The CC Community

[john9blue]

Here's an example.
Some of the most interesting discussions I've had is with a guy doing religious studies. Let's just say he's not very good at math or logic and doesn't exactly strike you as the "witty" type but his passion for eastern religions and philosophy by far trumps that.
Though he has huge knowledge in the area I found discussions with him initially frustrating because he would not sufficiently define terms for my liking. Half the time he said things that to me didn't convey any actual meaning. However, we persisted and eventually mostly reached a common language. I'm pretty sure that if I had declared myself "smarter" than him based on me likely having a higher IQ score that wouldn't have happened.

yeah, it wouldn't have happened if you had said "i'm smarter than you and therefore i'm right and arguing with you is a waste of time"

but even i don't do that... in fact, i hate it when people dismiss others without giving their reasons... this is why i like night strike and player, even though i disagree with them: they always make an effort to explain themselves.

and i love hearing perspectives from people who have totally different experiences and knowledge than i do (e.g. listening to BBS talk about economics or neo talk about biology). i recognize that i often don't have the factual knowledge necessary to compete, even if i can think critically.

but when people try to spread uninformed and illogical opinions about something that i actually know about... i lose respect for them. morality is one of those areas.

but i never said that nobody here has thought critically about morality. i just said that nobody has shown it to me. i'm doing what everybody else does- every time someone expresses a viewpoint contrary to mine, i believe that they don't know what they're talking about and that i've come to a better conclusion than they have. this is common behavior, so don't pretend like i'm unusually stuck-up.

Well sure, you can't claim perfect knowledge. But saying no one has shown to you that they have as much as thought critically about morality is still a damn strong statement.

Or do you not think it is possible for 2 people to think critically about morality and still reach different conclusions?

I don't know about others, but I generally don't assume everyone else has lesser reasoning ability because we can have different base assumptions. Different axioms if you want. Not to mention different life experiences.
I asked Player what her stance on god would be if one removed all her personal, subjective experiences that have led her to believe in god. She said she doesn't know and that she might have been an atheist. This is really all I can ask for. We've reduced the difference in opinion to different subjective experiences. There is nothing else to debate and neither of us should necessarily believe the other is wrong.

good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

it's not "subjective" at all. i've talked extensively with a good amount of people about their moral views and seen that they have little to no rational basis for them.

And is your assessment of their rationale not subjective? Not even a tiny bit?

well... i'm a human, so of course it's at least a little bit subjective. but part of being a good thinker is (like i said above) removing the irrationality from our arguments. if somebody can't even do that (and this even applies to the "i've felt god in my life, so he must be real" people) then i'm gonna have a hard time taking them seriously.

i only decided to write that post because (like most people) i like it when people understand where i'm coming from, even if the odds of that happening are small.

Yeah, I get that. And I actually agree with your original point to some extent. Sometimes being an asshole is necessary. I'm just saying you should realize that:
1. You are actually fallible
2. This is exactly the type of thinking that lead to people like Hitchens and to a lesser extent Dawkins(both of whom I think you don't especially like) doing what they were/are doing.

smarter than most people != perfect obviously i'm fallible.

i don't approve of dawkins and hitchens being assholes, because i disagree with them. in my opinion, their failure to argue their views stronger than i can argue mine give me a right to criticize them, ESPECIALLY because their actions are very influential and can be damaging to society if they turn out to be incorrect.

on the contrary, someone like saxi (who is a HUGE asshole to certain people who disagree with him) mostly avoids my anger because i agree with him far more often. most of our disagreements stem from the fact that his moral values and rules are higher-level and more numerous than mine (e.g. he believes that you should not kill an extremely evil person because killing is wrong, and i believe that killing them might be okay if it ends up making more people happy in the end). sure, i may be more of a moral relativist than he is, but our disagreements on value theory don't translate into a sizable difference in our actions, so i tolerate him.

btw, i don't act like a smug bastard around people, but i'm honest enough to admit that that's only because i don't want people forming a negative opinion of me, and not because they don't need to be called out when they're being stupid or selfish.

Basically you are saying that you're acting selfishly, but people should still be ruthlessly called out for acting selfishly. Just not by you, cause that would be inconvenient.
This is the problem with double standards.

see above... my selfish actions don't affect others in a negative way, so that makes them fundamentally different from people who outwardly disrespect others. my selfishness in not acting like a smug bastard results in a net positive for everyone involved, so it's an acceptable form of selfishness. if someone cuts in front of me in line, that's an act of selfishness that affects others in a negative way. that's what i will call people out on.

[Funkyterrance]

Sounded to me like John was claiming to be morally superior, not intellectually superior, which he arguably could be. Hell, he could be superior in both ways but it was the moral part he seemed to be referencing.

[john9blue]

yeah, but most of the time moral failures occur because the person isn't intelligent enough to understand why their action is wrong. moral reasoning is a type of intelligence and correlates with overall intelligence.

[Funkyterrance]

yeah, but most of the time moral failures occur because the person isn't intelligent enough to understand why their action is wrong. moral reasoning is a type of intelligence and correlates with overall intelligence.

Hmm, this is debatable. I agree that intelligence affects one's ability to reason morally but I also think that stubbornness has a lot to do with it and of course pride.

