Skepticism

[Aranfan]

The assertion that -(p & -p), the law of noncontradiction, is true, rests on exactly as much justification as the theist's assertion that god exists. Namely, that it seems to be that way. To be beaten appears to be different from not being beaten, but they are actually different only if I am able to trust my senses. The only evidence I have that my senses are trustworthy comes from my senses, I might in fact be a brain in a vat, or God could be fucking with me for shits and giggles, or I could be dreaming, or my senses are in fact trustworthy. I have no way to distinguish between these possibilities. Empiricism, and thus the law of noncontradiction, seems to be the most useful of these options, but again, it might turn out to not be the case and only have been a useful fiction. As might any of the others. This is not to say that we cannot know things, or that we can, but rather to answer the epistemological question with a resounding maybe.

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion, those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious. They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

[Channel72]

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion, those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious. They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

Most rationalists assert that the scientific method (empiricism), as opposed to pure reason, is the superior method of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism has more justification than religion, simply because of the bare fact that it gets results in real life, and enables us to predict the future with varying degrees of certainty. If that's not enough for you to place it above random theological musings based on nothing, then there's little else to argue about.

[Bakustra]

This is, frankly, useless. While it is true that all such methodologies that have been in widespread use depend on the reality of the senses, that does not make them all equivalent. Consider that within that framework they are each of different levels of usefulness. Rationality is superior to mysticism in the results it produces. Under the acceptance of reason and empiricism, human lifespans and understanding of the world has increased. While you may point to solipsism, all the mystical frameworks still accept the reality of the world and the senses, and so they all rely on the same framework. Rationality demands reasons, whether in the natural world or in the world of moral philosophy. This enables the development of moral codes that do not rely upon the say-so of an individual, whether mortal or divine. So the rational attitude is the superior one in terms of its results and in its processes. To deny this is possible, but means denying that anything but the deepest roots are important to judging a system! In other words, to declare reason equivalent to mysticism is not to doubt the reality of the senses, but rather to deny it. Then again, such attitudes generally are comforting to those that espouse them (though for what reason I cannot really fathom) so carry on, I suppose, sneering though I may be.

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion, those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious. They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

Most rationalists assert that the scientific method (empiricism), as opposed to pure reason, is the most useful form of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism has more justification than religion, simply because of the bare fact that it gets results in real life, and enables us to predict the future with varying degrees of certainty. If that's not enough for you to place it above random theological musings based on nothing, than there's little else to argue about.

You misunderstand. He is arguing from the perspective of a solipsist, but nevertheless he may respond.

[Aranfan]

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion, those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious. They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

Most rationalists assert that the scientific method (empiricism), as opposed to pure reason, is the superior method of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism has more justification than religion, simply because of the bare fact that it gets results in real life, and enables us to predict the future with varying degrees of certainty. If that's not enough for you to place it above random theological musings based on nothing, than there's little else to argue about.

This is only a justification if the real world is actually there. I place empiricism above religion on grounds of utility, not on grounds of fact or knowledge. Usefulness is not a rational justification. The concept of God is useful in controlling the masses, such usefulness doesn't make God true.


And this is not Solipsism. The Solipsist says that we are dreaming, that the dream scenario is the absolute truth. The Solipsist has exactly the same grounds for this assertion as the empiricist has in asserting the objective world exists as an absolute truth.

[Channel72]

This is only a justification if the real world is actually there. I place empiricism above religion on grounds of utility, not on grounds of fact or knowledge. Usefulness is not a rational justification. The concept of God is useful in controlling the masses, such usefulness doesn't make God true.

You assume that it actually matters whether the real world is there, whatever the term "real world" even means. We currently think the "real-world" is a universe made of space-time, but even if our reality is a simulation running on some advanced computer, the fact remains that it's actually there, and the scientific method tells us information about it.

Also, if the real world is, in fact, only a simulation, then the only hope we ever have of actually confirming this fact is (most likely) via the scientific method. Maybe after we realize this, they'll shut off the simulation.

[Aranfan]

This is only a justification if the real world is actually there. I place empiricism above religion on grounds of utility, not on grounds of fact or knowledge. Usefulness is not a rational justification. The concept of God is useful in controlling the masses, such usefulness doesn't make God true.

