Best world scenario

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

I'm sorry but huge, swathes, populations and whim seem to be extremely poorly chosen words. You are also talking about empathy having no value, altruism being harmful and within that context these words just don't come across charitably. Perhaps choose your words more carefully and take some of the responsibility yourself.

I am not a fan of various terrorist groups around the world but I would not wipe them from the face of the earth with the press of a button. Really I don't have that right. Perhaps if I was involved in fighting these groups then my understanding of the situation could possibly justify such an action but I don't have that understanding. I know these groups aren't great, but even a genocide of ISIS is highly troublesome and not something to be taken lightly at all. There just isn't a large group of people anywhere in the world that I would be comfortable in judging in this manner. Even if I take your words to mean kill all the 'bad' people it is still a highly troubling opinion.

I just don't get your argument either. I am saying opinions aren't simply subjective, I am proposing a methodology for choosing between different subjective opinions. You would think I would be the one who was for capital punishment and killing all the 'bad' guys. That I would be the one to 'judge' other people. That I am arrogant in declaring Bach superior to Bieber objectively would you think be an issue.
You seem to be in one breath saying it's just subjective. Goals justify the means. Whatever gets the goal is whatever works, nothing is right or wrong.
But then you say all these people should be wiped away because of their means and their goals. So you judge them anyway. But you don't provide a framework for your judgement. You don't justify your judgement, your judgement is just your judgement and can't be questioned. Personally I couldn't guess at what kinds of actions are allowed or not under your system (I would have to ask you for each case). If ends justify means then anything goes.
I judge actions also. I attempt to provide a framework for why. Ideally that framework is robust, testable, repeatable, consistent, logical and open to change with new evidence. I argue that this is as objective as we can be. I argue being more objective is better than being less objective. I argue being closer to the truth is better than being further from the truth.
Of course certain moral rules can be basically agreed upon, golden rule, equality, equity and so on. And of course the interpretation of these rules in practice differs from individual to individual. Testing these rules is extremely difficult. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that one person's interpretation is better than another is extremely difficult. I am just arguing that one person's interpretation can be better. I use reality as the yard stick.

For example let's imagine you could remove ISIS from the world with a button press. You believe this is a great idea and I currently don't have enough information to make an informed choice. Let's say we have one second to make our minds up, you press the button, I hesitate. Now this is our subjective opinion. Unsortable with your methodology of ends justifying means. Now I don't even know how you would propose measuring who was right? But I would argue one of us was more right than the other. Let's both imagine we have the same goal in this instance, to increase quality of life. Now maybe ISIS disappearing ushers in some new enlightened dawn. Maybe all sorts of wars around the world stop, maybe all sorts of universities, public services etc etc are built. Maybe we both agree the world is objectively better, although under your system I'm not sure if this measurement makes sense? On the other hand maybe it causes untold further trouble, people wonder why and how ISIS suddenly disappeared. Maybe all kinds of blame is thrown around, maybe panic ensues. Maybe all kinds of wars break out. Many hospitals are bombed, universities burned down etc etc. Maybe the world is far worse objectively, again by my standards of objectivity. Again maybe it makes no real difference, the vacuum they leave behind is filled. Some the people filling the vacuum are better than ISIS some are worse, overall nothing much changes.

-- Updated June 27th, 2017, 8:13 am to add the following --

Oh I forgot the final option. The true effect is impossible to measure. Neither of us knows if the button should have been pressed or not.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

I did take responsibility for my bad word choices yet when you made similarly bad word choices you preached to me about this principle of charity yet did not afford it to me, if that is not hypocrisy then what is?

To be clear I have a methodology for deciding between subjective choices and that is based on personal empirical benefit, eschewing principles of moral and spiritual idealism and creating a framework for people living together to conduct themselves by. This framework will be decided through culture war and not because I want it to be just because I think there is no way to have free speech and liberty yet no culture war, people are going to think differently. However my ultimate goal would be for people to make arguments based on what is important to them on a practical basis of individual gain while recognising the necessity of compromise and consideration in an environment where co-operation will lead to the best results for all and this is empirically observable in the world today. The ends justify the means is a fine way to put it but only if the end is not a principle or concept but an empirically observable SUBJECTIVE benefit. I don't reject the usefulness of science, I hold the truth to be of extreme importance and this argument between us is about objectivity and subjectivity, about the principle of requiring proof and not having to disprove negatives in order to debunk theories.

That's why I called you out and not to tell you that my method is better than yours, it's that you keep adding terms like "objectively better" and "worse objectively" and "spectrum of subjectivity" and you talk about reality correcting ignorance through evolution as though your methodology is pretty much inevitable anyway. You've talked about the "right way" for our species which if we fail to take, some aliens will take it instead until somebody gets it right.