[fadedpsychosis]

throwing my two bits in, though haggis is doing a fine job without me *l*
I'd be very careful in assuming you're better than anyone in any way, even if you know that you excel in something above most of the rest... there's always a bigger fish as it were. I myself am not unintelligent, but have found people who can run circles around me intellectually in fields I excel in... quite the pin to the balloon of my arrogance I can tell you. also, just because no-one has proved they think a certain way about certain things, doesn't mean that they don't... they themselves may feel superior enough that they feel they don't have to prove anything to the likes of you... or they may just not want to share that part of themselves with the faceless mob on the internet

anyway, not condemning anyone here, and in fact am rather enjoying watching both sides of this conversation unfold. carry on!

[Haggis_McMutton]

yeah, it wouldn't have happened if you had said "i'm smarter than you and therefore i'm right and arguing with you is a waste of time"

but even i don't do that... in fact, i hate it when people dismiss others without giving their reasons... this is why i like night strike and player, even though i disagree with them: they always make an effort to explain themselves.

and i love hearing perspectives from people who have totally different experiences and knowledge than i do (e.g. listening to BBS talk about economics or neo talk about biology). i recognize that i often don't have the factual knowledge necessary to compete, even if i can think critically.

So then you don't "treat the average person as if they aren't as smart as me", like you said before?
My point was, that if you actually had such an attitude (even if you try to hide it for the sake of social conventions), it would actually be harmful to both your social interactions and to your ability to develop your intellect. (unless your idea of developing your intellect is going in a cave and thinking about stuff for 20 years)

but when people try to spread uninformed and illogical opinions about something that i actually know about... i lose respect for them. morality is one of those areas.

I find it odd that you talk about knowledge of morality in the same way you would talk about knowledge of compiler construction. Morality doesn't seem to me to be in the category of concrete empirical based knowledge just yet.
How exactly will you use reason to show that a suicide bomber's morality is fucked up when they are convinced that they are an instrument of god's will? Could they not actually be that?

good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

well... i'm a human, so of course it's at least a little bit subjective. but part of being a good thinker is (like i said above) removing the irrationality from our arguments. if somebody can't even do that (and this even applies to the "i've felt god in my life, so he must be real" people) then i'm gonna have a hard time taking them seriously.

Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

So I generally try to keep some humility and an open mind. I mean sure, if you're arguing for a personal god, or homeopathy I'm gonna blast you pretty hard, but I won't go as far as to say that unless your world view corresponds to my standards of rationality then you're spouting bullshit.

i don't approve of dawkins and hitchens being assholes, because i disagree with them. in my opinion, their failure to argue their views stronger than i can argue mine give me a right to criticize them, ESPECIALLY because their actions are very influential and can be damaging to society if they turn out to be incorrect.

on the contrary, someone like saxi (who is a HUGE asshole to certain people who disagree with him) mostly avoids my anger because i agree with him far more often. most of our disagreements stem from the fact that his moral values and rules are higher-level and more numerous than mine (e.g. he believes that you should not kill an extremely evil person because killing is wrong, and i believe that killing them might be okay if it ends up making more people happy in the end). sure, i may be more of a moral relativist than he is, but our disagreements on value theory don't translate into a sizable difference in our actions, so i tolerate him.

So this is the double standard again at work, I take it?
The only difference between assholes you approve of and assholes you don't approve of is dictated by whether or not you agree with them?

Btw. not to sidetrack too much, but one reason people like Hitchens may seem to not have very sophisticated views is because they aren't arguing to the elites. They are trying to reach the people that are still at a pre-rational level.
And since you've mentioned damage to society, this is one of the main reasons I've often been very annoyed with your posts( hell you're probably the only person here to have gotten me close to angry ). Why you think it is in any way acceptable to compare people like Hitchens to religious fundamentalists is beyond me.
On the one hand we are talking about people at the pre-rational level, people who literally cannot afford to entertain the notion that their god isn't there because that is the pillar of their whole life, people who would gladly die kill and maim rather than lose that pillar. On the other hand we're talking about a cambridge educated ex-trotskyist prolific writer whose strongest conviction seems to be an anti-totalitarian one. (that and good booze)
We live in a world where there is still very much religious hate and very many people suffering because of religious beliefs, and you just love condemning the people trying to shake things up and introduce the notion that the guy up there might not be worth killing and dying for. Though I definitely wouldn't be a vocal atheist to that extent myself, the need for there to be vocal atheists next to the pre-existing vocal Christians and vocal Muslims and so on seems pretty obvious to me. Until we can get rid of all of them at least.

see above... my selfish actions don't affect others in a negative way, so that makes them fundamentally different from people who outwardly disrespect others. my selfishness in not acting like a smug bastard results in a net positive for everyone involved, so it's an acceptable form of selfishness. if someone cuts in front of me in line, that's an act of selfishness that affects others in a negative way. that's what i will call people out on.

So then it's not selfishness you dislike, it's actions that negatively affect other people.
Are you a pure utilitarian? If so what is the good we are maximizing, total human happiness ?
Also, do you believe it is just intelligence that is missing from making this a perfect society ?
Like say we make the average IQ 160, is that a perfect society?

f*ck, that was long. I think it's called active procrastination or something.