You assume that it actually matters whether the real world is there, whatever the term "real world" even means. We currently think the "real-world" is a universe made of space-time, but even if our reality is a simulation running on some advanced computer, the fact remains that it's actually there, and the scientific method tells us information about it.

Also, if the real world is, in fact, only a simulation, then the only hope we ever have of actually confirming this fact is (most likely) via the scientific method. Maybe after we realize this, they'll shut off the simulation.

I am not assuming it matters whether or not the real world is there. It may or may not be there, I am thus far unable to tell. Hence, I suspend judgment. If in fact, nothing matters, then nothing mattering doesn't matter either.

[Bakustra]

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion, those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious. They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

Most rationalists assert that the scientific method (empiricism), as opposed to pure reason, is the superior method of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism has more justification than religion, simply because of the bare fact that it gets results in real life, and enables us to predict the future with varying degrees of certainty. If that's not enough for you to place it above random theological musings based on nothing, than there's little else to argue about.

This is only a justification if the real world is actually there. I place empiricism above religion on grounds of utility, not on grounds of fact or knowledge. Usefulness is not a rational justification. The concept of God is useful in controlling the masses, such usefulness doesn't make God true.


And this is not Solipsism. The Solipsist says that we are dreaming, that the dream scenario is the absolute truth. The Solipsist has exactly the same grounds for this assertion as the empiricist has in asserting the objective world exists as an absolute truth.

So how do you propose to test anything, if not on grounds of usefulness? By your standards there are only two hypotheses that stand on grounds of fact or knowledge. They are the assumption that only the self exists, or solipsism, and the null assumption, which probably has a better name. But neither of these are at all useful. How does solipsism provide a basis for morality? It cannot, because it denies the reality of others outside the self. The null assumption, meanwhile, even denies the existence of the self, and thus is even more ludicrous, for what came up with it, then? But perhaps you have some philosophies that fit facts or knowledge, or at least you believe do.

Meanwhile, I see that you subscribe to the paranoid vision of Marx's opiate of the masses. Frankly, his model is ignorant of actual history, but it, too, brings a comfort to its believers. At least I can understand why it's comforting.

Your argument is pure solipsism. It relies solely upon the doubt of reality, but you have constructed your own definition to free yourself (or so you probably hoped) from scorn.

Well, it seems that I have to correct myself. You may well instead follow the null assumption. That is slightly more amusing, but incompatible with Marxism.

[Formless]

The assertion that -(p & -p), the law of noncontradiction, is true, rests on exactly as much justification as the theist's assertion that god exists.

Bullshit. Non-contradiction is a logical construct, necessary for any form of meaningful communication of ideas. You cannot assess the truth value of it without assuming it because otherwise you are trying to use logic to disprove its own tools! Your argument fails right out of the box.

The only evidence I have that my senses are trustworthy comes from my senses, I might in fact be a brain in a vat, or God could be fucking with me for shits and giggles, or I could be dreaming, or my senses are in fact trustworthy.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” Philip K. Dick

This has been demolished before many times. Even if you were a brain in a vat, you cannot escape that situation. Even if you did, the simulation you are living in still has rules and laws of "physics" you are incapable of disobeying. Even if you were somehow able to escape, all that would change is your ontological classification schema of the world and its constructs-- that is, what you once called "the universe" you now know to be a simulation. That does not change any of the simulation's internal rules or its internal structure, it just means you now have new rules to abide by.

Further, God does nothing to solve this dillema. In fact, it is impossible to solve as stated without a method for distinguishing reality from your own fantasies. So you've discovered that you were once a brain in a vat. So what? Maybe you are actually a schizophrenic locked in an asylum who is incapable of distinguishing his fantasies from reality. And on top of that, the asylum exists inside a computer simulation that some guy is playing for fun (some super-duper version of "The Sims" lets say). And on top of that said guy is just an inhabitant of Plato's cave, and his own reality consists of nothing but shadows projected on a wall. And on top of that, the cave only exists inside the imagination of Brahma, the Hindu God Head who dreams the cosmos into existence. And on top of that, Brahma is just a character in a Simpsons episode, which a different version of "you" is currently watching. And the reality that version of "you" is living in, well, lets say for sake of argument that the way it is false cannot even be understood by human minds unless their name is "H.P. Lovecraft". And so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Your argument falls prey to infinite regress. Its clear that you are stone ignorant of how epistemology and (for that matter) logic actually work. What science, rationalism, and empiricism actually claim to do. What reality actually is. There is no law that says that the universe can't be layered in the way I describe. But every layer would still be "real" to its inhabitants, and still be describable in terms of its internal structure and logic regardless of what layer you exist on.