So far my counter arguments have been that a spectrum of subjectivity doesn't exist and you are falling into various traps in this topic, that ignorance precedes understanding and ignorance is not being eliminated by evolution, I've separated subjectivity into two kinds; first perspective of reality and second interpretation of reality and that the latter is entirely subjective. I've said that your interpretation of reality is required for rational thought, it is required to many decisions in certain areas such as deciding prison sentences and that one cannot eschew it even if they had the will to do so. Therefore it is significant and reality does not offer any guidance on this, so we must decide for ourselves. My argument is that in deciding for ourselves we should base it on empirical benefit and not ideas, principles or morals and that includes strict adherence to the truth and I tried to show examples where this kind of thinking is bad. You have accepted that some lies are in fact useful, whether you agree with the larger point I don't know. Ultimately what I think is that the end justifies the means but the end includes the means. The "end" is our journey in this life and we must do what we can to make of it what we think is best for us and not what any ideology, culture, society or ethics system tells us is best for us.

I am not saying no one will regret their choices, I offer advice for how to make smart choices but people must make their own mistakes and hopefully learn from them. If Earthly consequences are considered of the highest significance then I think it more likely they will learn - rather than thinking it is good to sacrifice for a principle or ideology and so on. I may also make foolish choices such as you are describing, but I cannot know everything and I cannot refuse to act on everything on the basis that I don't know 100% for sure what the outcome will be. I have oversimplified in my previous comments and I said what I said to demonstrate my position on the value of life - that quality of life was more valuable. Naturally if I had the power to kill people so easily I would not take such a power lightly, killing without any forethought but the hypothetical isn't worth exploring because it is so unrealistic.

It is also important to say that maybe for you something being subjective means it is weak and shouldn't be acted upon - that we need certainty and clarity. However for me subjective views are far more powerful and meaningful than objective views, mainly because objective views don't tell us to do anything. Objectively things exist, certain methods are more effective and causality can be observed but that doesn't mean ****, you can't say objectively that I should take the best method, that's your subjective opinion. Like I keep saying, it's all about alignment and validity and that's where objective fact becomes relevant and powerful. If you say that you want welfare and I can provide the best method for welfare (as you define it) then surely you will be satisfied to take that method. That's when objective truth matters but if there is no subjective opinion surrounding an objective truth then nobody will care and it will be of no consequence. So for me subjective opinion is necessary for me to live intelligently and I don't view it as inferior to objective truth at all, just very different and relevant at different times.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

I have a methodology for deciding between subjective choices and that is based on personal empirical benefit
Isn't empirical benefit an objective fact?
This framework will be decided through culture war
Maybe that is true.
However my ultimate goal would be for people to make arguments based on what is important to them on a practical basis of individual gain while recognising the necessity of compromise and consideration in an environment where co-operation will lead to the best results for all and this is empirically observable in the world today.
Ok this seems slightly different than what I was originally replying to. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick but you seemed to be suggesting that culture war 'should' be defining what is moral or not moral, what is of benefit what is not of benefit etc. I was replying to say that it 'shouldn't. I wasn't replying to say that it 'doesn't'. Culture war certainly has a large influence.
talk about reality correcting ignorance through evolution as though your methodology is pretty much inevitable anyway. You've talked about the "right way" for our species which if we fail to take, some aliens will take it instead until somebody gets it right.
Yes I understand this is pretty out there. Obviously I can't predict into the future so it's impossible for me to say if it is inevitable or not. I will just say that we currently are where we are and we shouldn't take where we are for granted. Humans have achieved many many wonderful things. Things which being far from reality would preclude from being possible. At the very least we are closer to reality than we could be. Whether this is inevitable or not is debatable. If we met some alien life forms it might answer some of those questions. Plus who knows where modern science will lead next. I present ourselves as proof that it is better to be closer to reality than further away.

