Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 346 of 390 (755973)
04-14-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Stile
04-14-2015 12:24 PM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
Even in hindsight, then... how do you determine when consequences were good or bad?
What consequences are good?
Which consequences are bad?
You still seem to be thinking in absolute terms. "Good" and "bad" only apply to specific cases. There is no magical list of good and bad consequences. What's good in one situation may be bad in another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Stile, posted 04-14-2015 12:24 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:10 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 347 of 390 (755976)
04-14-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Stile
04-14-2015 12:31 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
What does "abolishing slavery" have to do with whether or not slavery is good or bad?
Everything. Abolition is how we can tell it was bad. If society had decided that slavery was good, we'd be celebrating Slavery Day instead of Martin Luther King's birthday.
Stile writes:
Are you saying that if slavery wasn't abolished... if the South won the war... then slavery would be a good thing?
You have the tense wrong. If slavery hadn't been abolished, it would have been because society determined that slavery was a good thing.
Stile writes:
Might = right.
Not at all. Society has determined that drugs are bad, m'kay, but it doesn't have the might to abolish them.
Stile writes:
Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves.
So, absolute morality again.
Stile writes:
Unless, of course, you have another answer for why slavery is bad?
I've already said - slavery is bad because we say it's bad. That's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Stile, posted 04-14-2015 12:31 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:15 AM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 390 (756002)
04-14-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Stile
04-09-2015 12:53 PM


Re: Society vs. Individual
I never intended to imply that my system is the reasoning behind everything we do and we just don't know it.
I only mean to say that my system works, it's practical, it's usable, and it could be used for all the "known to be good" things we already do anyway.
The problem with your system is that it is subjective and we have no clue as to whether the outcomes are acceptable. In fact it is not even clear that you like the results in all cases.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Stile, posted 04-09-2015 12:53 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:25 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 349 of 390 (756075)
04-15-2015 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by ringo
04-14-2015 12:57 PM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
There is no magical list of good and bad consequences. What's good in one situation may be bad in another.
Right.
But there's still a reason why it's good in one situation and bad in another.
What's the reason?
What makes you describe the good situation as good?
What makes you describe the bad situation as bad?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 04-14-2015 12:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 11:49 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 350 of 390 (756077)
04-15-2015 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by ringo
04-14-2015 1:05 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
ringo writes:
Everything. Abolition is how we can tell it was bad. If society had decided that slavery was good, we'd be celebrating Slavery Day instead of Martin Luther King's birthday.
Ah... so you don't have your own moral code. You just take-for-granted whatever society uses?
Fair enough. Just not good enough for me. I want to be able to make decisions for myself, not rely on other people... who quite possibly make decisions for horrible reasons.
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves.
So, absolute morality again.
Why do you say this is absolute?
Obviously, if people wanted to be slaves... it wouldn't be a bad thing, it would be a good thing.
And, indeed, there are people who want to be slaves... they seek out people who want to be in charge. For example: certain sexual fetishes.
That doesn't make these fetishes "bad" because they involve slavery. They are actually quite healthy... because when the people involved want slavery to happen... it makes the situation a good thing.
I don't see how you're saying such an idea is absolute?
ringo writes:
I've already said - slavery is bad because we say it's bad. That's all.
Why do we say it's bad?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 04-14-2015 1:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 351 of 390 (756079)
04-15-2015 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by NoNukes
04-14-2015 4:14 PM


Re: Society vs. Individual
NoNukes writes:
The problem with your system is that it is subjective and we have no clue as to whether the outcomes are acceptable.
Actually, my system being subjective is it's power. Not a negative thing.
Any statically objective system of morality is easily shown to be silly.
You determine if the outcomes are acceptable or not by seeing how the people affected by the action react.
If I give a coffee to my friend and he's disgusted by it and says he doesn't like coffee... then it's a bad thing to give him coffee.
If he accepts it with a smile and says thank-you... then it's a good thing to give him coffee.
Sure, there are situations where we cannot know how someone is going to react. That's where trying your best to be a good person comes in... and acknowledging you made a mistake and correcting it for future situations if you're wrong.
But, well, I don't see what the alternative is. What is a system of morality that doesn't have to deal with not being able to see the future?
An static objective system would work for that... but it's useless as a system for morality anyway... because people are not static or objective.
In fact it is not even clear that you like the results in all cases.
Can you name one?
What do you mean by me "liking the results"?
If I like coffee... and I buy a coffee for my friend, but he doesn't like coffee...
Just, I "don't like the results" because I just made a mistake.
But I like the moral system, and how it updates my actions so that next time I don't get him a coffee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2015 4:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2015 11:04 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 352 of 390 (756080)
04-15-2015 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Stile
04-15-2015 10:25 AM


Re: Society vs. Individual
removed.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:25 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 353 of 390 (756102)
04-15-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Stile
04-15-2015 10:10 AM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
What's the reason?
There is no "the" reason. There is "a" reason.
Stile writes:
What makes you describe the good situation as good?
What makes you describe the bad situation as bad?
It's different for every situation. In some cases, what the stakeholders want might be "good". In some cases it might be "bad". In many cases, what's "good" for one stakeholder is "bad" for another. That's why asking the stakeholders may be desirable in some situations but it isn't a viable "method" in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:10 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:04 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 354 of 390 (756108)
04-15-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Stile
04-15-2015 10:15 AM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
Ah... so you don't have your own moral code. You just take-for-granted whatever society uses?
You can have my own moral code until the cows come home but it still has to operate within whatever society uses. Otherwise, you're Charles Manson.
Stile writes:
I want to be able to make decisions for myself, not rely on other people... who quite possibly make decisions for horrible reasons.
My problem is that you are also likely to make decisions for horrible reasons, Charlie.
Stile writes:
Obviously, if people wanted to be slaves... it wouldn't be a bad thing, it would be a good thing.
You go on to answer for me:
Stile writes:
That doesn't make these fetishes "bad" because they involve slavery. They are actually quite healthy... because when the people involved want slavery to happen... it makes the situation a good thing.
So slavery per se is neither bad nor good.
Stile writes:
I don't see how you're saying such an idea is absolute?
The blanket statement that, "Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves," is an absolute statement even if you contradict yourself in the next sentence.
Stile writes:
Why do we say it's bad?
Why do we say ice cream is good? Everybody has his own reason. In the case of slavery, society has a group reason but different societies may have different group reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 10:15 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 355 of 390 (756109)
04-15-2015 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by ringo
04-15-2015 11:49 AM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
There is no "the" reason. There is "a" reason.
This is exactly why we're not finding any common ground.
I understand that in an absolute total objective sense there is "no reason" for any moral arguments whatsoever.
I understand that there are many different reasons that many different people use that could be consistent for them or not.
What I'm saying is that my reason is "to try and help people as much as possible and try to hurt them as minimally as possible."
That's what I tried to explain in Message 326.
If you do not agree with my reason, then we can discuss my reason's usefulness.
If you do agree with my reason.. then the rest of my ideas flow from there.
Just saying 'There is "a" reason.' Without going into more detail leaves the discussion in a dead-end.
Of course there is... the whole point is to figure out what that reason is, and see if it's better than my reason or not.
If it is... then I'll change my system of morality.
If it isn't... then I'll stick with my system.
Regardless of that... the ideas of my system still flow from my (current) reason.
So, we can move the discussion forward in one of two ways:
You do not accept my reason, and you can identify a possible alternative and we can discuss the pros/cons of each.
You do accept my reason, and we can then use that as the basic foundation and discuss situations in light of that reason.
Or, we can stop the discussion as there's no where else to go.
In some cases, what the stakeholders want might be "good". In some cases it might be "bad". In many cases, what's "good" for one stakeholder is "bad" for another. That's why asking the stakeholders may be desirable in some situations but it isn't a viable "method" in general.
Who is a stakeholder? That is important to know.
In my system... the "stakeholder" would be the person (or multiple people) that are affected by the action... not the person (or multiple people) that are deciding to implement the action. And also not any person who is completely unaffected by the action in any way.
In light of my reason... it makes perfect sense to value the stakeholders (as I've just defined them) and hold their subjective opinion of their own feelings as paramount for determining if the action was "good" or "bad."
If using another reason... or if defining "stakeholder" differently... then I completely agree with you. It is, however, obvious and irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:14 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 356 of 390 (756113)
04-15-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by ringo
04-15-2015 12:01 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
ringo writes:
You can have my own moral code until the cows come home but it still has to operate within whatever society uses. Otherwise, you're Charles Manson.
I don't see how this works.
You can refuse to operate within whatever society uses and create negative consequences (like Charles Manson).
Or
You can refuse to operate within whatever society uses and create positive consequences (like Ghandi).
I don't see how you can say that "not operating within whatever society uses" is a one-way street to Charles Manson in light of other people like Ghandi or anyone else who breaks away from the norm and creates a better way.
My problem is that you are also likely to make decisions for horrible reasons, Charlie.
Exactly.
That's why my decision is to let the people affected by the action decide if it's good or bad.
How is that similar to what Charles Manson did?
The blanket statement that, "Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves," is an absolute statement even if you contradict yourself in the next sentence.
Fair enough.
"Slavery is bad as long as people don't want to be slaves."
I don't see how that changes my point, though...
Why do we say ice cream is good? Everybody has his own reason. In the case of slavery, society has a group reason but different societies may have different group reasons.
Exactly.
And some reasons will be better than others.
All I'm trying to do is identify whatever potential reasons I can and see if they are better or worse than the one I already use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:21 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 357 of 390 (756115)
04-15-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Stile
04-15-2015 12:04 PM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
What I'm saying is that my reason is "to try and help people as much as possible and try to hurt them as minimally as possible."
And what I'm saying is that your personal reason doesn't matter much. You're not going to end slavery all by yourself.
Stile writes:
So, we can move the discussion forward in one of two ways:
You do not accept my reason, and you can identify a possible alternative and we can discuss the pros/cons of each.
You do accept my reason, and we can then use that as the basic foundation and discuss situations in light of that reason.
I choose Door Number Three:
Your reason is irrelevant. Only the group reason matters.
Stile writes:
In my system... the "stakeholder" would be the person (or multiple people) that are affected by the action... not the person (or multiple people) that are deciding to implement the action.
In the case of rape, the stakeholders would be the victim and the rapist. Unfortunately for your system, their positions are at odds with each other. Society has to make the judgement of which side to back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:04 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 358 of 390 (756119)
04-15-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Stile
04-15-2015 12:11 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
I don't see how you can say that "not operating within whatever society uses" is a one-way street to Charles Manson in light of other people like Ghandi or anyone else who breaks away from the norm and creates a better way.
The difference, of course, is that society moved toward Gandhi, not toward Manson. Gandhi accomplished nothing on his own. He only influenced the group action.
Stile writes:
That's why my decision is to let the people affected by the action decide if it's good or bad.
How is that similar to what Charles Manson did?
People who go their own way, like Manson, also make their own decisions about how the people are affected. They may very well perceive that their victims are benefiting from their actions.
That's why your own assessment of your behaviour has to be suspect. That's why we need a more objective societal opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:11 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:59 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 359 of 390 (756123)
04-15-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by ringo
04-15-2015 12:14 PM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
And what I'm saying is that your personal reason doesn't matter much. You're not going to end slavery all by yourself.
Matters for what?
I want a system of morality to govern my actions so that I can maximize helping other people and minimize hurting other people.
My personal reason matters a great deal for that.
Your reason is irrelevant. Only the group reason matters.
Again... matters for what?
Matters for what society does? I'm not interested in what society does. I'm interested in what I do. I'm me. I do actions. Those actions affect other people. I want the actions I do to result in helping people rather than hurting them.
To me, the group reason is irrelevant as long as I don't incite violence from them against myself or those I care about.
I don't see how trying to help the people I affect will lead to inciting violence from them against myself or my family...
In the case of rape, the stakeholders would be the victim and the rapist. Unfortunately for your system, their positions are at odds with each other. Society has to make the judgement of which side to back.
You just redefined stakeholders, and then said it doesn't work with my system?
Of course not... you just redefined what the system was so that it was no longer "my" system.
I agree it doesn't work when you mangle definitions.
If we do, however, use my system.. we should consult the victim and only the victim.
Does the victim want to be raped?
- If yes, then my system says that society should not stop the action.
- If no, then my system says that society should prevent the action.
Of course, society may very well use some other system... but that doesn't change the facts that flow from using mine.
Whatever point you're trying to make here seems irrelevant to the ideas I'm trying to describe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by ringo, posted 04-15-2015 12:41 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 360 of 390 (756127)
04-15-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Stile
04-15-2015 12:26 PM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
I want a system of morality to govern my actions so that I can maximize helping other people and minimize hurting other people.
My personal reason matters a great deal for that.
It matters to you, not to anybody else - just like the kind of ice cream you eat doesn't matter to anybody else.
Stile writes:
I'm not interested in what society does.
Good to know, Charlie.
Stile writes:
You just redefined stakeholders....
How have I redefined stakeholders?
Stile writes:
If we do, however, use my system.. we should consult the victim and only the victim.
What about in the case of drugs, where the "victims" don't always agree that they're victims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 12:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Stile, posted 04-15-2015 1:09 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024