Necessary evils

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 691
#301
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
No it’s not, let’s say your dealing with a lunatic whose goal is to kill 100 people are you willing to be transigent in regards to your views and say he meet you halfway with 50? I sure hope not, same thing applies here, I refuse to negotiate with a bunch of looneys, miss me with that.
I personally would be open to asking that question to the 'lunatic(s)'. The reason is that it may somehow spark a dark humour kind of laughter in them and build rapport, allowing for further understanding and communication.

Just my two cents. Also, it is still objectively less negative if the latter happens than the former, even though the latter happening is still well over the 'tragedy' and 'horrific' mark.
Topic's author
#302
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
What would you say makes an action 'necessary?
Well strictly speaking determinism renders all action that actually occurs "necessary" but indulging personal greed doesn't appear to be necessary for the greater good by any definition that I'm aware of.
#303
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
The reason is that it may somehow spark a dark humour kind of laughter in them and build rapport, allowing for further understanding and communication.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up but only time will tell.
#304
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,358
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Hm, good point, practical idea of 'good.
Current societies values.
. . .
Hm, 'necessary evils, for results that we think are 'necessary, and result in 'good as understood by society 'good.
. . .
Thinking.
Topic's author
#305
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
Well not even society necessarily but sure we can use that standard in a much as it can even be determined. 
#306
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You've proved it.

A. "By staying true to your views".....Views are undoubtedly subjective, therefore a moral view is a subjective view.

B. Therefore you have subjective principles.

Objectivity is only really applicable to provable facts.....Nonetheless I still hold that any internal data management and output is inherently subjective.



#307
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Ah, I admit views may not have been the best word but I thought you knew what I meant, nevertheless I think a more fitting phrase to describe the context here is representation of fact (although it’s a bit wordy).
#308
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
The argument I've been expecting to see, but have either missed or been mistaken in my prediction,
Is that there is no necessary evil, if the end was necessary and there was no kinder way to go about it.
Perhaps the "lesser of two evils"?

Perhaps "evil" is "something personally unpleasant"?
#309
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,358
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Hm, well then, here's an example.

Suppose that there is a meth addict on a bad trip, and he has a knife at a hostages throat, he's at a standoff with the police.
Suppose the police kill the meth addict with a headshot.
Would that fit necessary evil?

What with killing other humans being evil? (Even violent life threatening ones)?
And I suppose the hostage's life get's prioritized since he'd be the one who's life is being unjustly threatened by another human.
Topic's author
#310
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
A. "By staying true to your views".....Views are undoubtedly subjective, therefore a moral view is a subjective view.

B. Therefore you have subjective principles.

Objectivity is only really applicable to provable facts.....Nonetheless I still hold that any internal data management and output is inherently subjective.
Well stated.
#311
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I do know what you mean......In your view morality is objective.....One isn't doubting your view.

But this opinion of yours is based on hearsay rather than an absolute fact.

Hearsay may well be recorded to a narrative and become well established, and as such, also become regarded as an established fact......The idiosyncrasies of words and language and data transfer, as we have discussed before many times.



#312
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But this opinion of yours is based on hearsay rather than an absolute fact.
I’m willing to play devils advocate here and say if objective morality doesn’t exist then neither does subjective morality, and that’s not a matter of opinion because existence is objective.
#313
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Existence...Well there's another word.....And how it relates to both material existence and conceptual existence  is questionable.

Does a thought exist or is it just the intangible product of internal processing?

The latter would suggest that in terms of product, neither objective or subjective output is existent.

The process is only really indicative of our existence.....I think therefore I am.

So morality would also be no more than an intangible thought. 
#314
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I wouldn’t even go that far because at the very least thoughts regardless of their validity can be articulated, can’t say the same about “subjective morality”.
#315
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Hmmm. Not sure about any of that.

We can articulate,  and what we might  personally articulate will be derived from stored data and based upon or inspired by a thought.....Which would be the same process and function for any thought based articulation.

Even if we recite a narrative, the data is inputted and processed before it is articulated.

And I don't see a major difference between moralities in terms of process, though the content will undoubtedly vary.

Objective and subjective  are both defined words that represent concepts, and can also be expressed in an articulated format.

So I see no reason why the ideas/concepts of subjective morality or objective morality cannot be presented as a narrative and articulated.

Though none of this affects the contention.....That, in real terms morality is only a subjective concept, rather than an external reality.


#316
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Objective and subjective  are both defined words that represent concepts, and can also be expressed in an articulated format.
Your not slick, obviously those two terms are well defined on their own but that’s not the narrative is it? The narrative is the form morality takes in regards to one of those terms, but since you’re so keen on being able to articulate “subjective morality” then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate.
#317
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Subjective morality:
A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.