My basic argument is that if the nature of reality were different then it seems impossible that we would not also be different. We are a product of reality in this sense. We have evolved to survive in this reality. This leads me to believe that we are at least somewhat capable of judging reality (at least in some circumstances and in some ways). Now of course not all life heads inexorably towards greater conformity with reality. Some organisms do very well without any thought whatsoever. But I struggle to think how it would be possible to think entirely incorrectly. Thought must have been of some benefit to us at some point. Correct thought is of more benefit than incorrect thought. Now I also agree that a great deal of current thought has evolutionary pressure that is very hard to pinpoint. So it's not inevitable that correct thought will always survive over incorrect thought in the short term. But I keep saying you have to look at the long term, across life forms. For humans the only way our life can continue indefinitely is if we leave the planet. There are many ways I could see humans going extinct. None of those ways are due to being closer to reality.
I've separated subjectivity into two kinds; first perspective of reality and second interpretation of reality and that the latter is entirely subjective.
So it hurts if I hit my hand with a rock is the first kind of subjectivity? And I should avoid hitting my hand with a rock is the second kind of subjectivity? Just trying to think of an example.
I've said that your interpretation of reality is required for rational thought, it is required to many decisions in certain areas such as deciding prison sentences and that one cannot eschew it even if they had the will to do so. Therefore it is significant and reality does not offer any guidance on this, so we must decide for ourselves.
But surely you can look at facts like repeat offenses. And then begin to piece together a picture of what sentencing should be based on empirical evidence? I mean I agree we aren't there yet, but is there anything fundamentally stopping a process like this from being possible? Again can sentencing be better or worse. If so how can you tell.
You have accepted that some lies are in fact useful, whether you agree with the larger point I don't know.
Well I made a few points. Obviously lying can be of benefit locally. This can be of benefit in a wider context but only if the lie is needed because of some other untruth. As in I can lie to my benefit that I didn't murder someone but this is not of benefit to humans as a whole. I can lie that I am not Jewish to a Nazi and this is of benefit to me and to humans as a whole. Now in reality we lie all the time, white lies as you put it. Now I argue these follow the same rules as above it's just that the lie is of much less impact.
Regarding the wider point, it is complicated. For example you may lie as a politician so that you will be elected so that you can do good. You basically can't be elected unless you lie or are incompetent. But is a lie so that you can do good sure to be of net benefit? I am not so sure personally. I suspect the harm done by the lie may outweigh any good you can do. I suspect it would be very difficult to quantify. I suggest someone who would be willing to compromise there values in this manner may also not be great at deciding what is 'good'. Like I say it's complicated, the ends justify the means may seem true on the surface but I suspect it's very very hard to tell for sure. Like I said I know of no methodology for working out which lies do the least harm so greater good can be done. It seems too complex to me to be sure. I would prefer to elect people less Machiavellian to start with to be honest.
The "end" is our journey in this life and we must do what we can to make of it what we think is best for us and not what any ideology, culture, society or ethics system tells us is best for us.
Well yes and no. I thought you were arguing that culture was the correct methodology by the way? The thing is how do you know what is best for you unless you measure it? If you measure something how can be sure your measurement is accurate? How do you know you aren't biased?
you can't say objectively that I should take the best method, that's your subjective opinion.
As I said many times it starts with the axiom that life is desirable. I certainly hold this axiom.
If you say that you want welfare and I can provide the best method for welfare (as you define it) then surely you will be satisfied to take that method.
Absolutely.

By the way can you give me some real world examples of subjective opinion that is purely subjective and correct in being so and of importance?

For example someone may propose that blasphemy should be a crime punishable with death. They can say this because in their opinion God has mandated this. Now I say simply that their subjective opinion is wrong. They have no evidence for God's mandate. They in turn can provide no empirical evidence, not that this changes their mind at all. I could go on and say the state shouldn't have the power of capital punishment. That thought should not be a criminal offense and so on. I can further more point out that humans often make mistakes and make up stories (not just ones about God). I can point out that humans are quite imperfect. I could reasonable demand a high level of evidence before I would happily take someone's life. So in this example of purely subjective opinion I can point out there is no evidence which supports the claim and a huge amount of evidence which contradicts the claim.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

Isn't empirical benefit an objective fact?
No it means that the benefit is observable and demonstrable, this doesn't mean people won't interpret it differently and disagree, it is subjective. The opposite of this is implicit benefit where the notion is that something is good in of itself, like being loyal or chaste or honest and these things can be considered good and desirable regardless of whether you can demonstrate their benefit to anyone or not. These kinds of implicit benefits are very much what I am against and arguing against and whether someone recognises their value as being subjective rather than objective is just the first step. This is what I consider the end-game of nihilism, if life is objectively meaningless then these kinds of notions are also objectively meaningless and so unless they are bringing you some kind of gain then why on earth do you partake? I am certain I can demonstrate a wide range of instances where unconditional preference towards any principle or moral gives sub-optimal results and adherence to truth is just one of them. This is the larger point that I was making and not that lying can be applied to any context and provide good results, ironically that is exactly the kind of thinking I seek to discredit.

