  A fair and just society would allow the maximum benefit for the maximum people.

Benefit? what kind of benefit? Happiness you mean? or pleasure? What you mean by this benefit you think it would be wise to maximize as to determine what is a good thing to do?

I was speaking in broad terms. Words like fair, just and benefit are easily defined in a general sense. The specifics are usually determined by the society and the conditions that society exists in.

(23-11-2016 08:06 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 07:47 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Would that not be better than a society where some people had maximum benefits and some people had minimum benefits?
Well... not necessarily, it would be different, why would it be "better"? How can we assume that having a more equal distribution would be better?

Would you be happy living with less?

If capuchin monkeys can understand fairness, I think we can understand it as well.

(23-11-2016 08:06 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Sure it seems better intuitively (for now, the same way as slavery sounded better some time ago), how can we inquiry if it is actually better?

Ask the slaves.

(23-11-2016 08:06 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Afterall, natural selection is all about allowing the fittest to survive and the rest to perish... equally distributing everything perfectly wouldn't stale evolution for the human race?...

Wouldn't allowing the maximum number of specimens to procreate ensure that a larger population would exist, thus allowing the maximum number of creatures to provide the widest spectrum of evolutionary options?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:18 AM)Velvet Wrote:  [Well, everyone who wants to be able to condemn slavery should care... otherwise you have to honestly acknowledge that slavery being evil its just your personal opinion

Do you personally want to live as a slave?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:42 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Wouldn't allowing the maximum number of specimens to procreate ensure that a larger population would exist, thus allowing the maximum number of creatures to provide the widest spectrum of evolutionary options?

In the past our lives were given purpose by procreation - survival. Justifying morality on evolutionary terms nowadays I think is a bit dodgy.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-11-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:45 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 08:18 AM)Velvet Wrote:  [Well, everyone who wants to be able to condemn slavery should care... otherwise you have to honestly acknowledge that slavery being evil its just your personal opinion

Do you personally want to live as a slave?

I think the question is more, is there a reason that one can say that being a slave *owner* is intrinsically morally bad? I say there isn't really, unless we're happy to judge by our own personal morality or society's collective morality in the form of law. Poor ol' Velvet seems to think along similar lines but not like ye olde conclusion.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
23-11-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 08:42 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Wouldn't allowing the maximum number of specimens to procreate ensure that a larger population would exist, thus allowing the maximum number of creatures to provide the widest spectrum of evolutionary options?

In the past our lives were given purpose by procreation - survival. Justifying morality on evolutionary terms nowadays I think is a bit dodgy.

So do I. But since the premise was flawed to begin with (adaptability, not fitness) I ran with it. Big Grin

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-11-2016, 09:03 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
BTW-William Lane Craig likes to pretend that objective morality exists, but the objective morality that he wants to use as a standard consists of such wondrous morality as:

1. Killing people for working on the Sabbath. Facepalm

2. Forbidding eating of certain things which is a completely arbitrary list. Think about that, some of the rules that come from his "objective "standard are completely arbitrary.

3. Wearing clothes with two different types of material. Facepalm

4. Do not take the name of god in vain. Speech codes! Facepalm

5. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks. WTF? Facepalm

So WLC's claim about objective moral standards falls flat on it's face when you consider where he derives HIS moral standard. Even WLC does not follow his own touted standard, because it's useless.

I'm sure if he was pressed on the issue, he would say he doesn't have to follow any of that because of Jesus, so his "objective" standard is negated in the very bible that he touts!

It is the definition of arbitrary.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
23-11-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 08:45 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Do you personally want to live as a slave?

I think the question is more, is there a reason that one can say that being a slave *owner* is intrinsically morally bad? I say there isn't really, unless we're happy to judge by our own personal morality or society's collective morality in the form of law. Poor ol' Velvet seems to think along similar lines but not like ye olde conclusion.

My point was simply that if you don't want to be a slave, then you want to live in a society where slavery was forbidden.

However, tossing the question of slavery aside, you are talking "intrinsically" good or evil.

In other words...

(cue ominous thunder roll...)

Are Morals Objective or Subjective?

