Conquer Club

You 'ought' to behave this way

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby nietzsche on Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:08 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
nietzsche wrote:Mets:

You discuss philosophy and you decide which are the important questions. You disregard perfectly valid and unresolved matters of philosophy because, you want.

That you say something in a clearly matter and you have an edge on the discussing method doesn't make you right. I know you know it's not all there is to discuss and you clearly move the discussion to the plane where you want so that others think it's all there is to it. That is fucked up. I'd rather have an honest discussion than a debate I know I will win because my opponent doesn't know about a flaw in my arguments.


What you're saying is well thought, but it's not all there is about the topic. And I fucking know you know that.

The real big picture here is not that there's a solution that is being worked out by inteligent people and that others are not smart enough to catch up. The real big picture is that the more you ask, the deeper you go, the more baffling issues emerge, paradoxes and questions we don't have an answer yet, because the complexity surpases our ability to come up with a general answer to it.

It's of better use to identify the questions and make them clear so people can make decisions after an assesment, than to side with the one author that "intellectuals" point as being on the right because he's like them and talks like them and thinks in a linear manner like them.

I understand the value of thinking something has a solution, because it empowers one to find one instead of staying wandering in our heads. But the best you can achieve is a framework that works for a certain scope, a certain group of people. But if what you aim for is real understanding, to think this matter is solved already is shortsighted.


*yawn*

Yeah yeah, we can't know anything at all, the world is too complicated to understand yet. I know your shtick. But if someone comes and rapes your sister, I hope you do better than throw a philosophy book at him.


THat is not my point. My point is that you take one view and treat it as if it was the only one. It's not the case, there are many things to consider here, and that's what bothers me.

And if you don't like philosophy, that's fine, it's not for everyone, you should get a law degree, then you'll be hands on making laws.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:41 pm

crispybits wrote:So lets just pretend I'm totally stupid for a moment and spell out the difference between them instead of just giving me the wikipedia definition of morality...


Normative morality is about identifying what is universally 'right'.

Descriptive morality is just about identifying what various people consider to be 'right' and 'wrong'.

Both of these are different to the process of attempting to create and arrange a society in a utilitarian way.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:50 am

I think you're still just talking about roughly the same thing

I think your wording has changed slightly now, so lets go back to "a way for all of us to live together in a way that we can generally accept" (to keep things as close to the original terms of the question as possible - starting to talk about utility is not the same as talking about acceptability)

Can you think of an action that is morally wrong and yet would be deemed acceptable as a way for us all to live together (or vice versa)? It just seems to me that almost by definition an action that is generally acceptable (to everyone, remember we can't only consider one side of any equation) in whatever context and with whatever conditions attached is at worst morally neutral. While they are not exactly the same thing, they do have a really strong correlation and to me at least they don't seem to contradict each other.

Yes you could say that we could all be totally wrong about morality and something we consider acceptable could in fact be immoral in the normative sense, but we're operating within the bounds of the knowledge we do have. It seems pointless to me to say "well this is our best understanding but we could be wrong so we can't declare this action as wrong or right". All of our knowledge is tentative and open to change with new evidence/observations or better understanding, but we don't hedge our bets to that extent in any other area of knowledge. We don't say "our best undertanding of disease is germ theory but we could be wrong so we can't actually say that germs cause disease" - we just use our best understanding (and we keep looking for better).
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:34 am

Can you think of an action that is morally wrong and yet would be deemed acceptable as a way for us all to live together (or vice versa)?


In US society? Adultery seems to be considered 'immoral' by most Americans, and yet is not legislated against. The same for American companies exporting cluster bombs and land mines to war zones, or animal testing.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:14 am

You're changing the definition - you said "acceptable" not "no legislation against it". I doubt most would think that these things you have named are "acceptable", especially if they don't know what side of the equation they'll be on...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:25 am

crispybits wrote:You're changing the definition - you said "acceptable" not "no legislation against it". I doubt most would think that these things you have named are "acceptable", especially if they don't know what side of the equation they'll be on...


How are you quantifying what is and isn't deemed acceptable? I have met plenty of people who have absolutely no qualms about having a girlfriend/boyfriend and sleeping with other people at the same time. Ditto animal testing or the arms trade - lots of people really couldn't care less.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:53 am

mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:You're changing the definition - you said "acceptable" not "no legislation against it". I doubt most would think that these things you have named are "acceptable", especially if they don't know what side of the equation they'll be on...


How are you quantifying what is and isn't deemed acceptable? I have met plenty of people who have absolutely no qualms about having a girlfriend/boyfriend and sleeping with other people at the same time. Ditto animal testing or the arms trade - lots of people really couldn't care less.

These are precisely the questions that a morals debate seeks to answer. Are these things right or wrong in some objective sense? Is it just a matter of personal preference, or is there in fact some empirical yardstick by which these things can be measured?

So, far from disproving the need for a moral debate, you are starting to engage in one.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28158
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:11 am

Dukasaur wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:You're changing the definition - you said "acceptable" not "no legislation against it". I doubt most would think that these things you have named are "acceptable", especially if they don't know what side of the equation they'll be on...


How are you quantifying what is and isn't deemed acceptable? I have met plenty of people who have absolutely no qualms about having a girlfriend/boyfriend and sleeping with other people at the same time. Ditto animal testing or the arms trade - lots of people really couldn't care less.

These are precisely the questions that a morals debate seeks to answer. Are these things right or wrong in some objective sense? Is it just a matter of personal preference, or is there in fact some empirical yardstick by which these things can be measured?

So, far from disproving the need for a moral debate, you are starting to engage in one.


In my mind there is no debate. There is no objective yardstick for measuring 'right' and 'wrong'.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:03 pm

mrswdk wrote:In my mind there is no debate. There is no objective yardstick for measuring 'right' and 'wrong'.


You're not eliminating the debate by taking that position, you're just pinning your flag to one position.

Purely objectively speaking, do you think that the next rain storm in some random densely populated city like Delhi or Tokyo or New York being highly concentrated acid instead of water would be worse than if it was water, and whatever your answer why is that your answer? (note, not talking morally worse, just talking about objective reality)
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:40 pm

crispybits wrote:Purely objectively speaking, do you think that the next rain storm in some random densely populated city like Delhi or Tokyo or New York being highly concentrated acid instead of water would be worse than if it was water, and whatever your answer why is that your answer? (note, not talking morally worse, just talking about objective reality)


If it was in Beijing then that would be worse then water because that would end up forcing me to stay inside, damaging my scooter and possibly screwing up some part of the food supply.

If it was in Delhi, New York or Tokyo then it's totally irrelevant. If it was in Tokyo it might even be kinda funny :D
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:22 am

I think I've just worked out why you seem to be having so much trouble with this morality concept (assuming you're not just trolling). You're a psycopath. (and I mean that seriously, not as a kinda "you're an idiot" style ad hominem attack.)

There's no point trying to continue any kind of morality conversation with you because you lack the emotional tools to process the concepts involved properly and I think you really should seek out some therapy.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:27 am

crispybits wrote:I think I've just worked out why you seem to be having so much trouble with this morality concept (assuming you're not just trolling). You're a psycopath. (and I mean that seriously, not as a kinda "you're an idiot" style ad hominem attack.)

There's no point trying to continue any kind of morality conversation with you because you lack the emotional tools to process the concepts involved properly and I think you really should seek out some therapy.


Au contraire. I was reading an article the other day about how people who suffer damage to the part of their brain which processes emotion lose their decision-making ability, as emotional functionality is an essential component of decision-making (I can't find that particular article but there is a similar paper here). Given that I am perfectly capable of quickly making decisions in all areas of my life, we can therefore conclude that I obviously possess plenty of emotional tools.

In any case, I fail to see why having an emotional connection to the lives of complete strangers would make me better equipped to have this discussion with you. I had rather assumed we were having a logical debate.

I was joking about finding it funny if concentrated acid was rained on Tokyo, btw.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:36 am

Were you joking about it being irrelevant unless it was happening on top of you too?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:44 am

crispybits wrote:Were you joking about it being irrelevant unless it was happening on top of you too?


No. It would be. What relevance would an acid rain storm in Delhi have to my life?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:00 am

Then I stand by my diagnosis. You seem to think "objectively worse" means "has relevance to me"...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:55 am

crispybits wrote:Then I stand by my diagnosis. You seem to think "objectively worse" means "has relevance to me"...


It's a meaningless question given that we have no way to objectively determine what is 'worse' and what is 'better'. The only criteria I have to go on are the impact it will have on me, which is zero in either scenario.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:08 pm

The point is you seem quite capable of saying that the acid storm would be worse for you, and totally incapable of making the simple empathetic step to reasoning that the acid storm would be worse for everyone who shares the same objective reaction to the acid (i.e. restricting activities to avoid burning/dissolving) as you do (as in every human being). You have consistently displayed a complete inability to consider more than one perspective on any situation throughout the thread. Don't feel bad (not that I'm sure that's even possible), you didn't choose to be the way you are, by really do get some professional help for the sake of those around you...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:37 pm

crispybits wrote:The point is you seem quite capable of saying that the acid storm would be worse for you, and totally incapable of making the simple empathetic step to reasoning that the acid storm would be worse for everyone who shares the same objective reaction to the acid (i.e. restricting activities to avoid burning/dissolving) as you do (as in every human being). You have consistently displayed a complete inability to consider more than one perspective on any situation throughout the thread. Don't feel bad (not that I'm sure that's even possible), you didn't choose to be the way you are, by really do get some professional help for the sake of those around you...


Haha. Yeah yeah, I don't agree with you so I'm crazy. Keep up the good work!
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby Dukasaur on Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:47 pm

mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:The point is you seem quite capable of saying that the acid storm would be worse for you, and totally incapable of making the simple empathetic step to reasoning that the acid storm would be worse for everyone who shares the same objective reaction to the acid (i.e. restricting activities to avoid burning/dissolving) as you do (as in every human being). You have consistently displayed a complete inability to consider more than one perspective on any situation throughout the thread. Don't feel bad (not that I'm sure that's even possible), you didn't choose to be the way you are, by really do get some professional help for the sake of those around you...


Haha. Yeah yeah, I don't agree with you so I'm crazy. Keep up the good work!

In fairness, considering only your own point of view and not taking the time to imagine how others feel about it, pretty much is the classic definition of sociopathic personality disorder.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28158
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:47 pm

mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:Then I stand by my diagnosis. You seem to think "objectively worse" means "has relevance to me"...


It's a meaningless question given that we have no way to objectively determine what is 'worse' and what is 'better'.


Ultimately everyone prefers their own interests to be advanced, though for many of us those interests include the interests of others (directly or indirectly). Therefore all else being equal, a system that allows everyone to obtain more of their interests than they otherwise would, would be an objectively better system. This seems to be indisputable. No one would object to such a system, since it helps everyone. Therefore I reject from the outset the idea that it's impossible to objectively determine what is worse and better.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:Then I stand by my diagnosis. You seem to think "objectively worse" means "has relevance to me"...


It's a meaningless question given that we have no way to objectively determine what is 'worse' and what is 'better'.


Ultimately everyone prefers their own interests to be advanced, though for many of us those interests include the interests of others (directly or indirectly). Therefore all else being equal, a system that allows everyone to obtain more of their interests than they otherwise would, would be an objectively better system. This seems to be indisputable. No one would object to such a system, since it helps everyone. Therefore I reject from the outset the idea that it's impossible to objectively determine what is worse and better.


Yeah. So if the government of China (or any country I live in in the future) was to seize all private property and initiate a system of central planning then that would be worse, because the most likely result would be for everyone's lives (including mine) to take a turn in a direction that they don't want. If the government in South Sudan was to do the same thing then it isn't either. It's for the people in South Sudan to decide whether that is 'better' or 'worse'. To me, it is of no consequence whatsoever.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:24 am

Dukasaur wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:The point is you seem quite capable of saying that the acid storm would be worse for you, and totally incapable of making the simple empathetic step to reasoning that the acid storm would be worse for everyone who shares the same objective reaction to the acid (i.e. restricting activities to avoid burning/dissolving) as you do (as in every human being). You have consistently displayed a complete inability to consider more than one perspective on any situation throughout the thread. Don't feel bad (not that I'm sure that's even possible), you didn't choose to be the way you are, by really do get some professional help for the sake of those around you...


Haha. Yeah yeah, I don't agree with you so I'm crazy. Keep up the good work!

In fairness, considering only your own point of view and not taking the time to imagine how others feel about it, pretty much is the classic definition of sociopathic personality disorder.


I consider how some other people feel about things. My partner, my family, my close friends. I consider the impact my behavior might have on them. I just don't consider the lives of street kids in Kampala or a suburban family in Dusseldorf to be worth taking the time to think about. It's totally inconsequential.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby Dukasaur on Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:43 am

mrswdk wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:The point is you seem quite capable of saying that the acid storm would be worse for you, and totally incapable of making the simple empathetic step to reasoning that the acid storm would be worse for everyone who shares the same objective reaction to the acid (i.e. restricting activities to avoid burning/dissolving) as you do (as in every human being). You have consistently displayed a complete inability to consider more than one perspective on any situation throughout the thread. Don't feel bad (not that I'm sure that's even possible), you didn't choose to be the way you are, by really do get some professional help for the sake of those around you...


Haha. Yeah yeah, I don't agree with you so I'm crazy. Keep up the good work!

In fairness, considering only your own point of view and not taking the time to imagine how others feel about it, pretty much is the classic definition of sociopathic personality disorder.


I consider how some other people feel about things. My partner, my family, my close friends. I consider the impact my behavior might have on them. I just don't consider the lives of street kids in Kampala or a suburban family in Dusseldorf to be worth taking the time to think about. It's totally inconsequential.

Which is precisely the point. Someone constructing an ethical system does take the time to consider what effect it will have, not only on himself, but on some larger group. Maybe only his own civilization, maybe all of humanity, maybe all living things human or not, but certainly larger than just his immediate circle of friends.

That's not to say that you can care about street kids in Kampala in the same immediate, urgent way you can care about yourself. Our primate brains are only wired to care about 40 or 50 people at a time (the size of a normal tribe of Homo sapiens, before the Neolithic agricultural revolution allowed absurd population densities). But in order to discuss a system of what one "ought" to do, one needs to be able to at the very least put his own self aside and see things, at least in a hypothetical sense, from the point of view of anyone else who might be impacted by that system.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28158
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: You 'ought' to behave this way

Postby mrswdk on Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:55 am

Dukasaur wrote:Which is precisely the point. Someone constructing an ethical system does take the time to consider what effect it will have, not only on himself, but on some larger group. Maybe only his own civilization, maybe all of humanity, maybe all living things human or not, but certainly larger than just his immediate circle of friends.

That's not to say that you can care about street kids in Kampala in the same immediate, urgent way you can care about yourself. Our primate brains are only wired to care about 40 or 50 people at a time (the size of a normal tribe of Homo sapiens, before the Neolithic agricultural revolution allowed absurd population densities). But in order to discuss a system of what one "ought" to do, one needs to be able to at the very least put his own self aside and see things, at least in a hypothetical sense, from the point of view of anyone else who might be impacted by that system.


That kid is not part of my system. So of what relevance is it?

And anyways, I thought you were the guy who said that there is no 'ought':

Dukasaur wrote:You can analyse reality and come up with all kinds of rules. If you want to accomplish x then you had better do x*. The better your analysis, the better your rules can be. But none of it answers the question of "why do you want to do x?"

You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?

...

I'm a living thing, and I'm naturally prejudiced in favour of life, but what, other than my instinctive prejudice dictates that life should continue? In the end it probably will not. Despite squirming through one theory after another, we can't find any decent shred of hope that the universe will not continue to expand forever, until all interaction ceases and every system ceases to exist. So why should we struggle to buck the trend, when in the end we will fail no matter what?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Evil Semp