[fadedpsychosis]

whee!! I had to double check the OP so I knew what the topic was so I don't derail it completely...

yeah, it wouldn't have happened if you had said "i'm smarter than you and therefore i'm right and arguing with you is a waste of time"

but even i don't do that... in fact, i hate it when people dismiss others without giving their reasons... this is why i like night strike and player, even though i disagree with them: they always make an effort to explain themselves.

and i love hearing perspectives from people who have totally different experiences and knowledge than i do (e.g. listening to BBS talk about economics or neo talk about biology). i recognize that i often don't have the factual knowledge necessary to compete, even if i can think critically.

So then you don't "treat the average person as if they aren't as smart as me", like you said before?
My point was, that if you actually had such an attitude (even if you try to hide it for the sake of social conventions), it would actually be harmful to both your social interactions and to your ability to develop your intellect. (unless your idea of developing your intellect is going in a cave and thinking about stuff for 20 years)

some people actually do go off on their own and think about things without social interaction to gain enlightenment, but I get the feeling that's not the case with jb here (for one thing he wouldn't be on the internet). truth can be found just about anywhere and from just about anyone... it's why I too was cautioning earlier about thinking too highly of one's self... a little self confidence is one thing, hubris is another, and one must be careful not to cross the line

but when people try to spread uninformed and illogical opinions about something that i actually know about... i lose respect for them. morality is one of those areas.

I find it odd that you talk about knowledge of morality in the same way you would talk about knowledge of compiler construction. Morality doesn't seem to me to be in the category of concrete empirical based knowledge just yet.
How exactly will you use reason to show that a suicide bomber's morality is fucked up when they are convinced that they are an instrument of god's will? Could they not actually be that?

as long as people have been studying what we call philosophy today, we still have little concrete evidence for even a simple thing as the existence of emotion. I find it too far a stretch of the imagination for one man to be able to claim they can empirically show one man's morality is better than another's in a way that both sides could agree on in all cases. individual cases aside, the emotive processes of humankind run on separate tracks from the cognitive ones, and not everyone will be able to reconcile them (and in my opinion very few ever truly completely divide them... not even our resident vulcan)

good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

an interesting side track none the less and one I'd like to discuss, but perhaps in another thread

well... i'm a human, so of course it's at least a little bit subjective. but part of being a good thinker is (like i said above) removing the irrationality from our arguments. if somebody can't even do that (and this even applies to the "i've felt god in my life, so he must be real" people) then i'm gonna have a hard time taking them seriously.

Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

So I generally try to keep some humility and an open mind. I mean sure, if you're arguing for a personal god, or homeopathy I'm gonna blast you pretty hard, but I won't go as far as to say that unless your world view corresponds to my standards of rationality then you're spouting bullshit.

I like your use of Santas in this one, and will have to bring it up in the thread I'll make that I mentioned above

i don't approve of dawkins and hitchens being assholes, because i disagree with them. in my opinion, their failure to argue their views stronger than i can argue mine give me a right to criticize them, ESPECIALLY because their actions are very influential and can be damaging to society if they turn out to be incorrect.

on the contrary, someone like saxi (who is a HUGE asshole to certain people who disagree with him) mostly avoids my anger because i agree with him far more often. most of our disagreements stem from the fact that his moral values and rules are higher-level and more numerous than mine (e.g. he believes that you should not kill an extremely evil person because killing is wrong, and i believe that killing them might be okay if it ends up making more people happy in the end). sure, i may be more of a moral relativist than he is, but our disagreements on value theory don't translate into a sizable difference in our actions, so i tolerate him.

So this is the double standard again at work, I take it?
The only difference between assholes you approve of and assholes you don't approve of is dictated by whether or not you agree with them?

I'm going to let the psych majors handle this one...

not to sidetrack too much, but one reason people like Hitchens may seem to not have very sophisticated views is because they aren't arguing to the elites. They are trying to reach the people that are still at a pre-rational level.
And since you've mentioned damage to society, this is one of the main reasons I've often been very annoyed with your posts( hell you're probably the only person here to have gotten me close to angry ). Why you think it is in any way acceptable to compare people like Hitchens to religious fundamentalists is beyond me.
On the one hand we are talking about people at the pre-rational level, people who literally cannot afford to entertain the notion that their god isn't there because that is the pillar of their whole life, people who would gladly die kill and maim rather than lose that pillar. On the other hand we're talking about a cambridge educated ex-trotskyist prolific writer whose strongest conviction seems to be an anti-totalitarian one. (that and good booze)
We live in a world where there is still very much religious hate and very many people suffering because of religious beliefs, and you just love condemning the people trying to shake things up and introduce the notion that the guy up there might not be worth killing and dying for. Though I definitely wouldn't be a vocal atheist to that extent myself, the need for there to be vocal atheists next to the pre-existing vocal Christians and vocal Muslims and so on seems pretty obvious to me. Until we can get rid of all of them at least.

I know next to nothing about hitchens other than what a google search and a quick scan of wikipedia brought up, so I'm skipping over that particular part... I do want to say however that there is a significant difference between a very vocal theist or atheist and a fundamentalist one (yes I think there are such things as fundamentalist atheists... they're rare, but they exist)

see above... my selfish actions don't affect others in a negative way, so that makes them fundamentally different from people who outwardly disrespect others. my selfishness in not acting like a smug bastard results in a net positive for everyone involved, so it's an acceptable form of selfishness. if someone cuts in front of me in line, that's an act of selfishness that affects others in a negative way. that's what i will call people out on.