And narrative is narrative....You're trying to redefine narrative now.


There is no form to a concept, just thought.


Actions that we regard as being morally influenced may come with an accompanying narrative.

But words and actions are all internally generated, and all internal generated thoughts and associated and actions are personal, even if they conform to a recognised standard.

So in reality, objective morality is subjective, even if the accompanying narrative that we might choose to articulate, attempts to suggest otherwise.


We both have personal views concerning morality which we present here as narrative, both are subjective opinions.


And the "slick" jibe was unnecessary.....All that it achieved was a diminishment of your usual stoicism.
#318
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality:
A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
But there are no personal feelings, tastes, or opinions in regards to principles of conduct.
#319
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You asked me to present a narrative in respect of "subjective morality"........Which is what I did.....All true to definition.


But there are no personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, in regards to principles of conduct.
The above statement is a contradiction in terms.



How you conduct yourself is entirely down to you.
#320
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
How you conduct yourself is entirely down to you.
Yes but that’s not limited to principles, principles are a fundamental truth, and fundamental truths are objective.

Lastly how would you articulate subjective immorality?
#321
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Principle:
Another word with multiple definitions, that require careful consideration.

For sure, the definition that you give above is correct...But only correct within a specific self serving context.

For example... The fundamental principles of a particular religion are only fundamentally truthful within the context of that religion....Outside of that religion, it's principles are meaningless in terms of fundamental truth.... Simply becoming the insignificant principles of a particular religion.

"Subjective immorality", in terms of definition, would be what one assumes or considers to be immoral.....Objective immorality would be exactly the same, because both are derived of the same process.....Internal processing and output of stored data.....I still hold that objective output  is fundamentally subjective output....Though that does not preclude factual correctness.....But as we have discussed before, both subjective output and objective output may or may not be factually correct....Correctness depends upon the veracity of stored data and the veracity of the original data source.
So for example, if one stores data concerning morality and principles based upon a particular religion, then those morals and principles cannot be regarded as universally truthful, unless the original data source can be proven to be derived from a universal and unquestionable source....Which has never been the case.

And I use the word universal, because I think that it is more suggestive of a basic external reality...... Whereas "fundamental" can be widely applied to any manner of basic principles.....The fundamental basis of bread is dough.
#322
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality:

A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
Okay, but one isn’t born with these personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, they develop them with time, so my question to you is why do people develop these things?
Topic's author
#323
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
why do people develop these things?
You need to be very clear about what you are asking here. You need to be clear on whether you are asking about the biological mechanisms that lead to humans developing systems over acceptable behavior or are you asking why the mechanisms exist in the first place and where they came from.

If you are not clear about which question you are asking you cannot reasonably object if someone answers the wrong one.
#324
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What if I asked both. then what?
Topic's author
#325
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Well the biological reason is that in a system of survival of the fittest if your species is evolved to cooperate the group that cooperates the best is by definition most fit. We cooperate because less cooperation makes you less successful.

The question why is there a biological mechanism in the first place, well if the is a reason beyond the laws of physics and evolution acting predictably then weas humans don't have access to it l. Like to the point where it is indistinguishable from there being NO REASON WHATSOEVER beyond just unguided natural processes. 

In other words the answer to why there is mechanism at all on a larger scale the answer most in keeping with occum's razer is that there just isn't a reason at all. It's like asking why does anything exist at all. The answer is we don't know and there isn't even really any cause to suspect there is a reason in the first place.

You may now continue your discussion with z.
#326
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So in other words subjective morality makes no sense because there’s no reason for it, thanks for clearing that up 👍🏾.
Topic's author
#327
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
subjective morality makes no sense because there’s no reason for it,
One does not logically follow from the other. 

Also even if we attribute reason (and therefore by implication agency) to the universe (or some keeper of the universe at the very least) it still doesn't explain why things exist only how. All that changed is the mechanism by which everything exists. Attributing agency doesn't tell us anything about the MOTIVATIONS of the agent.

Also also we know that biology is at the very least the mechanism "chosen" whether there is agency involved or not so biology isn't in question agency is. Of the two propositions it is agency that must be demonstrated not biology. If my answer is biology and you ask why is there life at all my answer becomes I don't know and have no reason to suspect there even is a reason. 

This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.

If this is about winning (and for me it isn't but I am getting the sense that it is for you) I "win" either way. Either my prediction will prove correct or you will engage my actual argument rather than simply pretending that the argument isn't clear to you.

Let's find out together. 



#328
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
One does not logically follow from the other. 
Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
Topic's author
#329
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
One does not logically follow from the other. 
Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING despite there being no evidence that this is the case this would be an exercise in futility. 

ESPECIALLY if you are conflate cause with reason. 
#330
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING
...No, I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.