|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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.
Even in hindsight, then... how do you determine when consequences were good or bad? What consequences are good?Which consequences are bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
What does "abolishing slavery" have to do with whether or not slavery is good or bad? Stile writes:
You have the tense wrong. If slavery hadn't been abolished, it would have been because society determined that slavery was a good thing.
Are you saying that if slavery wasn't abolished... if the South won the war... then slavery would be a good thing? Stile writes:
Not at all. Society has determined that drugs are bad, m'kay, but it doesn't have the might to abolish them.
Might = right. Stile writes:
So, absolute morality again.
Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves. Stile writes:
I've already said - slavery is bad because we say it's bad. That's all.
Unless, of course, you have another answer for why slavery is bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
There is no "the" reason. There is "a" reason.
What's the reason? Stile writes:
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.
What makes you describe the good situation as good?What makes you describe the bad situation as bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
Ah... so you don't have your own moral code. You just take-for-granted whatever society uses? Stile writes:
My problem is that you are also likely to make decisions for horrible reasons, Charlie.
I want to be able to make decisions for myself, not rely on other people... who quite possibly make decisions for horrible reasons. Stile writes:
You go on to answer for me:
Obviously, if people wanted to be slaves... it wouldn't be a bad thing, it would be a good thing. Stile writes:
So slavery per se is neither bad nor good.
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. Stile writes:
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.
I don't see how you're saying such an idea is absolute? Stile writes:
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.
Why do we say it's bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
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." Stile writes:
I choose Door Number Three: 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.Your reason is irrelevant. Only the group reason matters. Stile writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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.
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. Stile writes:
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 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? That's why your own assessment of your behaviour has to be suspect. That's why we need a more objective societal opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It matters to you, not to anybody else - just like the kind of ice cream you eat doesn't matter to anybody else.
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. Stile writes:
Good to know, Charlie.
I'm not interested in what society does. Stile writes:
How have I redefined stakeholders?
You just redefined stakeholders.... Stile writes:
What about in the case of drugs, where the "victims" don't always agree that they're victims?
If we do, however, use my system.. we should consult the victim and only the victim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024