Word of advice before you say anything more: "truth" is not the domain of science, which philosophies like empiricism, pragmatism, and rationalism were ultimately created to justify. Its not some mystical property of the universe that you can look for. Its a concept of the human mind. Concepts exist in language and in the minds of people, no more no less. They do not exist "out there", as you and many other armchair philosophers (and even a few of the professionals) seem to think. Consider the existence of logic systems with multiple truth values such as Bysian logic or fuzzy logic. If truth is a property of the universe, what does it mean for something to be "80% true"? What does it mean for something to be "half true"? What does it mean for something to be ".6 truth value"? The answer might shock you.

I have no way to distinguish between these possibilities.

Both bullshit and irrelevant to epistemology, as I have already shown.

Empiricism, and thus the law of noncontradiction, seems to be the most useful of these options, but again, it might turn out to not be the case and only have been a useful fiction. As might any of the others.

Would you like to propose something better? And by better, I mean something that doesn't get cut to ribbons by Occams Razor, as God does?

Oh, wait, that's right. You seem to have a problem with logic itself, which makes your entire argument impossibly flawed.

This is not to say that we cannot know things, or that we can, but rather to answer the epistemological question with a resounding maybe.

This statement is simply false. To paraphrase Issac Asimov, "when they said that the earth was flat, they were wrong. When they said the earth was round, they were also wrong. But if you think the earth is a cube, you are wronger than both of them put together." In other words, truth does not need to be black and white for some statements to be more true than others. That is a basic fallacy, and evidence that you really haven't thought your position through beyond "god exists! God Exists! GOD EXISTS!!!"

If you put your hand on a hot skillet, does your belief in god make it burn any less?

"God's throne"

Define. Also, tell me how you intend to prove your god is more valid than anyone else's god, be it in terms of definition, explanatory power, or logical necessity. (I won't be holding my breath)

There are more than a few other threads on this subject. Here are a couple for your perusal:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... =solipsism

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... =solipsism

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... =solipsism

Edit: My apologies, it seems I leapt to the conclusion that you were a religious solipsist as opposed to a bog standard one. At this point, I will point out that saying that god is less valid an answer than reason because belief in him has no utility is just another way of stating the pragmatic maxim, which is an empirical philosophy at heart, and does have rational justifications if you are willing to actually look them up.

[Spoonist]

(Hadn't read Formless respons before this post so there is some repetition).
Yay, another one with a highschool level of philosophy. Its like they grow on trees or something.

How many threads have we had with this over the years? 20? 30?

I think that Mikes got a rant about it as well somewhere.

Do us all a favor and actually read up on this before spewing it forth yet another time. If you ignore that advice its safe to assume that you are either a willingly ignorant or trolling, in both cases any further discussion is useless. Just to give you some pointers here is the short reply to your stuff.

The assertion that -(p & -p), the law of noncontradiction, is true, rests on exactly as much justification as the theist's assertion that god exists.

False. Hint: are the concepts equally complex?

To be beaten appears to be different from not being beaten, but they are actually different only if I am able to trust my senses.

The only evidence I have that my senses are trustworthy comes from my senses, I might in fact be a brain in a vat, or God could be fucking with me for shits and giggles, or I could be dreaming, or my senses are in fact trustworthy.

I have no way to distinguish between these possibilities.

False. (This is where you show you have not read the counter arguments).

the law of noncontradiction, seems to be the most useful of these options, but again, it might turn out to not be the case

wtf did you even understand what the principle of contradiction means? Have you even gone through Leibniz and Kant in the schoolbook yet?

Hence, as Reason rests on exactly as much justification as Religion

False. Complexity.

those Rationalists who assert Reason and only Reason to be Absolutely True may be called pious.

False. Circular reasoning. You are redifing the term to fit your interpretation. If pious could be used that way then you need another term for what pious used to say.

They have done nothing except put Reason on God's throne.

False. The only way you can make that sentance work is by redifining the words in it. See last response.

I place empiricism above religion on grounds of utility, not on grounds of fact or knowledge.

False, if you are sincere then you are most definately using knowledge-based thinking to derive to your ignorant conclusion.

Usefulness is not a rational justification.