So it hurts if I hit my hand with a rock is the first kind of subjectivity? And I should avoid hitting my hand with a rock is the second kind of subjectivity? Just trying to think of an example.
Yeah that's a good example, a more pertinent example might be that I think aliens exist and I think we should co-operate with them if possible, "I think aliens exist" is the first kind of subjectivity and "I think we should co-operate with them if possible" is the second kind of subjectivity. I hope this distinction is clear.
Well yes and no. I thought you were arguing that culture was the correct methodology by the way? The thing is how do you know what is best for you unless you measure it? If you measure something how can be sure your measurement is accurate? How do you know you aren't biased?
No I don't think culture in of itself is good, it's all about causality and empirical benefit. I think culture has far more significance than biology in my estimation and that has been my argument at times but only to show that we should take the best option and not adherence to biology or nature. Blind faith in anything I consider to be a negative. I think people should measure what is best by investigating the evidence and thinking things through - coming to a conclusion based on empirical benefit and alignment of character and whatever is important to you. You are certain to be bias in your view and you can't know for sure that you are accurate but a faith in nature or biology is just as bias and uncertain as anything else. Clinging to grand notions of things and treating them as certain, unwavering and infallible is delusional, now sometimes it is the first kind of subjectivity and there is a truth but we don't know it and sometimes it is the second kind of subjectivity but even there we may be out of alignment or making choices that will alienate or distress us but time marches on and inaction is not an option - you make the best with what is within your capabilities.
By the way can you give me some real world examples of subjective opinion that is purely subjective and correct in being so and of importance?
It is a question of alignment and this is what you fail to understand, you hold this axiom that life is good and you also believe belief mandates some kind of proof and by this logic punishing blasphemy by death is an absurd notion. If another axiom were held that God is good and if you believe belief requires only faith then have some have clearly do, come to the belief that punishing blasphemy by death is a reasonable and preferable response. It might be a hard pill to swallow that I liken your view to theirs because you recognise the horror, unfairness, brutality, illiberal reality that exists because of such a strong-armed approach like executing people for their beliefs. The universe does not care about this reality, there is no objective truth that condemns it and no higher power that cares about this unfair treatment - no objective righteousness to wield against the perpetrators who enjoy their own lives while so unmercilessly ending the lives of others for what seem to you to be benign and senseless reasons. This distasteful truth is what gave rise to religion in the first place and it is makes the notion of objective moral law a necessity to people who prefer or require closure. This is why I think it is my view that is in fact realistic and bound by the notion that belief requires proof and yours is perhaps more idealistic than accurate, this example of yours is the second kind of subjectivity and it cannot be subjected to scrutiny that is not also subjective. That is the truth.

I suspect your request is to ask for situations where a subjective opinion gives you the results that YOU want as someone who takes life is good as their axiom and I would once again refer you to the prison example or the South African imminent race war example but it seems these aren't convincing you. Ultimately when it comes to this second kind of subjectivity my point is that it's always purely subjective and it is never objectively correct and that's just the reality, I am not taking this position because I like it. In regards to the first kind of subjectivity, my argument has used useful lies as an example but honestly I think the advantages are scarce and that is why I hold myself to the highest possible scrutiny to ensure that my perspective is accurate and not simply convenient or skewed. If there is an objective truth then we should seek to discover it, there are exceptions such as useful lies but mostly I can't see much beyond this. You might say that it would be better if we never discovered oil because its usage is destroying the planet or that for nuclear bombs wouldn't it be better if we never discovered them? I think it is a bit wish washy for me to say we must pursue the truth because of all the positives that brings yet complain about potential negative side effects, I can't have it both ways.

So regardless of what kind of subjective opinion it is, I will base my opinions on it with regards to causality and how I measure the results will be done so based on alignment with what I value and for you that is life. So for me some examples of subjective opinions that I like is that "people should think for themselves", "people should love themselves and treat themselves with care", "People should be considerate to others when it costs them nothing to do so", "Freedom of speech protects all views and not just politically correct views", "Live and let live" and so on. In terms of whether they are "correct" it is about alignment and validity, If I say "people should think for themselves" because I think this will lead to a smarter, freer and more productive society and yet the reality is that it makes everyone stupider, more disagreeable and hesitant or destructive and I were to observe this then I would quick smart change my view about people thinking for themselves. I would say hold up, this is not what I wanted - we should rethink what we are promoting here because it is not achieving what I wanted of it.

I am not entirely sure this is what you were looking for but hopefully I've answered the question.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

It might be a hard pill to swallow that I liken your view to theirs because you recognise the horror, unfairness, brutality, illiberal reality that exists because of such a strong-armed approach like executing people for their beliefs. The universe does not care about this reality, there is no objective truth that condemns it and no higher power that cares about this unfair treatment
This seems to me to be the nub of our difference of opinion? Perhaps not the only place where we disagree but potentially the most significant place where we disagree? Most everything else we seem to be able to talk through quite amicably for example.

