Total posts: 291
Posted in:
I live in Asia. IMHO, the listed reasons for banning are often common excuses for authoritarian governments to use in order to safeguard the public's "wellbeing". I don't agree with the rise of authoritarianism where I live but there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think it's a good idea for the West to emulate the East.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Well, I tend to blame my tyrannical government for my shortcomings. Free speech is rare in a non-secular country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I appreciate the quick reply. I think I desperately wanted an impression on what a "preference" looks/feels like. Now that I have your shopkeeper example, I think everything looks good enough for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not approaching this with great insight at the moment and I think my feedback might be irrelevant to the topic but I do enjoy your philosophy posts. I think they are interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
For example, there is, to my knowledge, no motive for stealing that isn't geared towards the satisfaction of some preference.
Interesting thread. I think it was easy to follow except for this quote. What do you mean by "satisfaction of some preference"?
Created:
I don't know much about the US Education system. I have no idea what and how things work there. Where I live, teachers zealously taught me that colonialism was slavery. I was taught to hate the Dutch and the spanish because they were the worst of them. The british were noticeably second though that's not saying much. WW2 had a clear bias in which we favored the axis powers (specifically japan) over our colonial rulers.
They taught both evolution and creationism though, but with very little motivation to distinguish between the two. For example, I've only heard of Charles Darwin when I enrolled myself in college this year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Tarik is correct. Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom is widely considered one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. , in 2011 produced a massive work on ethics titled On What Matters. This two-volume work covers a lot of ground, but one of its main claims is that morality is objective, and we can and do know moral truths but not because moral judgments describe some fact. Indeed, moral judgments do not describe anything in the external world, nor do they refer to our own feelings. There are no mystical moral or normative entities. Nonetheless, moral judgments express objective truths. Parfit’s solution? Ethics is analogous to mathematics. There are mathematical truths even though, on Parfit’s view, there are no such things as an ideal equation 2 + 2 = 4 existing somewhere in Plato’s heaven. Similarly, we have objectively valid moral reasons for not inflicting pain gratuitously even though there are no mystical moral entities to which we make reference when we declare, “Inflicting pain gratuitously is morally wrong.” To quote Parfit, “Like numbers and logical truths … normative properties and truths have no ontological status” (On What Matters, vol. 2, p. 487).
As I understand it, Parfait seems to think that moral judgments are strictly a priori. Then why is he assuming that we make no references in moral judgments? If I'm standing next to a river I think it would be impossible for me to reason (a priori alone) that I'd drown in the river. I would need empirical evidence of drowning, such as testing myself to breathe underwater. I simply don't get your source. How would I arrive at a purely a priori conclusion that throwing a person in the river would kill her?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Well, I am going to rant nonetheless even though I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say and accomplish. I think instructors (the kind you get in university) are largely rude and unpleasant people. My university is a "luxuriously aloof" kind of university. They rarely open themselves up to the community and they rarely help the "common people". Sure, they'll make a big case study out of some bankrupt company but what I'm trying to say is they rarely encourage students to venture out in the real world. I have no idea what they do during semester breaks and my attempts to communicate is usually met with immediate scorn.
These are my reasons why I don't bother to do my homework. Plus, my philosophy homeworks usually require me to read 3 pages of "word-salad". I usually read philosophy at a much faster pace (10 pages on a normal night). Instructors seem to think I'm dumb and I really resent that.
Created:
Posted in:
I have no idea. Your riddle looks a lot like formal logic.
Created:
Posted in:
A while back, I had a grenade thrown in my mouth. It exploded and the metal spikes (not sure if they came from the grenade) proceeded to travel alongside my blood cells. Don't remember what happened after that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Yeah, I'm a student and I agree for different reasons. I think the vast majority of instructors would disagree with you though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
What's your opinion on Sentimentalism?
I got this idea from Stanford:
For moral sentimentalists, our emotions and desires play a leadingrole in the anatomy of morality. Some believe moral thoughts arefundamentally sentimental...or that emotions are theprimary source of moral knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Yet, the growth of knowledge...
Well, I seriously doubt that. Not a single soul frequents the library in my town. A year ago I had read about Pico's objections to spirituality, I don't think people would bother reading him. Really, I think knowledge is scarce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From my perspective, my desire to read knowledge is directly tied with my self-esteem. If I don't read enough literature, I feel extremely down. I want to ensure this doesn't happen. I think writing arguments in debates tend to foster defeatism because I think I won't be writing out of a need to understand complex ideas, I will be writing out of a need to win debates. Your proposal looks interesting because I think I can skew the debate titles to make them look like a reading project to read Kant's Critique. I think It's still early to declare anything, but I think your proposal looks promising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think your proposal looks interesting. I want to improve my reading habits and I can't seem to feel any motivations to read when I'm competitively debating. I want my own debates to reward me with motivations to read but they seem to do the opposite. I suppose my debates bore me because they don't contribute to my search for knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll rephrase: if you kept a person's influence absolutely free of any mention of religion at all for the first sixteen years of their lives (think of it like being totally isolated on an island where religions simply doesn't exist), and that child spent their time learning critical thinking skills and the demonstrable scientific reasons things happen, do you think after sixteen years you'd be able to convince them a god exists?
I think your question would depend on individual taste. I'm not motivated to use the scientific method as a way to disprove god's existence. Even if we live in an ideal world where we could reasonably conclude god's existence by way of the scientific method, I'd still willfully believe in god. I'd rather be a mystic than a boring physicalist. Imho, I acknowledge that this would play out differently with a person who has a vested interest in the scientific method. Now, for my case, if there is a way for atheistic soothsayers to convince me that magical things are free of divine influence, I'd be more inclined to believe them. This is just my opinion.
Created:
I think this is a very impressive thread. Regarding one of your premises:
Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.).
I'm not confident about these ideas you speak of. I find it particularly difficult to believe that these 'moral principles' would contain similar ideas. Love is expected to flourish after intimacy. Once I understand that my partner speaks out of a caring passion for my well-being, I reciprocate exactly the same amount of passion. These are similar impressions that originate from "similar ideas". But what about love stories that arise out of pity (i.e. knights rescuing damsels in distress)? I'm trying to understand how you would characterize a masochist experiencing pleasure as an impression of "happiness"?
I think a person could pervert a "similar idea" to her own vile ends (which may then cause pain to some and pleasure to others). I don't believe in the second premise.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I'm not exactly sure about the details but I suppose if I murder someone, I am depriving myself of human connection. I think that's just one example. I could describe the idea of murder by listing its essential features and I think the results would be written in a very long list containing things I would ultimately lose if I murder an innocent bystander. To that end, I ought to refrain from murdering someone.
Created:
Posted in:
Not to veer off-topic, I think Charles Darwin would agree with what you said. He would probably wear a mask too. His view on epidemics:
"Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold drought seem to be the most effective of all checks. I estimated (chiefly from the greatly reduced numbers of nests in the spring) that the winter of 1854-5 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent (10%) is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man."From: The Origin of Species
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Ah, those, I posted...
And the list of counter examples I gave...
We defer 'medical knowledge to doctors...
I'm not sure I fully understand you and I think i will need to re-read more to understand what you just wrote. I'm saying that because I don't have much to go on. Well, I think that's all I have at the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But you could occasionally dabble in the success of the genii. What's stopping you from attending a physicist conference and listening to unintelligible words?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
...Surely it's bad for a soldier to be physically lacking, but does a merchant who's ventures have paid 'still need physical capability?
I think it is in the merchant's best interest to possess Larsen's "Might is right". Irrespective of physical capability, I think the merchant would have to be held morally responsible for Weena's death if and only if she was there with Weena. IMHO, her wealth does not absolve her from moral responsibilities.
Do you think all the "good intentions" would short-circuit any and all "moral culpability" (requirement for punitive "punishment")?No, people are punished, discriminated against, or even exterminated at times, for 'their or 'societies 'greater good.Even when a mind claims to think of the welfare of others, at times it is instead a twisted branch.examples,Slaves are better suited to the lifestyle of slavery, whether until they become civilized, or because they can not rise above it.Native Americans must be absorbed into our culture, because we believe our society to be superior.A king without any selfish interest favors his second son, and so has his first son taken care of or executed, for the good of his second son, or the nation.Humanity would be better off using eugenics thinks some world leader, and then discriminates against certain groups.A nuclear family is an overall superior form of grouping thinks a politician, and votes against legalizing gay marriage.It goes on and on, and I'm not saying I 'agree with such thoughts, But such is human history and existence.Though I suppose one might argue the examples good intent is flawed.Discrimination is human.
These are useful counter examples to Larsen's "might is right". Moreover, I think being idle is preferable than being an imperialist. At least, I would say so based on the examples you've listed. That said, I would argue that those examples are exactly why everyone should refrain from golden rules in moral dilemmas but that's a different topic for a different time.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What about your pre-existing desires? Are those independent of your intention?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
lol.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Tip of the day. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
Season 1 was great. I genuinely thought Will was going to die. I wouldn't say the same thing about other seasons tho.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well, I've looked over chapter 8 and I wouldn't say Wolf Larsen is evil but I think he is self-serving. I think that inaction breeds incapability (if that makes sense) and incapability is evil. If I want to save Weena, I would have to be physically capable of doing so. In order for me to be physically capable, I would have to work an active life which is the exact opposite of inactive life (i.e. couch potatoes and their inaction).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
...immediate subjection to the oppression of survival.
Well I see that now. I suppose those unfortunate enough to live under bridges are subjected to such conditions but I don't think your idea applies to me personally.
In terms of freedom it's a no win situation.Contentment within a capitalist society is perhaps as good as it get's.....Which doesn't necessarily mean striving to acquire wealth....Just an easily affordable day to day routine with no greater expectations....After all a kitchen is a kitchen, so why would you need a newer one.Sorry, but when I think about materialism, I always think of fitted kitchens for some reason
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you are a certain age then you will more than likely be addicted to media technology, the ultimate goal of which is uncertain, but current goals have been achieved. I would suggest that a lot of people are slightly less free than people used to be.
I think I disagree with your opinion that "a lot of people are slightly less free than people used to be." Now I'm not sure where your opinion comes from, but I think social media (i.e. tiktok) is a useful distraction for the public. In the past, there used to be book burnings. Right now, in my town, I could go to an old, decrepit book store and find multiple copies of John Rawls' political essays. These essays are "forbidden" and possessing them could incur severe punishments. Fortunately, authoritarian third world governments and their censorship branches (i.e. China's mass surveillance, Iran's religious police) are too preoccupied with contemporary social media to the point that they don't bother to check on these things let alone schedule book burnings. I'm "free" in the sense that I need not worry about possessing banned literature.
And if capitalist tyranny means freedom from human tyranny, then I think that I prefer it that way....Fortunately or not I haven't been able to make comparisons.
Well, I'd rather enslave myself to wealth than worry about human inadequacy. When I talk about wealth, I am talking about extreme ranges (i.e. poverty). I'd rather live in poverty. I would not want to live under Duterte or Aung San Suu Kyi.
As for technological tyranny....Well I think we have just got to run with it or get left behind....Though I think that we will eventually be out paced.
Created:
I wholly agree. I think it encourages good hygiene, which is great. Those who avoid masks tend to be filthy.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm pretty sure humans labor with regularity. However, I think ideological systems (i.e. communism, capitalism, anarchy) do influence humans to a certain degree. I assume the point of living in a capitalist society is to consume and produce wealth as much as possible. I'm fine with that so long as literature is abundant. Media bias is a concern and I prefer to have media that is competently varied so I can consume wealth without partisan influence. But I suppose if it's biased (preventing me from being free), I'll settle for media bias rather than book burnings, if that makes sense.
Created:
Looking over the examples in the thread, I think this discussion raises a new question: What about couch potatoes?
Whenever I think of ethical dilemmas, the hypothetical individuals in my examples are usually good and decent individuals. I've always wondered if couch potatoes are worthy substitutes. Couch potatoes are the perfect opposite of good individuals. They are idle in cases of moral problems. For example, they would rather watch t.v. than volunteer at a local charity. Would you say that couch potatoes are unethical?
Created:
I think the decisions we make are part of our life-long struggle. My responsibilities as a moral agent include making and accumulating good actions. In a way, I believe in a history of good actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am subjected to the values of collective sportsmanship, not one that arises out of conflict. I think it is a waste of time to cite P.C. as your argument for your ultimate goal of fairness. It matters little if the end-goal is achieved, because the source material is a waste of time. Granted, I think it's good to see the statues of slavers and evil colonialists being torn down but I'm not slogging through medium's overly-saturated "Defund the police" articles or right-wing wizards on Youtube. I think the third world has no benefit other than the occasional amusement of tuning in to CNN to see what happens. Polemical ideas from the west never inspires change in the third world because I think the east perceive themselves as superior whenever polemical ideas circulate in the west. I think that's not inspiring change; that's promoting vile tribalistic tradition (one that is exemplified by lunatic third-world dictators such as Kim Jong-Un).
Created:
Posted in:
As I understand it, political correctness only happens in the U.S. and Europe. I think if it does seep into the third world, it would remain localized for sons of rich generals and kings. In my opinion, it is an overblown issue. I don't pay much attention to it, since it only accounts for meager fraction of the world's literature.
In short: P.C. is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes. I think it's one that is largely motivated by our feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
I think I believe in "feelings". Generally speaking, they're part of my core belief. They're not outlandish and they do help in my decision making. I think feelings are not part of balance or equality but rather they are just an ability to feel and to act charitably. For instance, acts of selflessness (i.e. altruism) are often accompanied by a will moved by feelings. In addition I believe them to be part of justice. Punishments and rewards should be levied in accordance with feelings.
Created: