News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

that morality thing

Started by billy rubin, October 21, 2019, 11:41:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Davin

Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 08:28:08 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM

And then we have social contracts, which basically boil down to "treat others as you want to be treated." If you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, then you must agree that murdering people is wrong and at the same time agree to not murder other people. If you want to have private property, then you have to agree to not stealing things that belong to other people. It gets a little more complicated, because not everyone has the same values, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all in most cases.

Agree with social contracts, but not wanting to be murdered does not necessarily mean that I think that "murder" in the abstract is wrong; I simply don't want to be murdered.  And I realize that if I murder it probably increases the probability that someone will want to do the same to me.  So morality can be rational for most, but someone else - a strongman, for example - can decide that he thinks that he doesn't run much chance of being murdered (like someone who can shoot someone on 5th Ave and not be convicted), so his "morality" may not include the axiom that you referenced. 

Davin

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 29, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM

And then we have social contracts, which basically boil down to "treat others as you want to be treated." If you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, then you must agree that murdering people is wrong and at the same time agree to not murder other people. If you want to have private property, then you have to agree to not stealing things that belong to other people. It gets a little more complicated, because not everyone has the same values, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all in most cases.

Agree with social contracts, but not wanting to be murdered does not necessarily mean that I think that "murder" in the abstract is wrong; I simply don't want to be murdered.  And I realize that if I murder it probably increases the probability that someone will want to do the same to me.  So morality can be rational for most, but someone else - a strongman, for example - can decide that he thinks that he doesn't run much chance of being murdered (like someone who can shoot someone on 5th Ave and not be convicted), so his "morality" may not include the axiom that you referenced.
Does the big guy want to be murdered? If they guy doesn't want to be murdered but is willing to murder other people, then I don't think that's a problem with the system as you seem to be trying to imply, it clearly points to the guy being immoral by breaking the social contract.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

#33
Quote from: davinMorality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.

i think there's merit in your original definition.

what do you consider harm?

buddhists base a moral ystem on eight rightz: mindfulnesz, speech, livelihoid, and so on. is this sort of morality included in what you mean?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Siz

Quote from: Davin on October 29, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 08:28:08 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere
Touché. I can't find your odd definition of morality anywhere either.

Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said
I didn't ask you to expand on anything. Stop straw-manning me. I asked you to restate the bit where you told me what the solid foundations of morality are. You know, the ones that rational people will not argue about.

Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
The objective tie-ins you've brought to the table relate wholly to your bald pseudo-description of morality which 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. You introduced that concept into your description which, as hlighted earlier, doesn't feature in any other definition or description I can find. If that is your opinion on the meaning of morality, that's fine. But don't then try to deflect crticism by disingenuously suggesting that rational people don't argue.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Bad Penny II

#35
I thought we held the funeral for objective morality years ago, no one mourned, we knew we'd do better without the weird old bastard.

The golden rule sounds good but the rule is more what you'd call a "guideline" than an actual rule.
A lot of this stuff though, it sounds like how to convince a sociopath that curbing their inclinations is to their benefit.
Does morality have to be internalised?
Bob likes goats in a nice way, he likes being nice to them.
Fred also likes goats but not in a nice way, he wants to have his wicked way with them but he doesn't, he's been told it isn't moral and it could get him in trouble.
Fred doesn't seem very moral to me, maybe he's lacking in mirror neurons.

Hurting things bad.
You like hurting things, you bad.

Thanks Grug, did a god tell you this?
No, I just know this, you not know this?
NO! NO! Grug, I know this! Club down!

I agree it is nice to be nice but...
The devil is in the qualification.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Davin

Quote from: billy rubin on October 29, 2019, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: davinMorality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.

i think there's merit in your original definition.

what do you consider harm?
You don't know what harm means? Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...

Harm is most cases is fairly easy to determine, damaging a person and/or their things is a kind of harm, maybe we can start there.

Quote from: billy rubin
buddhists base a moral ystem on eight rightz: mindfulnesz, speech, livelihoid, and so on. is this sort of morality included in what you mean?
No consideration at all, and I don't care about it. If there are things that fit it is as unintentional as the things that don't.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Davin

Quote from: Siz on October 30, 2019, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 29, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
Quote from: Siz on October 28, 2019, 10:27:57 PM
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere
Touché. I can't find your odd definition of morality anywhere either.
Really? I found it in a simple google search "morality definition":


It's not a direct copypasta, but I'm assuming that we're adults trying to have an honest conversation.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said
I didn't ask you to expand on anything. Stop straw-manning me.
That's not in any way a straw man. Here's another quick google search for "straw man fallacy":

You'll note some key differences that include me not refuting your argument as I can't seem to find it. I'm not representing your argument in any way here, let alone misrepresenting it.

Quote from: Siz
I asked you to restate the bit where you told me what the solid foundations of morality are. You know, the ones that rational people will not argue about.
I answered that. It was in the part of my post that you quoted.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
The objective tie-ins you've brought to the table relate wholly to your bald pseudo-description of morality which 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'.
Oh, I see now. It might help to actually read what I wrote. The objective tie ins are that harm in most cases can be objectively measured. We can determine that a person has been cut, which is a harm. Whether that harm is good or not is the more subjective part which requires context, which can also be objectively determined in most cases.

Quote from: Siz
You introduced that concept into your description which, as hlighted earlier, doesn't feature in any other definition or description I can find.
I suggest trying google, it's actually pretty easy.

Quote from: Siz
If that is your opinion on the meaning of morality, that's fine. But don't then try to deflect crticism by disingenuously suggesting that rational people don't argue.
I would never say something so stupid and short sighted as "rational people don't argue." If you read what I wrote, I was referring to objective things that rational people do not argue against, like that there are a lot of harms against people that can be objectively measured. And if people argue against whether a person being stabbed is a harm or not, then they are not being rational.

It would do you better to drop your preconceived notions about what you think I'm saying or going to say, and spend the effort to actually read what I'm saying. Speaking of straw mans...
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Davin on October 30, 2019, 02:00:53 PM
Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...
Because you're so clever, much much cleverer than average, and those that reply to you are perhaps average but much much less clever than you are, so mere toddlers in comparison to you.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Davin

Quote from: Bad Penny II on October 30, 2019, 02:24:20 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 30, 2019, 02:00:53 PM
Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...
Because you're so clever, much much cleverer than average, and those that reply to you are perhaps average but much much less clever than you are, so mere toddlers in comparison to you.
That would only make sense if I were clever and the people responding were less so, which I doubt is true.

I think it's like talking to toddlers because I end having to answer the same questions toddlers ask. There is a different reason for that, and cleverness, I think, has no impact.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

davin, one of the most common mistakes people make when trying to discuss an argument is failing to identify their assumptions. so far you've expressed several conclusions without identifying your premises, and have become dismissive when i, for one, have asked you about them. true conclusions depend both upon valid structure and the truth of the premises. your definition of morality so far lacks a foundation.

just sayin.

at any rate, regarding harm, you assert that morality is strictly a function of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm.

much of the world disagrees with that.

so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Siz

Disingenuous, through and through, Davin.

Disappointing.


When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Davin

Quote from: Siz on October 30, 2019, 04:18:20 PM
Disingenuous, through and through, Davin.

Disappointing.
Whatever makes you feel better is fine with me. Might have helped to actually read what I wrote, that's where the genuineness is.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Davin

Quote from: billy rubin on October 30, 2019, 03:12:39 PM
davin, one of the most common mistakes people make when trying to discuss an argument is failing to identify their assumptions. so far you've expressed several conclusions without identifying your premises, and have become dismissive when i, for one, have asked you about them. true conclusions depend both upon valid structure and the truth of the premises. your definition of morality so far lacks a foundation.
In my experience, the biggest mistake people make during discussions is a lack of actually listening to the other person.

Quote from: billy rubin
at any rate, regarding harm, you assert that morality is strictly a function of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm.
I did not say that. Case in point from above. It doesn't help to add things in like "maximizing" and "minimizing" to things just because you feel like it. Maximizing and minimizing things takes way too much effort and is impossible to accomplish in reality.

Quote from: billy rubin
so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
I don't get why that matters. I don't care one way or the other or any way at all about Buddhism.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

Quote from: Davin on October 30, 2019, 05:23:12 PM
Quote from: billy rubin
so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
I don't get why that matters. I don't care one way or the other or any way at all about Buddhism.

it matters because buddhist morality both exists and is not part of your understanding of the question, davin.

therefore your understanding is incomplete, as far as it goes, and wrong in the end. not caring about it isn't relevant, except as it serves to maintain your ignorance of the matter.

but you know what? this kind of conversation isn't why i'm here. so i'll leave it at that.

ciao.


more people have been to berlin than i have