|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't ignore the basics, I simply point that the basics are there because of a shared causality not because of some shared ultimate goal.
I agree that the basics aren't there because of any ultimate goal. Human nature has no goal. It is morality that has a goal, and human nature is a fact that is relevant to it. To be precise, there are evolutionary reasons why people don't like being killed randomly, but "evolution's goals" (it doesn't actually have goals, but it's a sometimes useful abstraction) aren't our goals. The fact is that people do have common traits, but not because of an ultimate goal. However, because people do have common traits, it is possible for them to strive towards and achieve an ultimate goal - it is possible to talk about the same ultimate goal for a modern Westerner and a caveman, because they share a nature, but not for, say, a human and a bulldozer. Human nature itself doesn't make it a goal, but it makes the goal possible.
People can certainly be influenced by their time. We can see that today, just as we could see it in Plato's time. But we can abstract from it - we aren't trapped in it helplessly.
As for 16th Century France vs present day - suppose that someone was raised in both societies at the same time. They start in, say, 1501 France and 1970 America - they're born in America and spend 1 day there, then the next day in France, then the next day in America, and so on. Then, when they're 30 or so, you ask them if they had to choose, would they spend the rest of their life in France or in America? If you think that more than half of the people subjected to this would choose France, I don't know what more to say to you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:25 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:25, 21 Nov 2013.
|
|
Even if there is 1 person who chooses XVI century France, you'll still be wrong. And you seem to arbitrarily rely on putting the emphasis on groups (i.e. at least 2 individuals, i.e. something which is always greater than 1 and exists only when it is greater than 1) where it suits you and shortly after claim that the individuals are completely autonomous and the society is nothing more than a mechanical gathering of... subjects (i.e. 1, 1, 1, 1... but never 4, 10, 50 millions, etc.). That's not logic.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:47 PM |
|
|
@mvass
I say:
Quote:
You take a bunch of obsolete moral norms like honor killings or obedience to a king and say "hah, those guys were so wrong." as if this was a test and they circled c) instead of a).
You still do this:
Quote:
They start in, say, 1501 France and 1970 America - they're born in America and spend 1 day there, then the next day in France, then the next day in America, and so on. Then, when they're 30 or so, you ask them if they had to choose, would they spend the rest of their life in France or in America?
This is such an eclectic way of thinking I don't know where to begin... Here's a question, do you think the moral norms of a society in which people live till 50 on average and the moral norms of a society in which people live till 80 on average can be the same?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
@ Stevie
Ok, God killed his creation except Noah and his family, because he was fed up with the way his creation behaved. Would you say it's ok for a father to kill the childre he sired, just because he's not ok with their way of life?
God also wanted homosexuals and adultresses to die. Are you ok with that? Do you think that's morally acceptable?
@ Mvass
I'm sure, reading your stuff, you can tell me what's better for ANY HUMAN, to "burn out" or to "fade away", because you MUST be able to, otherwise what you write makes no sense.
Now I kn ow you can't tell me, BUT EVEN IF YOU COULD, morale is valid only when it comes to the relation between the individual AND OTHER PEOPLE. WHAT YOU DO WITH YOURSELF is not a question of MORALE, but at the most a question of RELIGION, if religion has to say something about it.
So let me repeat this: MORALS only cover the interaction between the individual and "the others".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 09:13 PM |
|
|
artu:
Considering how much of that difference is due to infant mortality. Once you've reached adulthood, life expectancy hasn't increased quite that drastically. But to answer the question, yes, I would expect the norms to be different in those two societies. However, it may be difficult to disentangle how much of that is due strictly to differences in lifespan and how much is due to other factors - lifespan isn't the only difference between 16th century France and modern America. It's better to live to 50 in America and then die (say, in a car crash) than to live to 50 in 16th century France.
JJ:
"Burn out" or "fade away" is a false dichotomy as it's usually presented. Neither is good - living a good long life is a better alternative.
Morality covers more than interaction between yourself and others, although it's true that most of morality is about that. However, it fundamentally arises from what you want, and has such a large interpersonal component because a lot of what people want is affected by or depends on other people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 09:55 PM |
|
|
|
I gave the life expectancy as an example for you to realize the eclecticism. You still seem to ignore that the formation of people are strongly related to the spirit of their time (which derives from the historical context) and reply as if formations can be switched just like picking up apples or oranges in a mall. Ironically, that is the spirit of YOUR time and culture.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 09:57 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 10:20 PM |
|
|
artu:
Yes, people are influenced by a lot of stuff - family, culture, etc. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a core nature beyond it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 10:28 PM |
|
|
The core is not normative.