Try again. The definitions of rational and justification hints at the concept of determining usefulness. Again redifining terms. sigh

The concept of God is useful in controlling the masses, such usefulness doesn't make God true.

Of course not, who claimed that it was? It would be stupid both from a deist and a non-deist perspective.

The Solipsist says that we are dreaming, that the dream scenario is the absolute truth.

False. There are many different concepts within solipsism. Metaphysical, Epistemological and Methodological should have been covered in philosophy 101, you may want to check out the difference.

The Solipsist has exactly the same grounds for this assertion as the empiricist has in asserting the objective world exists as an absolute truth.

False. If they did they would not differ.

I am not assuming it matters whether or not the real world is there.

False. The simple fact that you are in this discussion proves the opposite.

If in fact, nothing matters, then nothing mattering doesn't matter either.

No shit sherlock. Stating the obvious doesn't impress anyone except the ignorant.

[Kuroneko]

The assertion that -(p & -p), the law of noncontradiction, is true, rests on exactly as much justification as the theist's assertion that god exists.

Not at all. The justification for the principles of logic is essentially the same as for any scientific theory: it works. For example, in modern physics, relativity is also a metatheory, in the sense that other theories are required to conform to it. Logic is like that, only much more general. There are many dialetheist systems of logic in which the law of noncontradiction is false, and they are various contexts in which they are appropriate. There's nothing sacred about it.

I am not assuming it matters whether or not the real world is there. It may or may not be there, I am thus far unable to tell. Hence, I suspend judgment. If in fact, nothing matters, then nothing mattering doesn't matter either.

Channel72's point that that kind of philosophical conundrum is scientifically irrelevant is right on the mark. Empirical reality is the one actually experienced. If you're a brain in a vat, then the workings of that vat would be what's important in as much as you're interested in understanding or controlling your experience. In other words, it still matters just as much.

I'm not even sure that it makes sense philosophically, either. If you see a rose and your universe is some sort simulation by a prankster God, it doesn't seem to make much sense to consider that rose fake, because the referents of terms like "rose" are defined by experience in the first place. When you say "that's a real rose", you're making a true statement since that's the referent of "rose", rather than some hypothetical object the prankster God copied into the simulation.

[Aranfan]

Why is morality desirable?

When I was accused of being a solipsist, the person accused me of not assigning the value of True to sense perceptions and thefore assigning them the value of False. To do that you must use the law of the excluded middle. On what grounds do you justify your use of this principle?

Marxist? I'm no Marxist. I'm an anarchist. You know, like Bakunin? The guy who predicted Lysenko-ism and Stalinism back during the First International.

[Surlethe]

This discussion will not proceed toward economics.

[Formless]

Why is morality desirable?

...

Marxist? I'm no Marxist. I'm an anarchist.

Do yourself a favor and buy a philosophy textbook. The more shit you spout, the more like an ignoramous you sound. Have you ever heard of a human being who thought his actions were evil... and thought that to be desireable? No. All of history's villains either thought they were doing the right thing, or else gave it no thought either way. Desiring morality is as human as wanting things to eat. I can no more choose to find moral nihilism acceptable than I can choose to eat shit and like it.

... and that is just one of dozens, if not more, reasons to be moral I can think of off the top of my head. Why are some people so incapable of seeing the blindingly obvious?

[Bakustra]

Why is morality desirable?

When I was accused of being a solipsist, the person accused me of not assigning the value of True to sense perceptions and thefore assigning them the value of False. To do that you must use the law of the excluded middle. On what grounds do you justify your use of this principle?

Marxist? I'm no Marxist. I'm an anarchist. You know, like Bakunin? The guy who predicted Lysenko-ism and Stalinism back during the First International.

No, my indication of your position is solipsistic is that you do assign an effective value of false to the senses, because your equivalency of mysticism with rationality relies on their dependence on sense perceptions overwhelming any differences between the two. So, you are declaring anything that proceeds from the sense perceptions irrelevant. That is effectively solipsism, since you are denying that anything matters but whether the system is underpinned on sensual perceptions. But I don't quite understand why you would deny it, seeing as you add weight to the characterization practically with every post you make. However, you appear to think that solipsism is something which it is not. It does not declare reality to be a dream, but instead argues that since the only thing one can be absolutely sure exists is oneself, one cannot treat anything else as necessarily real. You may well not be a solipsist, but in that case please feel free to outline the differences between your method and solipsism.