So then it's not selfishness you dislike, it's actions that negatively affect other people.
Are you a pure utilitarian? If so what is the good we are maximizing, total human happiness ?
Also, do you believe it is just intelligence that is missing from making this a perfect society ?
Like say we make the average IQ 160, is that a perfect society?

f*ck, that was long. I think it's called active procrastination or something.

are we aiming for Plato's ideals of a society led by philosopher-kings here?

[john9blue]

So then you don't "treat the average person as if they aren't as smart as me", like you said before?
My point was, that if you actually had such an attitude (even if you try to hide it for the sake of social conventions), it would actually be harmful to both your social interactions and to your ability to develop your intellect. (unless your idea of developing your intellect is going in a cave and thinking about stuff for 20 years)

i think treating the average person as if they had equal intelligence would be even worse for social interaction. that is the kind of person that takes conversations into obscure directions and complicated tangents and is totally unaware that people are bored of listening to them.

I find it odd that you talk about knowledge of morality in the same way you would talk about knowledge of compiler construction. Morality doesn't seem to me to be in the category of concrete empirical based knowledge just yet.
How exactly will you use reason to show that a suicide bomber's morality is fucked up when they are convinced that they are an instrument of god's will? Could they not actually be that?

you don't think moral theories use logical reasoning? or are you a complete moral relativist?

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

happens to me too...

i haven't heard about the meditation thing. has it been replicated experimentally?

Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

So I generally try to keep some humility and an open mind. I mean sure, if you're arguing for a personal god, or homeopathy I'm gonna blast you pretty hard, but I won't go as far as to say that unless your world view corresponds to my standards of rationality then you're spouting bullshit.

i'm not perfect at being 100% rational, but i am better at it than the average joe.

also, keeping an open mind and not trusting the reasoning of most people are not mutually exclusive. the problem is that most people don't even bother to explain their views to any reasonable extent... it will usually be something shallow like "i hate gay marriage because it violates the laws of nature". i'm not being closed-minded if i have a logical reason for rejecting that (other species have demonstrated homosexuality). i'm also not being closed-minded if i realize that the vast majority of people's dissenting views follow the same pattern, and that i shouldn't take them seriously. i'm just drawing a conclusion from what i see and hear.

i would be "closed-minded" if i pulled a biden and laughed off people's attempts to give me reasons why i am wrong.

p.s. no offense, but judging by your santa story, i think you would be a hardcore religious believer right now if you were a less skeptical person.

So this is the double standard again at work, I take it?
The only difference between assholes you approve of and assholes you don't approve of is dictated by whether or not you agree with them?

Btw. not to sidetrack too much, but one reason people like Hitchens may seem to not have very sophisticated views is because they aren't arguing to the elites. They are trying to reach the people that are still at a pre-rational level.
And since you've mentioned damage to society, this is one of the main reasons I've often been very annoyed with your posts( hell you're probably the only person here to have gotten me close to angry ). Why you think it is in any way acceptable to compare people like Hitchens to religious fundamentalists is beyond me.
On the one hand we are talking about people at the pre-rational level, people who literally cannot afford to entertain the notion that their god isn't there because that is the pillar of their whole life, people who would gladly die kill and maim rather than lose that pillar. On the other hand we're talking about a cambridge educated ex-trotskyist prolific writer whose strongest conviction seems to be an anti-totalitarian one. (that and good booze)
We live in a world where there is still very much religious hate and very many people suffering because of religious beliefs, and you just love condemning the people trying to shake things up and introduce the notion that the guy up there might not be worth killing and dying for. Though I definitely wouldn't be a vocal atheist to that extent myself, the need for there to be vocal atheists next to the pre-existing vocal Christians and vocal Muslims and so on seems pretty obvious to me. Until we can get rid of all of them at least.

of course that's my double standard... people who agree with me more often about other things are more likely to agree with my moral views. there's a correlation between the two.

i am of the opinion (as i said earlier) that people do good things largely because that is what they have been taught to do. morality in a society consists of "rules of thumb" like don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc. there are exceptions (killing baby hitler) but for the most part, our species is better off following these rules.

i agree that the most extreme religious fumdamentalists are worse for society than the most extreme atheists. but you're missing the big picture: religion reinforces societal mores and teaches people to act in ways that benefit society, even if they don't realize that they are benefiting society. even individual people that aren't religious, living in a society that has separation of church and state, still are influenced by the pervasive ("poisonous" to those who think society doesn't need it) influence of religion. i might go so far as to say that a given society's religion is a good indicator of its success (i've argued about this in other threads).

you shouldn't judge religion, or anything else, by only its extremists. most people who are tolerant of islam for this reason seem to ignore it entirely when it comes to christianity.

sidetracked...

So then it's not selfishness you dislike, it's actions that negatively affect other people.
Are you a pure utilitarian? If so what is the good we are maximizing, total human happiness ?
Also, do you believe it is just intelligence that is missing from making this a perfect society ?
Like say we make the average IQ 160, is that a perfect society?

f*ck, that was long. I think it's called active procrastination or something.

i guess you could call me a utilitarian. i'm not perfect though. in fact, that's one of the major criticisms of utilitarianism ("it's tooo haaaaard!")

i think IQ correlates with moral reasoning, but obviously there are some very smart people that do things that i view as immoral... so i'll answer "no" even though a higher average IQ would almost definitely improve society

[nietzsche]

You say that like it's something bad john, to have low IQ. I'm sorry that's pretty much like racism.

The world is full of nice people that aren't super smart.

Maybe you should use your intelligence to understand that fact?

In my experience, and I say it because I've made those mistakes myself, when one complains about the world and other people we're basically using the idea that they don't deserve us as a pretext not to try harder. There's also the other side, when we feel that we are not worth of this world, that we are inadequate, and that serves the same purpose, to not try harder.

[2dimes]

So... I'll just hang out at the swim up bar by myself then?

[BigBallinStalin]

good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

It's some kind of release. "Satori" is the Japanese anglicized word for that state of enlightenment through Zen Buddhism. Similar experiences are seen with Christians and other theists who pray intensely and frequently.

It's like thinking about something for a very long time, and then suddenly, a realization. What does it mean? Meaning can't be expressed--in an intelligible manner. Is that empiricism? It's difficult to say since satori does not leave you with a conclusion, but it may provide an ending or fulfillment.

'Through contradiction, knowledge can be gained,' is probably an apt way of describing Zen Buddhism.

i don't approve of dawkins and hitchens being assholes, because i disagree with them. in my opinion, their failure to argue their views stronger than i can argue mine give me a right to criticize them, ESPECIALLY because their actions are very influential and can be damaging to society if they turn out to be incorrect.

on the contrary, someone like saxi (who is a HUGE asshole to certain people who disagree with him) mostly avoids my anger because i agree with him far more often. most of our disagreements stem from the fact that his moral values and rules are higher-level and more numerous than mine (e.g. he believes that you should not kill an extremely evil person because killing is wrong, and i believe that killing them might be okay if it ends up making more people happy in the end). sure, i may be more of a moral relativist than he is, but our disagreements on value theory don't translate into a sizable difference in our actions, so i tolerate him.

So this is the double standard again at work, I take it?
The only difference between assholes you approve of and assholes you don't approve of is dictated by whether or not you agree with them?

Btw. not to sidetrack too much, but one reason people like Hitchens may seem to not have very sophisticated views is because they aren't arguing to the elites. They are trying to reach the people that are still at a pre-rational level.
And since you've mentioned damage to society, this is one of the main reasons I've often been very annoyed with your posts( hell you're probably the only person here to have gotten me close to angry ). Why you think it is in any way acceptable to compare people like Hitchens to religious fundamentalists is beyond me.
On the one hand we are talking about people at the pre-rational level, people who literally cannot afford to entertain the notion that their god isn't there because that is the pillar of their whole life, people who would gladly die kill and maim rather than lose that pillar. On the other hand we're talking about a cambridge educated ex-trotskyist prolific writer whose strongest conviction seems to be an anti-totalitarian one. (that and good booze)
We live in a world where there is still very much religious hate and very many people suffering because of religious beliefs, and you just love condemning the people trying to shake things up and introduce the notion that the guy up there might not be worth killing and dying for. Though I definitely wouldn't be a vocal atheist to that extent myself, the need for there to be vocal atheists next to the pre-existing vocal Christians and vocal Muslims and so on seems pretty obvious to me. Until we can get rid of all of them at least.

Word. Benchmarks are useful.

[BigBallinStalin]

I find it odd that you talk about knowledge of morality in the same way you would talk about knowledge of compiler construction. Morality doesn't seem to me to be in the category of concrete empirical based knowledge just yet.
How exactly will you use reason to show that a suicide bomber's morality is fucked up when they are convinced that they are an instrument of god's will? Could they not actually be that?

you don't think moral theories use logical reasoning? or are you a complete moral relativist?

He's not saying 'moral theories don't use logical reasoning.' He's saying that the knowledge of morality is not similar to 'concrete empirically based knowledge.'

The point of his question is to get you to lay out a general argument against suicide bombing. So, if you took the time to answer the question, he could show you what he means. Why not answer the question or explain how knowledge of morality is within the category of 'concrete empirically based knowledge.' Why not open yourself up to the possibility of being criticized and then learning?

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

happens to me too...

i haven't heard about the meditation thing. has it been replicated experimentally?

Not satori, but there have been studies on meditation, which is a building-block to satori.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/meditation-0505.html

So this is the double standard again at work, I take it?
The only difference between assholes you approve of and assholes you don't approve of is dictated by whether or not you agree with them?

Btw. not to sidetrack too much, but one reason people like Hitchens may seem to not have very sophisticated views is because they aren't arguing to the elites. They are trying to reach the people that are still at a pre-rational level.
And since you've mentioned damage to society, this is one of the main reasons I've often been very annoyed with your posts( hell you're probably the only person here to have gotten me close to angry ). Why you think it is in any way acceptable to compare people like Hitchens to religious fundamentalists is beyond me.
On the one hand we are talking about people at the pre-rational level, people who literally cannot afford to entertain the notion that their god isn't there because that is the pillar of their whole life, people who would gladly die kill and maim rather than lose that pillar. On the other hand we're talking about a cambridge educated ex-trotskyist prolific writer whose strongest conviction seems to be an anti-totalitarian one. (that and good booze)
We live in a world where there is still very much religious hate and very many people suffering because of religious beliefs, and you just love condemning the people trying to shake things up and introduce the notion that the guy up there might not be worth killing and dying for. Though I definitely wouldn't be a vocal atheist to that extent myself, the need for there to be vocal atheists next to the pre-existing vocal Christians and vocal Muslims and so on seems pretty obvious to me. Until we can get rid of all of them at least.

of course that's my double standard... people who agree with me more often about other things are more likely to agree with my moral views. there's a correlation between the two.

i am of the opinion (as i said earlier) that people do good things largely because that is what they have been taught to do. morality in a society consists of "rules of thumb" like don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc. there are exceptions (killing baby hitler) but for the most part, our species is better off following these rules.

i agree that the most extreme religious fumdamentalists are worse for society than the most extreme atheists. but you're missing the big picture: religion reinforces societal mores and teaches people to act in ways that benefit society, even if they don't realize that they are benefiting society. even individual people that aren't religious, living in a society that has separation of church and state, still are influenced by the pervasive ("poisonous" to those who think society doesn't need it) influence of religion. i might go so far as to say that a given society's religion is a good indicator of its success (i've argued about this in other threads).

you shouldn't judge religion, or anything else, by only its extremists. most people who are tolerant of islam for this reason seem to ignore it entirely when it comes to christianity.

sidetracked...

Sorry to butt in here, but you're giving religion too much credit with the creation and enforcement/following of informal and formal rules. There are other factors/sources of such rules. No one is denying that some believers, by following the religious rules/expectations, lead themselves to good outcomes. Eventually, I see most religions being slowly phases out as people seek more 'profitable' substitutes.

So then it's not selfishness you dislike, it's actions that negatively affect other people.
Are you a pure utilitarian? If so what is the good we are maximizing, total human happiness ?
Also, do you believe it is just intelligence that is missing from making this a perfect society ?
Like say we make the average IQ 160, is that a perfect society?

f*ck, that was long. I think it's called active procrastination or something.

i guess you could call me a utilitarian. i'm not perfect though. in fact, that's one of the major criticisms of utilitarianism ("it's tooo haaaaard!")

i think IQ correlates with moral reasoning, but obviously there are some very smart people that do things that i view as immoral... so i'll answer "no" even though a higher average IQ would almost definitely improve society

Well, utilitarianism is nonsense. People's utilities or happiness are not the same, so maximizing them all leads to contradictory/impossible outcomes---and comparing happiness or utility across individuals is impossible or would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Then there's the inability to measure happiness and the problem of defining happiness.

Suppose Haggis, you, and me wanted to achieve the utilitarian outcome among us in this debate. Haggis and I would be much happier if you quit posting, but you would feel less happy if you had to comply. Nevertheless, the Haggis-BBS happiness outweighs your happiness; therefore, in order to be good utilitarians, you'll have to stop posting.

It's not that utilitarianism is "tooo haaaard!" Rather, it's nonsensical.

[Funkyterrance]

Well, utilitarianism is nonsense. People's utilities or happiness are not the same, so maximizing them all leads to contradictory/impossible outcomes---and comparing happiness or utility across individuals is impossible or would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Then there's the inability to measure happiness and the problem of defining happiness.

Suppose Haggis, you, and me wanted to achieve the utilitarian outcome among us in this debate. Haggis and I would be much happier if you quit posting, but you would feel less happy if you had to comply. Nevertheless, the Haggis-BBS happiness outweighs your happiness; therefore, in order to be good utilitarians, you'll have to stop posting.

It's not that utilitarianism is "tooo haaaard!" Rather, it's nonsensical.

Democracy is a utilitarian concept and it seems to be pretty popular. Anyway, I think your Util conversion chart is off.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, utilitarianism is nonsense. People's utilities or happiness are not the same, so maximizing them all leads to contradictory/impossible outcomes---and comparing happiness or utility across individuals is impossible or would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Then there's the inability to measure happiness and the problem of defining happiness.

Suppose Haggis, you, and me wanted to achieve the utilitarian outcome among us in this debate. Haggis and I would be much happier if you quit posting, but you would feel less happy if you had to comply. Nevertheless, the Haggis-BBS happiness outweighs your happiness; therefore, in order to be good utilitarians, you'll have to stop posting.

It's not that utilitarianism is "tooo haaaard!" Rather, it's nonsensical.

Democracy is a utilitarian concept and it seems to be pretty popular. Anyway, I think your Util conversion chart is off.

Democracy != utilitarianism

And (re: underlined)


No urs is.

"No urs is."

No urs is.

"No urs is."

Therefore, utilitarianism is silly.

[Funkyterrance]

Democracy is a utilitarian concept and it seems to be pretty popular. Anyway, I think your Util conversion chart is off.

Democracy != utilitarianism

And (re: underlined)


No urs is.

"No urs is."

No urs is.

"No urs is."

Therefore, utilitarianism is silly.

