|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. | |||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
That's why your own assessment of your behaviour has to be suspect. I agree completely with this statement. It's precisely what my system is designed to prevent.
That's why we need a more objective societal opinion. Objective in what sense? What if society doesn't want to maximize helping people vs. minimizing hurting people?What if society wants to prioritize society's survival at all costs? What if society thinks rape victims are required as sacrifice to the Gods to keep the economy running? Wouldn't that be introducing society's own bias into the situation? How can you tell if society is "more objective" or not? When is it "objective enough."What standard are you using?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
How can you eliminate individual biases by emphasising individual opinions?
ringo writes:
I agree completely with this statement. It's precisely what my system is designed to prevent. That's why your own assessment of your behaviour has to be suspect. Stile writes:
Objective in the sense that a group of people is more likely to be "right" than an individual.
Objective in what sense? Stile writes:
Then society is "right".
What if society doesn't want to maximize helping people vs. minimizing hurting people? Stile writes:
Then society is "right".
What if society wants to prioritize society's survival at all costs? Stile writes:
Then society is "right".
What if society thinks rape victims are required as sacrifice to the Gods to keep the economy running? Stile writes:
I suppose you could say that each society has its own "group bias" - but the word "bias" loses its meaning if you claim that everybody has the same bias.
Wouldn't that be introducing society's own bias into the situation? Stile writes:
A group is by definition more objective than an individual.
How can you tell if society is "more objective" or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: It matters to you, not to anybody else - just like the kind of ice cream you eat doesn't matter to anybody else. Either you don't understand what I'm describing, or you're trolling. This statement doesn't make any sense. I just described that what matters to me is helping other people in whatever way they describe that as such.I'm talking about figuring out what matters to "everybody else." Then you said that this just matters to me, but not to anyone else. You just said that what matters to other people doesn't matter to other people.
What about in the case of drugs, where the "victims" don't always agree that they're victims? What about it?I consider it the same way as I consider tobacco... We know that smoking is bad for you.But, if someone wants to judge for themselves that they would rather accept the negative consequences for whatever positive conditions they get in return... who am I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to smoke? Same for drugs: If someone wants to judge for themselves that they would rather accept the negative consequences for whatever positive conditions they get in return... who am I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do drugs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: How can you eliminate individual biases by emphasising individual opinions? I'm not eliminating the bias.I'm saying that their bias is the only one that matters. ringo writes: Stile writes: What if society thinks rape victims are required as sacrifice to the Gods to keep the economy running? Then society is "right". Fair enough.This is then society's "reason" for deciding good/bad. I'm just saying that my "reason" is better than that. I think it's obvious that my reason of wanting to maximize helping people and minimize hurting people is better than sacrificing rape victims to the Gods to keep the economy running. I fully understand that any person (or society) that doesn't agree with my reason will not agree with my system that flows from that reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
What matters to everybody else is how everybody else treats other people. If your individual ideas are to treat people better than the average, that's nice. If your individual ideas are to treat people worse than the average, then society is going to have a problem with you. Otherwise, your individual ideas don't matter.
I just described that what matters to me is helping other people in whatever way they describe that as such.I'm talking about figuring out what matters to "everybody else." Stile writes:
So you never decide for somebody whether he's a victim or not?
If someone wants to judge for themselves that they would rather accept the negative consequences for whatever positive conditions they get in return... who am I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do drugs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
But Charles Manson's bias is the problem, not the solution. That's why it's important to eliminate individual biases. Since you admit that you're not eliminating bias, your system fails drastically.
I'm not eliminating the bias.I'm saying that their bias is the only one that matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: What matters to everybody else is how everybody else treats other people. I don't think you get to say what matters to everybody else.I think that "everybody else" gets to say what matters to everybody else. And it's going to be different for different people. If your individual ideas are to treat people better than the average, that's nice. If your individual ideas are to treat people worse than the average, then society is going to have a problem with you. Otherwise, your individual ideas don't matter. There you go again with "don't matter." Don't matter to what???? My individual ideas about morality certainly do matter when my moral priority is to help people and not hurt them. Of course my individual ideas don't matter to anyone else who doesn't care about helping people and not hurting them.But, according to my priority, I don't care. At some point, I would rather by lynched by a mob than give up on certain levels of my principles.
So you never decide for somebody whether he's a victim or not? I do when I'm trying to do the right thing and am unable to gain the information from them directly. Then I do the best I can with my experiences and history.However, I can only say I'm actually doing the right thing if I can confirm it with them. If you have a specific circumstance in mind, please present it and we can discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Since you admit that you're not eliminating bias, your system fails drastically. Then it should be easy for you to describe a simple scenario or example where this happens. Since you haven't been able to do that, I think you're overstating your case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It has nothing to do with wanting to help people or not hurt them. Other people can want to help people and not hurt them without caring in the least about your ideas. Your ideas don't matter to anybody but you.
Of course my individual ideas don't matter to anyone else who doesn't care about helping people and not hurting them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Been there, done that. The guy who thinks he's being victimized by the gas company is biased. You want to base your actions on his complaint - i.e. you want to back his refusal to pay his gas bill.
ringo writes:
Then it should be easy for you to describe a simple scenario or example where this happens. Since you admit that you're not eliminating bias, your system fails drastically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Lets get back to the idea that God if God exists has a basic responsibility to do all He can for humanity...that is, if he truly cares.
Humanity itself, it can be argued, is often biased, self serving, and shirking our responsibility to each other...that is if an absolute standard can be established.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Been there, done that. The guy who thinks he's being victimized by the gas company is biased. You want to base your actions on his complaint - i.e. you want to back his refusal to pay his gas bill. That's not true. And, again, you're ignoring everything I've already said about this.But, if you want to do it again, then we will: I do not back the man's refusal to pay his gas bill.I simply back that this man gets to decided if what the gas company is doing to him is good or bad. On the course of punishment (here: not paying the gas bill), I've already agreed with you that such things should not be determined by the one affected by the action. I've already agreed that 3rd party is better in this scenario. Punishment should consider a lot of things, not limited to: How many other people are the gas company affecting with the same action?Are all people saying that the gas company is being bad to them? However, I still say that the man should be able to identify if the gas company is being good or bad to him. Again, your scenario doesn't even show a failure in the use of my system, let alone a drastic one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Other people can want to help people and not hurt them without caring in the least about your ideas. Your ideas don't matter to anybody but you. Of course they don't, who says they should?That doesn't change my proposed argument that my system is the best way to prioritize helping people and not hurting them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
But his opinion of "good" or "bad" is completely empty if it has no effect on the outcome.
I do not back the man's refusal to pay his gas bill.I simply back that this man gets to decided if what the gas company is doing to him is good or bad. Stile writes:
So you agree that your system doesn't work in this scenario. How is that not a failure?
On the course of punishment (here: not paying the gas bill), I've already agreed with you that such things should not be determined by the one affected by the action. I've already agreed that 3rd party is better in this scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
If other people can want to help people and not hurt them without using your system, what's the benefit of your system?
ringo writes:
Of course they don't, who says they should? Other people can want to help people and not hurt them without caring in the least about your ideas. Your ideas don't matter to anybody but you.That doesn't change my proposed argument that my system is the best way to prioritize helping people and not hurting them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024