You should really read some Freud
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 10:46 PM |
|
|
Sure, it's not normative. There are some bad things that are part of human nature, such as tribalism, envy, etc. But the possibility of happiness is also part of human nature, and that part is normatively relevant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 11:04 PM |
|
|
|
The question is, if you 'share' happiness among n people, will they be still happy or 'neutral'
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 11:05 PM |
|
|
|
I am not even going to discuss how can possibility of something be the nature of something (though, it would be a poetic way of defining hope) but don't you really realize that you started to sound like a priest?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 11:20 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I am not even going to discuss how can possibility of something be the nature of something
People have the possibility of walking, aside from injury or birth defects. It's only a possibility because someone may be capable of walking but never actually walk (unlikely as that is). Non-sterile people have the possibility of conceiving children, but that doesn't mean that they will. Etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 11:25 PM |
|
|
@ mvass.
Sorry to drop in on a conversation but what exactly is the connection you see in Happiness and Morality?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 11:55 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
artu said:
I am not even going to discuss how can possibility of something be the nature of something
People have the possibility of walking, aside from injury or birth defects. It's only a possibility because someone may be capable of walking but never actually walk (unlikely as that is). Non-sterile people have the possibility of conceiving children, but that doesn't mean that they will. Etc.
Your teleology is wrong because dolphins don't miss walking.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 12:01 AM |
|
|
Minion:
That's a short question with a very long answer. Part of it is described in this post, though of course I'd be happy to elaborate more if you have any questions. To summarize, what is moral is what is good for an agent, in the sense of maximizing his total lifetime happiness, in a reflective equilibrium*. This does mean that morality is agent-relative, however, that doesn't mean that it's actually "relative" in the sense that people use the word. It's an objective relation between states of the world and an agent's happiness, though there may be as many different relations as there are agents. However, due to human nature, there is a commonality in the relations when the considered agents are humans. Also, partially due to human nature (being virtuous feels good), partially due to game theory (it's better not to kill and not be killed than to be able to kill and be able to be killed), and partially due to comparative advantage and gains from trade, it is often in people's interests to cooperate with each other, through a variety of different forms of interactions, such as friendships, romantic relationships, community associations (book clubs, message boards, etc), market interactions, etc, rather than through violent and predatory relations.
*The "reflective equilibrium" bit means if someone sat down, really thought about what makes them happy, perhaps experimented if they weren't sure, and examined and eliminated all of their inconsistencies - so it's not just "do whatever you want", you first have to figure out what you really want, and people can have whims and impulses that aren't conducive to the maximization of their total lifetime happiness.
artu:
What does that have to do with anything? Dolphins don't miss walking because it's normal for them not to walk, just like humans don't miss swimming like dolphins. Doesn't mean that humans wouldn't like to be able to swim like dolphins, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 12:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What does that have to do with anything? Dolphins don't miss walking because it's normal for them not to walk, just like humans don't miss swimming like dolphins. Doesn't mean that humans wouldn't like to be able to swim like dolphins, though.
It has a lot to do with the attention span gap between our generations and me being stuck in this 16th century France
Let me rephrase repeat:
Quote:
Your stance on the matter is teleological, you assume an ultimate final set of moral norms
Quote:
I'll use evolution as an analogy, there isn't an ultimate masterpiece animal that evolution is destined to arrive at, because it's not an upgrading process as some people think it is.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 02:37 AM |
|
|
There are costs to being able to do everything, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't like to swim like dolphins. Evolutionary fitness =/= human desires.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 05:43 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
There are costs to being able to do everything, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't like to swim like dolphins. Evolutionary fitness =/= human desires.
What is the cost to be able to be?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 10:33 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Stevie
Ok, God killed his creation except Noah and his family, because he was fed up with the way his creation behaved. Would you say it's ok for a father to kill the childre he sired, just because he's not ok with their way of life?
God also wanted homosexuals and adultresses to die. Are you ok with that? Do you think that's morally acceptable?
Well my life comes, ultimately, from God, so my father doesn't have authority over my life, neither do I. Only the Lifegiver has the right to take life back. But in my house we had rules yes, and I sometimes broke some, the most harsh punishment for that was being thrown out, and I guess that's appropriate. His house, his rules, I broke em, I had to leave (for a while). And even so I think he was way too kind with me, thinking back I was just a cocky snow.
The price for sin is death, which means separation. At the spiritual level it means separation between you and God. At the physical level it means separation of your soul from your body. So according to God's law, any kind of disobedience from His word is punishable. Homosexuality and adultery are as all other sins like rape, murder, lying, stealing, taking in vain God's name, etc. But God does not want the sinner's death, He wants to save him, so He gave us a choice, either we repent and believe in the name of Jesus Christ, His only Son who died to fulfill the judgement of our sins in our place, or we refuse and continue whatever ungodly lifestyle we live and face His justice ourselves. I just covered what Christianity is all about.
So it's not like He doesn't want you saved, He does, He's patient and gave us a lot of time. But if you don't want it the He's forced by His nature to exact justice. I don't see anything wrong with that. 
|
| |
|
|