If the vote involves only two voters, yeah it's got the makings for a silly system but this is rarely the case, no? For some reason this system seems fair and appeals to a lot of people so please don't kill the messenger lol. I don't think you will be very successful fighting against the impulsive nature of human beings. The thing about democracy is that its not obviously utilitarian to a lot of people and therefore gets people to commit to a decision whether or not the result is "fair". Deliberation becomes less important because the temptation of getting things completely our way is so very tempting.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think you know what utilitarianism means.

It's not just about voting. It's about making interpersonal comparisons of utility/happiness, which is beyond the scope of democracy.

[Funkyterrance]

I don't think you know what utilitarianism means.

It's not just about voting. It's about making interpersonal comparisons of utility/happiness, which is beyond the scope of democracy.

I think I do. It means a system where the "amount of good" is used to determine whether or not a practice is morally correct. If the quantity of pleasure/goodness that the collective gets out of a system is greater than the amount of displeasure/badness then its morally correct.
I am flipping back and forth between utilitarianism and democracy in the conversation but I assume you realize when I do so. The correlation is that democracy can superficially appear as a utilitarian process. In actuality its not necessarily so but its easy to fall prey to believing that it is.
Also, since you mentioned that you can't actually prove what is actually a utilitarian decision, wouldn't democracy be the only realistic gauge to the closeness of a utilitarianism decision? Therefore, democracy is just our closest substitute for the real thing.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think you know what utilitarianism means.

It's not just about voting. It's about making interpersonal comparisons of utility/happiness, which is beyond the scope of democracy.

I think I do. It means a system where the "amount of good" is used to determine whether or not a practice is morally correct. If the quantity of pleasure/goodness that the collective gets out of a system is greater than the amount of displeasure/badness then its morally correct.

I am flipping back and forth between utilitarianism and democracy in the conversation but I assume you realize when I do so. The correlation is that democracy can superficially appear as a utilitarian process. In actuality its not necessarily so but its easy to fall prey to believing that it is.
Also, since you mentioned that you can't actually prove what is actually a utilitarian decision, wouldn't democracy be the only realistic gauge to the closeness of a utilitarianism decision? Therefore, democracy is just our closest substitute for the real thing.

Hopefully, we can admit that there's a difference between democracy (however vague that is) and utilitarianism, and that I'm discussing utilitarianism which is distinct from democracy.

How are these two related for you?

Regarding what my stance has been: (1) It's impossible to make interpersonal comparisons of utility/happiness, and (2) utilitarianism leads to unacceptable/contradictory outcomes (i.e. in some cases, happiness increases for a few at the expense of others).

Democracy isn't the only realistic gauge for reflecting happiness (from the utilitarian perspective). If the majority could vote on extracting the wealth of the few, then they'd be happy in the short-run, until of course the rich leave, production drops, and their economy becomes shit (thus no happiness) (see: Greece, Spain, etc., or ask all the young unemployed in the Eurozone). Making decisions in which the costs are externalized cannot accurately reflect the value of one's happiness.

The best institution for maximizing happiness in general for more people increasingly over time is the market--not democracy.

[Funkyterrance]

Hopefully, we can admit that there's a difference between democracy (however vague that is) and utilitarianism, and that I'm discussing utilitarianism which is distinct from democracy.

How are these two related for you?

Like I mentioned above, democracy is the next best thing since we cannot conceivably at this point in time measure the amount of goodness/badness in a system, decision, etc.. Why go in depth discussing actual utilitarianism since we both agree its impossible to determine? We can however, discuss which real life method is closest to getting the desired benefit of utilitarianism. While I don't necessarily subscribe to utilitarianism, I am arguing that its certainly not a nonsensical notion.

Democracy isn't the only realistic gauge for reflecting happiness (from the utilitarian perspective). If the majority could vote on extracting the wealth of the few, then they'd be happy in the short-run, until of course the rich leave, production drops, and their economy becomes shit (thus no happiness) (see: Greece, Spain, etc., or ask all the young unemployed in the Eurozone). Making decisions in which the costs are externalized cannot accurately reflect the value of one's happiness.

The best institution for maximizing happiness in general for more people increasingly over time is the market--not democracy.

But isn't what is sought is a method to predict the goodness/badness of a situation, not find out after the fact? Once the market is determined it's usually a moot point. In reality as we know it we rarely have time to wait for the "market" to settle or trend before we make a decision. Also, your Eurozone example assumes an uninformed voting population but that's not the ideal model. Ideally the participants are well informed. I think if we are going to discuss the benefits of each model we should be fair and non-biased in the examples. I realize you are using the example to prove that in at least some scenarios democracy is a bad gauge of utility but no system is perfect and gets the best prediction 100% of the time.
Democracy gives us the closest gauge we have to making a utilitarian decision before the fact with the added benefit of prompt results and the involvement of everyone affected(how much happiness does this aspect give to both sides?).
At any rate, market research only shows us the trends of those who participate in it so it isn't really an accurate collective happiness/unhappiness meter. I'll even submit to your debatable statement that increased money=increased happiness but completely destitute people don't hardly affect the market and they certainly have their share of unhappiness.

[BigBallinStalin]

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

[Funkyterrance]

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

[BigBallinStalin]

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

[Funkyterrance]

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

No but I thought we agreed that was impossible and to settle for the next best thing to a completely utilitarian outcome or at least the best gauge for a prediction? Are you multitasking or something?
I realize I am making it harder to snake around the subject but I'm looking to more forward here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

No but I thought we agreed that was impossible and to settle for the next best thing to a completely utilitarian outcome or at least the best gauge for a prediction? Are you multitasking or something?
I realize I am making it harder to snake around the subject but I'm looking to more forward here.

Me too, so let's review a little. (tbh, I've been wanting to avoid this discussion, but I'll say what I'll say, and see what happens).

"Like I mentioned above, democracy is the next best thing since we cannot conceivably at this point in time measure the amount of goodness/badness in a system, decision, etc.. "

No, cuz markets.


Then,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179401&start=120#p3926947

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

You can't assume the fundamental problems away. Voters can't be made informed by simply dumping information into them. They have to have the incentive to become more informed, but the benefits fail to offset the costs. In order to become an informed voter, one would have to understand all the major social sciences and have real life experience of the political. So, give or take 8 years of training, and they'll be informed?

The incentives don't line up, and besides, the costs of public policy is dispersed onto the many, while the benefits are concentrated to certain groups (e.g. interest groups). We're talking about a system which has perverse incentives and distorted rules of the game that involve zero-sum exchanges. In no way is this a 2nd best gauge for determining/reflecting happiness--as demanded by utilitarianism.



Here's more on markets v. democratic institutions

Democracy isn't the only realistic gauge for reflecting happiness (from the utilitarian perspective). If the majority could vote on extracting the wealth of the few, then they'd be happy in the short-run, until of course the rich leave, production drops, and their economy becomes shit (thus no happiness) (see: Greece, Spain, etc., or ask all the young unemployed in the Eurozone). Making decisions in which the costs are externalized cannot accurately reflect the value of one's happiness.

The best institution for maximizing happiness in general for more people increasingly over time is the market--not democracy.

But isn't what is sought is a method to predict the goodness/badness of a situation, not find out after the fact? Once the market is determined it's usually a moot point. In reality as we know it we rarely have time to wait for the "market" to settle or trend before we make a decision. Also, your Eurozone example assumes an uninformed voting population but that's not the ideal model. Ideally the participants are well informed. I think if we are going to discuss the benefits of each model we should be fair and non-biased in the examples. I realize you are using the example to prove that in at least some scenarios democracy is a bad gauge of utility but no system is perfect and gets the best prediction 100% of the time.
Democracy gives us the closest gauge we have to making a utilitarian decision before the fact with the added benefit of prompt results and the involvement of everyone affected(how much happiness does this aspect give to both sides?).
At any rate, market research only shows us the trends of those who participate in it so it isn't really an accurate collective happiness/unhappiness meter. I'll even submit to your debatable statement that increased money=increased happiness but completely destitute people don't hardly affect the market and they certainly have their share of unhappiness.

Markets aren't 'determined'. They're constantly in flux with consumer preferences if the exchanges are voluntary and perceived as mutually beneficial. If they aren't, then on the margin people opt for less or choose other producers. Prices are the feedback mechanism for rational decision making, and profit and loss provide the incentives which tend to align self-interests with general interest. With majority rule, you don't get any of this, and you definitely don't get voluntary exchanges that reflect people's cost and benefits. It's a vote--an expressed preference for a political package which may or may not be delivered, but that doesn't matter because rhetoric matters.

The exchanges are involuntary (e.g. taxes), so the majority votes on how to spend other people's money. Such decisions don't reflect the costs of their own consequences from their votes or from their preferences (the costs are externalized; they're partially removed from your own benefit-cost analysis).


It's like those silly surveys which declare that people want more Medicare. The question is:

"Should Americans have more Medicare?" (or, the sugar-coated version:)
"Should the government provide necessary services for the elderly?"

Many say yes, but what's missing? Oh, right, the money.

"Should the government provide Medicare by taking 5% of your income?" (then repeat for each main package of the government).

Obviously, people will not be as favorable to this survey when the costs of their decisions are actually reflected (i.e. the costs are internalized).

And that's just stated preferences from voting. The consequences of public policy are dispersed, so that problem is unavoidable. It goes on and on, but there's no way that democracy is a 2nd best gauge for reflecting happiness for the many.

[Funkyterrance]

Hmm, I'm starting to think that we are each referring to democracy as a different animal. I am referring to a democracy only so much in a system in that a majority rules, not the form of government.
I'm also starting to wonder if the question really is one of faith in your fellow man? I feel that someone who is well-informed would not necessarily have to understand all the workings of government, just have all the facts involved in order to make the decision. You mentioned the silly survey example; why not have the voters vote on the clarified version you gave instead of the sugar coated, incomplete one? Basically I'm proposing that the average citizen has enough common sense to take a proposal formed in a non-biased, lucid way and figure out whether or not they would be happiest if said proposal were passed or not.
I also think that corruption should be considered when deciding which method(democracy vs. market) would provide a closer representation of the true utility of a proposal. Its a lot easier to fudge numbers than it is to fudge issues.
P.S- Forgive me for not reading the links atm, it's rather late and I wanted to answer at least something for now since you good-naturedly and painstakingly replied in such a prompt manner.