|
Juffo-Wup posted:Is this view one of the sort that you come to on the basis of some reasons, or is it the other kind? I find the distinction useful in practice, and think it could be dangerous to erase it. I understand the meaning you assign to the word "fact" which allows you to apply it to your judgments on moral matters, but I think doing that is only emotionally helpful, and makes it harder, not easier, to contribute to a safe and happy society.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Define "system of values" and "escape". Because if we're saying that racism and nonracism coexist within a single system of values, what is really being said, to my mind, is that systems of values are necessarily broad enough to be self-contradictory, and that they cannot be escaped because they are broad enough it's impossible to hold a set of beliefs external to them. In which case "system of values" is more or less meaningless on an instrumental level. Of course our beliefs and values can often end up contradicting each other. I feel like experiencing those contradictions or trying to assuage them is an almost universal human experience, even if those contradictions don't always rise to the level of conscious awareness. Given your criticism of essentialism I am surprised that you would consider internal consistency to be a requirement. You've already identified quite clearly how our minds produce an artificial but necessary image of a consistent and stable reality filled with stable and discrete objects. The rest of our beliefs are similarly artificial and contingent, right up to our most deeply held convictions. Even our experience of being unitary and free willed agents is contradicted by the fact that we often cannot control ourselves, find our minds torn between irreconcilable desires, or experience our thoughts as happening to us rather than being caused by us. And while I'm pitching this argument at a very basic level of consciousness and perception, you could scale this up to our more articulate beliefs, such as our ethical codes, and I think you'd find the same tendency for contradicting beliefs to co-exist with each other. It would be helpful if you could clarify exactly what you're thinking of when you suggest that self contradicting beliefs are meaningless on "on an instrumental level"? I don't believe that's the case. In fact I would argue that my position is the logical conclusion of your critique of essentialism: our mind itself has no essential quality, like everything else it changes over time and the mind we have today is not the same mind that we will have tomorrow (and "we" will not be the same person tomorrow either). Why is it at all strange that the constantly flickering and changing series of mental events which we falsely interpret as "our" "mind" should not always be consistent with itself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
botany posted:So your thesis is that human live has inherent value outside of the specific form that human life takes. Is that about right? The obvious follow-ups would be: A. In the greater scheme of things, I don't think there's a real reason for life to continue existing, but at the same time, there's no reason for it to cease to exist. Rather than finding some greater meaning to life as a whole, it makes more sense to find the meaning in one's individual life. Example: if someone wants to become an artist, their life's purpose is to become an artist. It could certainly change along the way, but either way, their own individual life has meaning, even if it doesn't mean anything to the rest of the universe/in the greater scheme of things. B. I'd have to say the latter. I've always believed that there's a difference between a human being and a person. If one sees an individual as a person, they see them in the context of society. They take into consideration what the person is, what their personality is like, their likes/dislikes, lifestyle, etc. If one sees an individual as a human, however, they're seen in the context of the species they belong to. They're seen as a living being, an animal, if you will, without the other stuff (personality, likes/dislikes, etc.) being considered. That being said, I do think there are bad "people," but there's no such thing as a bad "human." In fact, I believe that all humans are inherently neutral. Just because someone's a good/bad person doesn't mean they're a good/bad human being, because they weren't born to be good or bad. They just became good or bad because of their upbringing, environment and personal ideologies (among other things of course). If there were such a thing as a "bad" human, that would suggest the idea that the human in question deserves to die and essentially wiped off the face of the Earth. However, I don't think killing even the worst of people is the best way to deal with the issues they cause, because violence doesn't really solve anything, at the risk of sounding somewhat pretentious. I do think that murderers/rapists/etc. deserved to be punished (with the punishment varying depending on the offense, obviously), but I don't think that they should be killed. There's no reason to do so because they're just human beings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I find the distinction useful in practice, and think it could be dangerous to erase it. You think we shouldn't think that we shouldn't do things with bad effects, on the grounds that thinking that would have bad effects? Incredible. Anyway, I'm not sure what someone could possibly think 'fact' means, other than 'state of affairs that obtains in the actual world.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
PortalFreak posted:That being said, I do think there are bad "people," but there's no such thing as a bad "human." In fact, I believe that all humans are inherently neutral. Just because someone's a good/bad person doesn't mean they're a good/bad human being, because they weren't born to be good or bad. They just became good or bad because of their upbringing, environment and personal ideologies (among other things of course). If there were such a thing as a "bad" human, that would suggest the idea that the human in question deserves to die and essentially wiped off the face of the Earth. However, I don't think killing even the worst of people is the best way to deal with the issues they cause, because violence doesn't really solve anything, at the risk of sounding somewhat pretentious. I do think that murderers/rapists/etc. deserved to be punished (with the punishment varying depending on the offense, obviously), but I don't think that they should be killed. There's no reason to do so because they're just human beings. So, you appear to be suggesting that legality should exist in a separate sphere from 'biological' matters, like life and death. Would you say that rules & morality apply to living persons, so you're against the death penalty for the same reason that you're against whipping the ocean for causing drownings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You can think that everyone who kills someone unlawfully has done something wrong without thinking that what made it wrong was that it was illegal. Obviously. To me, killing someone is neither wrong nor right regardless of legality especially if without talking about the circumstances that led to killing someone. The statement "All murderers are bad people" is in my mind somewhat untrue because it places moral responsibility on systems of law that are usually extremely flawed. I also think there are plenty of situations where killing someone is justified, but you might also be convicted of murder and become a murderer. A really good example with precedence in US law would be if a police officer/s decided to start shooting you before you did anything that directly threatened their life and then you started shooting back. If you killed a police officer in the firefight in self defense you would probably be a person who murdered someone and in a lot of ways that seems like not an immoral thing. If the cop shot and killed you instead they would just be a cop who killed someone and got some paid vacation. vv - I'm also against the death penalty, but not because 'killing people is bad' and more that legal systems that impose the death penalty tend to be so absolutely flawed that dishing out the death penalty is just loving stupid. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:So, you appear to be suggesting that legality should exist in a separate sphere from 'biological' matters, like life and death. Would you say that rules & morality apply to living persons, so you're against the death penalty for the same reason that you're against whipping the ocean for causing drownings? I'm definitely against the death penalty, seeing that it doesn't really get rid of crime of any type, and that it doesn't "scare" other criminals from committing crimes (which seems to be a primary purpose of the death penalty). It's just a retarded idea inherently. So ergo, this is probably obvious but yes I do think rules and morality apply to the living, seeing that the dead can't do much anyway  Somewhat off topic, but I remember in middle school years ago I was doing homework in study hall, when the teacher in the room gave me and some of the kids in there a "Time for Kids" (it's literally a kids' version of Time) that had an article about Billy the Kid being pardoned for what he did (if I remember correctly). Seeing that he was dead for hundreds of loving years and I had homework that was much more important to do, it was probably the biggest waste of time in my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:To me, killing someone is neither wrong nor right regardless of legality especially if without talking about the circumstances that led to killing someone. The statement "All murderers are bad people" is in my mind somewhat untrue because it places moral responsibility on systems of law that are usually extremely flawed. I also think there are plenty of situations where killing someone is justified, but you might also be convicted of murder and become a murderer. This is a lovely argument whose success depends our having some independent way of judging whether or not a killing is morally justified. So I happily accept your conclusion: there are factors other than legal proscription that determine of an action whether or not it is wrong. It should be clear that this is distinct from the conclusion that there are no moral facts, which I reject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You think we shouldn't think that we shouldn't do things with bad effects, on the grounds that thinking that would have bad effects? Incredible. No. It's good to not do bad things and also to stop other people from doing them. Doing this does not require everyone to agree on exactly what's bad (thank god). That badness is map and not territory is no good reason to throw up our hands and not do anything about it. I guess you've had to deal with people who think we should throw up our hands and not do anything? That sucks. They were wrong. quote:Anyway, I'm not sure what someone could possibly think 'fact' means, other than 'state of affairs that obtains in the actual world.' well *pushes up glasses*
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:43
|
|