And thus it begins...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-11-2016, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016 09:57 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:42 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Would you be happy living with less?

If capuchin monkeys can understand fairness, I think we can understand it as well.

Well, this is completely irrelevant, but yes, I'm already happy living with less.

And I can understand it, I can't understand why should anyone care for it, being a construct that has nothing to do with "real right and wrong" (as it seems that doesn't exist at all, hence putting between "")

(23-11-2016 08:42 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Ask the slaves.
Ok I see, so if the slaves says its evil, then its evil? Sorry that's nonsense, I made a perfectly reasonable question regarding if we should or not be skeptic about our intuititions of moral views...

We might as well ask ISIS instead what do they think its right and wrong?

(23-11-2016 08:42 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Wouldn't allowing the maximum number of specimens to procreate ensure that a larger population would exist, thus allowing the maximum number of creatures to provide the widest spectrum of evolutionary options?

Widest sprectrum of shit won't take us anywhere tho, staling evolution still seems like a really bad idea.

I just pointed that I could offer a view in which equality of distribution would be considered wrong, or perhaps even evil... to show its still just another opinion.

You seem to be missing all my points.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016 09:56 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think the question is more, is there a reason that one can say that being a slave *owner* is intrinsically morally bad? I say there isn't really, unless we're happy to judge by our own personal morality or society's collective morality in the form of law. Poor ol' Velvet seems to think along similar lines but not like ye olde conclusion.

Yes, that's precisely what poor ol' Velvet is doing.

And I think that the actual conclusion (alongside the implications that would make it freaking horrible), is somehow escaping you...

Well the answer is, I like to an intelectually honest person, that's one of my top priorities in my life, I don't like to judge dishonestly or on a biased way, I tend to suspend judgment on most ocasions where I cannot safely assume a stance.

If I were to acknowledge that what I think from "right and wrong" its just an opinion (which is what I'm doing), I would then proceed to act in a way to be completely coherent with that view, treating my (and everyone's else) good and evil intuitions as I treat any other unsupported and personal opinion, which is basically disregard it and stick to the facts.

So I will might have to learn how to feel again... because I cannot feel angry to child rapists (anymore)... because they are not wrong, because the wrong does not exist.

They are breaking a law, and that's not reason to hate them or despise them (because we too break laws all the time, not only traffic small laws, but also "social" laws, and/or laws/codes/regulations of our jobs whenever we feel they are not really important).

Surely we can still confine them to protect others, but we would not be justified to hate them, and I'm the kind of guy who would feel bad with myself everytime I notice I'm feeling or doing something that I'm not rationally supported to do or feel.

It was already way too hard to learn how to not hate my ex-wife for decieving me... the evidence of deception being a common practice on nature all over the place, in all sorts of animals, saying me I was wrong, and that I should let it go... that she was just being human, which is an animal nonetheless... that it was not really reasonable to hate her, as I wouldn't suddenly start hating orchid mantises would I?

And now i'm supposed to watch a child rapist on TV on not judge him... I'm supposed to "let go" the genocides on the bible because they are not wrong...

It amazes me that you guys cannot see how terrifying and hard that could be.

Sorry for the surprise rant:
[Image: 5815131_orig.jpg]

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 09:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  BTW-William Lane Craig likes to pretend that objective morality exists, but the objective morality that he wants to use as a standard consists of such wondrous morality.

Well WLC is an adept of divine commandment theory of morality, so to him, whatever crazy warlord shit Yahweh orders its automatically the best thing that anyone could ever do...

Yahweh is not bounded by the morality (on his view), he can never be immoral, becuase morality is always whatever he does or orders someone to do.

Convenient, yeah

(23-11-2016 09:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm sure if he was pressed on the issue, he would say he doesn't have to follow any of that because of Jesus, so his "objective" standard is negated in the very bible that he touts!

It is the definition of arbitrary.

No, because the magician can write and rewrite morality as many times as he wants.

To him, if something in the bible looks immoral, the answer is simple, its not immoral because god cannot be immoral, whatever he does (even if he later contradicts) is moral because he is the source.

Again, convenient, yeah...

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: