For returning members: As Asmodean noted, when he repaired the site after a recent downtime "the local avatars got nuked." If you need any assistance with getting your avatar back, please post in the Ask HAF board.
Started by AlP, June 27, 2009, 07:31:18 PM
Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"Though I agree on the over all stance, isn't it more or less a matter of being exact rather than leaving open the question of why? As AIP stated when a person puts forth something like "You should not kill" it makes most people ask the question of why shouldn't I. The point I would like to ask is isn't it an important question for a person to ask themselves. If using the example utilized above "You must not murder if you don't want to go to prison" then this will bring one of three actions: I don't want to go to prison so I wont kill them, I don't care if I go to prison so ill kill them, or if I kill them I may not get caught so 50/50. My question I suppose is whether or not it is best to leave open for the person to do as JillSwift and Sophus explained and create their own reasoning for not doing the action.
Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"Oh ok sorry, my mind naturally jumps to the most effective first rather than the intellectually sound. I suppose that is where your training in critical thinking should take you. Since that is the reason behind the post then I agree. However is the reason that society does not use such critical reasoning behind its morality because it is untrue or because it is less effective. As you said I would guess the latter. However that is more or less because most people in society are as unconcerned about the truth as they are about the amount of air they breath in a day.
Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"However if you want the absolute truth about why it is wrong to do an action that is in some way harmful, the end all be all reason lies primarily in that it is harmful. Why it is harmful varies with the action but the harm caused it seems is inevitably the reason to not do an action is it not?
Quote from: "Sophus"By the way, am I wrong, or is this basically Master Morality vs Slave Morality?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
Quote from: "AlP"I don't actually have Beyond Good and Evil, just some selections from it. It's probably online somewhere though. I'll read it and see if there's some context I'm missing.I'll say though that what I have read of Nietzsche is not an end point for me. Master / Slave morality seems to me to be a gross oversimplification. Read Heidegger and Sartre =).
Quote from: "AlP"Moral statements more often than not are normative. They tend to have the form "you should X" or "you must X". For example "you must not murder" or "you should not be unfaithful to your wife". They can also be expressed in other ways like "it is wrong to have an abortion" but what follows still applies...These "should" statements used to leave me scratching my head thinking "but I can do X, why shouldn't I?" because these "should" statements do not at first glance have any logical force.I questioned whether they are claims at all. How can they be said to have truth value? "You cannot murder" has truth value and is false. "You did not murder" has truth value and is true (for me). "You will not murder" has truth value but is presently unknowable. Does "You should not murder" have truth value?I think that on its own, a "should" statement does not have truth value. But something interesting happens if it is paired with a predicate indicating what you want. For example (want-predicate in italics):Premise: Murderers are often punished by imprisonment.Conclusion: You must not murder, if you do not want to be imprisoned.Another one:Premise: It is possible that an adulterous affair make your wife unhappy.Conclusion: If you do not want to make your wife unhappy, you should not cheat on her.These are inductive arguments. The conclusions still don't have truth value but they do have likelihood and you can try and figure out what that likelihood is. At least now they fall within the realm of critical thinking.So I'll leave you with a "should" statement of my own =). If you want to think critically, you should not accept a "should" statement unaccompanied by an "if" that relates it to what you want.I think there's a justification of moral relativism in here if anyone's interested =).