Morality is generally considered desirable because there are other consciousnesses out there, in those perceptions of the world which are based on the data which we have. A set of rules for decisions regarding these other consciousnesses and one's actions and reactions towards them is a useful method. Curiously enough, human societies, and indeed humans in general, build up systems of morality naturally. So "morality" is not desirable, but rather a philosophical approach (such as rationalism or mysticism) which cannot be used to determine a system of morality is not a particularly useful one, because it lacks that applicability. The same could be said for any of a wide variety of things philosophy does.

For that matter, what does your approach, well, do, exactly? It seems to me that it lacks anything but a needless reminder of "remember that you are assuming that you can trust your senses/there is a reality outside", which is then used to declare that rationality is just as unjustified as "Religion", or rather mysticism. If you are proposing that this should no longer be a fundamental assumption, what do you have to replace it? If you aren't proposing that, what are you proposing? Reminding people of fundamental assumptions is rather like reminding them to breathe- specialist advice at best.

The Marxist comment was referring to your approach to history, not personal theory of political science- but I will withdraw it anyhow, to end this derail of my own making.

[Aranfan]

Why is morality desirable?

...

Marxist? I'm no Marxist. I'm an anarchist.

Do yourself a favor and buy a philosophy textbook. The more shit you spout, the more like an ignoramous you sound. Have you ever heard of a human being who thought his actions were evil... and thought that to be desireable? No. All of history's villains either thought they were doing the right thing, or else gave it no thought either way. Desiring morality is as human as wanting things to eat. I can no more choose to find moral nihilism acceptable than I can choose to eat shit and like it.

... and that is just one of dozens, if not more, reasons to be moral I can think of off the top of my head. Why are some people so incapable of seeing the blindingly obvious?

Okay then. We must all act morally. Is it immoral to kill people? Most would say yes, but far fewer would say it was immoral to kill people during a war. So is war moral? If you respond that it depends, then I will feel quite justified in calling you out for your advocacy of killing people. But what of self-defense? Is it moral to kill in self-defense? If yes, then how sure must you be that they are going to aggress against you before you can morally counter aggress? If they're pointing a gun in your direction? But they may be actually pointing it at the man about to stab you in the back that you didn't know was there. If it is not moral to kill people, even in self-defense, then you are declaring the defender's life to be worth less than the life of the aggressor.

As well, morality is easy to hijack. Is it immoral to break your word? If so, then it would be immoral for a WWII member of the wehrmacht to disobey Hitler, since they swore an oath to obey him. And if it is moral to break your word, then how can there be any trust? Is it immoral to disobey the government? What if you're in North Korea? If it is moral to bring down NK, then why not the USA? How they treat their people? Then why aren't you trying to assassinate whoever it is that's in charge of NK right now? If North Korea is an immoral government, then it would be immoral to let it continue, yet the USA keeps NK alive by giving it food that the NK government can claim was the result of the Central Planing Office's wisdom. Yet, at the same time, stopping the food shipments would mean mass starvation and death.

Is treason moral? If not then the US founding fathers were, each and every one, immoral. And hypocrites when they crushed the whiskey rebellion. If treason is moral, then why are governments considered desirable at all?

[Bakustra]

Okay then. We must all act morally. Is it immoral to kill people? Most would say yes, but far fewer would say it was immoral to kill people during a war. So is war moral? If you respond that it depends, then I will feel quite justified in calling you out for your advocacy of killing people. But what of self-defense? Is it moral to kill in self-defense? If yes, then how sure must you be that they are going to aggress against you before you can morally counter aggress? If they're pointing a gun in your direction? But they may be actually pointing it at the man about to stab you in the back that you didn't know was there. If it is not moral to kill people, even in self-defense, then you are declaring the defender's life to be worth less than the life of the aggressor.

As well, morality is easy to hijack. Is it immoral to break your word? If so, then it would be immoral for a WWII member of the wehrmacht to disobey Hitler, since they swore an oath to obey him. And if it is moral to break your word, then how can there be any trust? Is it immoral to disobey the government? What if you're in North Korea? If it is moral to bring down NK, then why not the USA? How they treat their people? Then why aren't you trying to assassinate whoever it is that's in charge of NK right now? If North Korea is an immoral government, then it would be immoral to let it continue, yet the USA keeps NK alive by giving it food that the NK government can claim was the result of the Central Planing Office's wisdom. Yet, at the same time, stopping the food shipments would mean mass starvation and death.

Is treason moral? If not then the US founding fathers were, each and every one, immoral. And hypocrites when they crushed the whiskey rebellion. If treason is moral, then why are governments considered desirable at all?

You're not making yourself look intelligent here. Let's just halt the train for a little bit and back up some. Why are anything of these three things (murder, lying, treason) immoral? In fact, we can kick this down to two things, since treason is a form of deception and dishonesty. So why are these two immoral? I will give the answer that I use in my personal moral code, and you can feel free to disagree and give your own. Killing is immoral because it stops life- it renders the greatest harm possible onto somebody. It also harms the groups that the dead individual belonged to because he no longer contributes to them, but that is secondary and more related to my personal beliefs on government. So very well. I have defined why it is immoral.

Now let us turn to lying. What is immoral about lying? For me, lying is immoral when it harms somebody. Telling "white lies" or omitting hurtful details are in fact moral to me, as they generally benefit the recipient. So lying is not inherently immoral. It is immoral, though, when it harms somebody. So hopefully you see that my moral system is based upon harm and benefit. If an action harms, it is immoral. If it benefits, it is moral. If it does neither, it is neutral.

This is very similar to the moral systems used by the majority of the world. There are two major divisions- deontological and utilitarian. Deontological systems focus on the intent, utilitarian on the result, but both of them puncture your naive absolutism. Consider the case of a white lie. In that case, under a deontological system, your intent in telling the lie is to avoid hurting another person, and so it is moral. Under a utilitarian system, the result is that you do not hurt the person, and so it is either moral or neutral.

So let us turn to the case of murder. You say that self-defense is equivalent to murder. In this case, the action preserves life by halting a murder, so it has a benefit as well as a harm. Murder is purely harmful, so self-defense is less immoral than murder. This does not make it a moral or necessarily a neutral action, but it makes it less immoral. A similar, but more general case can be applied to war. There are situations where you kill in order to preserve the lives of several others (such as squadmates) and you are also acting in extended self-defense in those situations. So it's not as immoral to kill in war (on both sides, mind) as to murder someone outright. This says nothing about the morality of war itself, mind. That is a separate matter.

This also applies to lies. A Wehrmacht member who broke his oath to Hitler is refusing to be a part of a regime that commits immoral acts. Therefore, the benefit (he is withdrawing his service from said regime) is what would be the harm in other cases. In the case of the American Revolution, you could argue (as the Revolutionaries did) that the English government's treatment of them was immoral in refusing them representation in the government but nevertheless treating them as subjects, and so secession is justified. Other people have argued against this, of course, but still, do you see what I'm getting at? There are moral systems able to accommodate mind-blowing ideas like "circumstances". Yours is not the only one.

[Aranfan]

So. If, say, China, had to be wiped off the map to save everyone else (say a Hitler-analogue managed to take power in the Party), then it would be immoral not to end those Billion+ lives? The intent is to save a greater number of lives, and the result is that fewer people die than otherwise would have. This is morality?

[Bakustra]

So. If, say, China, had to be wiped off the map to save everyone else (say a Hitler-analogue managed to take power in the Party), then it would be immoral not to end those Billion+ lives? The intent is to save a greater number of lives, and the result is that fewer people die than otherwise would have. This is morality?

That is less immoral than letting the whole world's population die, yes. You consider it moral to let 5 billion people die? If not, then what is the moral path in said scenario, or at least the least immoral?

That is the central problem with moral absolutism. It leads to absurdity. Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario, and in real life, there are generally other ways things can be resolved. Scenarios like that are good for testing the extremes of a moral code, but they are not regular occurrences.

But given the way in which you responded, I suspect that you're not even trying to understand me. Alternatively, are you fluent in English?

[Aranfan]

So. If, say, China, had to be wiped off the map to save everyone else (say a Hitler-analogue managed to take power in the Party), then it would be immoral not to end those Billion+ lives? The intent is to save a greater number of lives, and the result is that fewer people die than otherwise would have. This is morality?

That is less immoral than letting the whole world's population die, yes. You consider it moral to let 5 billion people die? If not, then what is the moral path in said scenario, or at least the least immoral?

There is no moral path in such a scenario. It is very much immoral to let 5 Billion people die. I just think that saying it is moral to kill 1 Billion people is absurd. There is no moral path in such a situation. This points to a fundamental problem with morality. You see, Morality is a heuristic, no action is moral or immoral until someone applies the label. If it is treated as an actual thing, then it can do nothing but condemn everyone for not being omnipotent.

[Formless]

Starting here is about the most complete description of my ethics system I've yet put on the forum. Understand that part of the justification I use is that almost all humans and other sapient beings we've yet discovered have the same desires and aversion to certain experiences (like pain, sadness, stress, and so on), and so there is no logical reason to consider ourselves morally special and deserving of consideration while other people do not. * In addition to this, I and many other people (such as most doctors, mental health professionals, rescue workers, police, and so forth) find helping others to be innately gratifying thanks to our capacity for empathy, sympathy, conscience, and other such emotions, which further justifies a hybrid of utilitarian/virtue ethics approach to the question of what is moral. Thus, I would agree more or less with Bakustra's logic concerning murder and dishonesty. Ask around, I'm sure you will find most of the people on this forum have roughly similar ideas on how to separate right from wrong. Again, its not like its rocket science quantum physics or anything.

* Of course, if we were to find conscious minds with significantly different desires or goals then as long as their existence is compatible with our own then their wishes ought to be considered when making decisions that effect them. For the moment, we haven't had to cross that bridge.

This is very similar to the moral systems used by the majority of the world. There are two major divisions- deontological and utilitarian. Deontological systems focus on the intent, utilitarian on the result, but both of them puncture your naive absolutism. Consider the case of a white lie. In that case, under a deontological system, your intent in telling the lie is to avoid hurting another person, and so it is moral. Under a utilitarian system, the result is that you do not hurt the person, and so it is either moral or neutral.

There is also the Virtue ethics approach first codified by the Greek philosophers, but which arguably also pops up fairly frequently in practical debates in naive form (i.e. any time someone brings up the concept of "conscience" or warnings against certain disagreeable personality traits/behaviors like greed, selfishness, and being a general dick). If you believe your life has a purpose (even if its one of your own making) Aristotle's logic can be brought to bear on the subject.

Of course, you could argue that its a form of consequentialism in that the central roles of "human purpose" and "human flourishing" reflect the utilitarian need for concrete goals (as I have argued in the past), but it does have a fairly distinct flavor from most utilitarian systems.

[Aranfan]

Starting here is about the most complete description of my ethics system I've yet put on the forum. Understand that part of the justification I use is that almost all humans and other sapient beings we've yet discovered have the same desires and aversion to certain experiences (like pain, sadness, stress, and so on), and so there is no logical reason to consider ourselves morally special and deserving of consideration while other people do not. * In addition to this, I and many other people (such as most doctors, mental health professionals, rescue workers, police, and so forth) find helping others to be innately gratifying thanks to our capacity for empathy, sympathy, conscience, and other such emotions, which further justifies a hybrid of utilitarian/virtue ethics approach to the question of what is moral. Thus, I would agree more or less with Bakustra's logic concerning murder and dishonesty. Ask around, I'm sure you will find most of the people on this forum have roughly similar ideas on how to separate right from wrong. Again, its not like its rocket science quantum physics or anything.

* Of course, if we were to find conscious minds with significantly different desires or goals then as long as their existence is compatible with our own then their wishes ought to be considered when making decisions that effect them. For the moment, we haven't had to cross that bridge.

This is very similar to the moral systems used by the majority of the world. There are two major divisions- deontological and utilitarian. Deontological systems focus on the intent, utilitarian on the result, but both of them puncture your naive absolutism. Consider the case of a white lie. In that case, under a deontological system, your intent in telling the lie is to avoid hurting another person, and so it is moral. Under a utilitarian system, the result is that you do not hurt the person, and so it is either moral or neutral.

There is also the Virtue ethics approach first codified by the Greek philosophers, but which arguably also pops up fairly frequently in practical debates in naive form (i.e. any time someone brings up the concept of "conscience" or warnings against certain disagreeable personality traits/behaviors like greed, selfishness, and being a general dick). If you believe your life has a purpose (even if its one of your own making) Aristotle's logic can be brought to bear on the subject.

Of course, you could argue that its a form of consequentialism in that the central roles of "human purpose" and "human flourishing" reflect the utilitarian need for concrete goals (as I have argued in the past), but it does have a fairly distinct flavor from most utilitarian systems.

Thank you for calmly pointing me towards an explication of your belief system, instead of attacking my person rather than my points.

[Bakustra]

So. If, say, China, had to be wiped off the map to save everyone else (say a Hitler-analogue managed to take power in the Party), then it would be immoral not to end those Billion+ lives? The intent is to save a greater number of lives, and the result is that fewer people die than otherwise would have. This is morality?

That is less immoral than letting the whole world's population die, yes. You consider it moral to let 5 billion people die? If not, then what is the moral path in said scenario, or at least the least immoral?

There is no moral path in such a scenario. It is very much immoral to let 5 Billion people die. I just think that saying it is moral to kill 1 Billion people is absurd. There is no moral path in such a situation. This points to a fundamental problem with morality. You see, Morality is a heuristic, no action is moral or immoral until someone applies the label. If it is treated as an actual thing, then it can do nothing but condemn everyone for not being omnipotent.

Luckily, I did not say that it was moral, just that it was less immoral. This is not a fundamental problem with morality, but rather with your interpretation of it, that you cannot apply moral weights to actions. Suggestion: if you find that your moral system is producing absurd results, it may be a good idea to switch. Of course, your statement is odd. Why exactly must it condemn everybody for not being omnipotent? I am very sure that there is at least one moral code that allows for the fact that human capabilities are limited, and as such absolves the individual from responsibility in cases that he or she could legitimately do nothing about. Saying that morality is a human label is correct, but odd as a problem in light of your statements in the OP. Again, this teeters on the maniacal brink of solipsism.

But let me introduce another scenario. Let us say that you are starving to death, and on your last legs. You see in front of you a grocer's stall, and you have an opportunity to take a loaf of bread without anybody seeing. Doing so will allow you to live. What would you do? Which is the more moral path, or is there no moral path?

This is very similar to the moral systems used by the majority of the world. There are two major divisions- deontological and utilitarian. Deontological systems focus on the intent, utilitarian on the result, but both of them puncture your naive absolutism. Consider the case of a white lie. In that case, under a deontological system, your intent in telling the lie is to avoid hurting another person, and so it is moral. Under a utilitarian system, the result is that you do not hurt the person, and so it is either moral or neutral.

There is also the Virtue ethics approach first codified by the Greek philosophers, but which arguably also pops up fairly frequently in practical debates in naive form (i.e. any time someone brings up the concept of "conscience" or warnings against certain disagreeable personality traits/behaviors like greed, selfishness, and being a general dick). If you believe your life has a purpose (even if its one of your own making) Aristotle's logic can be brought to bear on the subject.

Of course, you could argue that its a form of consequentialism in that the central roles of "human purpose" and "human flourishing" reflect the utilitarian need for concrete goals (as I have argued in the past), but it does have a fairly distinct flavor from most utilitarian systems.

Thank you for reminding me of virtue ethics. They still, of course, puncture naive absolutism by permitting distinction between actions, even if between those by the virtuous and those by the non-virtuous.

Thank you for calmly pointing me towards an explication of your belief system, instead of attacking my person rather than my points.

I see that my comments still smart. Ironic, I believe, wouldn't you say, Formless?

[Formless]

Thank you for calmly pointing me towards an explication of your belief system, instead of attacking my person rather than my points.

I see that my comments still smart. Ironic, I believe, wouldn't you say, Formless?

To be honest, I have no idea what either of you are trying to say here. Which one of us are you referring to? (note: the question is directed at Aranfan)

[Aranfan]

Thank you for calmly pointing me towards an explication of your belief system, instead of attacking my person rather than my points.

I see that my comments still smart. Ironic, I believe, wouldn't you say, Formless?

To be honest, I have no idea what either of you are trying to say here. Which one of us are you referring to? (note: the question is directed at Aranfan)

My grasp of the language does not have an impact on the points I put up.

[Aranfan]

But let me introduce another scenario. Let us say that you are starving to death, and on your last legs. You see in front of you a grocer's stall, and you have an opportunity to take a loaf of bread without anybody seeing. Doing so will allow you to live. What would you do? Which is the more moral path, or is there no moral path?

I will amorally take the bread. Because if I'm starving to death then I'm too hungry care about morality or legality or anything else. The philosophers can argue about the morality of my thievery, I'm too busy filling my empty stomach.