I would raise a few points.

I am not saying that the universe values life. I am saying that I value life. If I say God exists I am saying God exists independently of me. If God exists or not is an objective fact. Therefore if God exists or not defines if I am right or not.
Me saying that I value life is a very different statement to me saying that God exists.

This I believe explains the problem you are having between your description of blasphemy laws as horrible but your intellectual belief that belief that God exists and belief that I value life is the same.

Your thoughts on thinking for yourself are interesting.
Can you imagine a world where everyone thought for themselves and their thoughts closely aligned with reality but the result was a stupider, more destructive society? I can think of many examples of people thinking for themselves and being far from reality leading to destruction but I can't think of the opposite.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

I am not saying that the universe values life. I am saying that I value life. If I say God exists I am saying God exists independently of me. If God exists or not is an objective fact. Therefore if God exists or not defines if I am right or not.
Me saying that I value life is a very different statement to me saying that God exists.
Yes if you understand what I have been saying then belief in God's existence is the first kind of subjectivity and can be objectively true or false and valuing life is the second kind of subjectivity. I am not exactly sure where your disagreement with me lies however because I take no issue with this statement. If you recognise that humans alone value and measure - not the universe or Gods then surely you can recognise that when two people disagree with each other in the second kind of subjectivity and there is no arbiter such as reality or whatever else then the idea that an objectively "right way" becomes void.
This I believe explains the problem you are having between your description of blasphemy laws as horrible but your intellectual belief that belief that God exists and belief that I value life is the same.
I hope this "your" is not referring to me, I realise I have said a lot but I have said many times that I am an atheist and I don't even entertain the notion that God exists.
Can you imagine a world where everyone thought for themselves and their thoughts closely aligned with reality but the result was a stupider, more destructive society? I can think of many examples of people thinking for themselves and being far from reality leading to destruction but I can't think of the opposite.
I can think of contexts where this could lead to negative side effects such as in lawless states where it makes sense for the strong take from the weak but certainly a society of individualistic and worldly people would be ideal and I can't think of anything I care more about than this.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

I'm sorry I thought you were saying my believing a blasphemy law was a bad thing and someone else believing it was a good thing was the same? I may have got the wrong end of the stick on that one?
If my believing that I value my life is the second kind of objectivity. Then what is an example of the same level of subjectivity but counter to my claim that I value my life. As in an equivalent but contradictory claim which can't be demonstrated to be better or worse?

-- Updated June 30th, 2017, 4:11 pm to add the following --

Oh and I don't think it makes sense for the strong to take from the weak. That would raise all sorts of problems?
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

I'm sorry I thought you were saying my believing a blasphemy law was a bad thing and someone else believing it was a good thing was the same?
Well they are opinions, neither opinion is objectively superior. How an outsider views them will be based on his own principles and feelings.
I may have got the wrong end of the stick on that one?
Lol I am not sure really, you said "the problem you are having between your description of blasphemy laws as horrible but your intellectual belief that God exists" and I have no idea what problem you are talking about, also I am an atheist so I have no "intellectual belief" that God exists. Not sure if this is a syntax issue or a misunderstanding of some sort... What I was saying is that it is hard for people to "agree to disagree" when it comes to matters of significance and because "my feelings" is a weak argument they look to some kind of objective or higher than man source to create strong opposition. For me the alternative to this is to accept the existence of the culture war and fight for what you believe in, a moral victory doesn't have to (and can't be) objective but yet people feel the need to try to make it so. In the end it is a matter of alignment but this does not satisfy people's blood lust, they want a worse fate for their enemies than being reviled and without any real (or in their eyes sufficient) consequences for their actions.
If my believing that I value my life is the second kind of objectivity
This may be just a typo but there is only one kind of objectivity.
Then what is an example of the same level of subjectivity but counter to my claim that I value my life. As in an equivalent but contradictory claim which can't be demonstrated to be better or worse?
There are not levels to subjectivity and I still don't understand your subjectivity spectrum argument and the whole premise of this question bothers me. You keep interchanging "life is good" to "I value my life" to "I value the life of my loved ones" and these are all extremely different things. You cannot just change them between each other as it suits you, nobody can tell you what you value or don't value and the notion of that is absurd.
Oh and I don't think it makes sense for the strong to take from the weak. That would raise all sorts of problems?
Why doesn't it make sense? The thing about saying individuals should think for themselves is that they aren't going to have the same principles and morals as everyone else, you can't tell people to think for themselves yet control what they think. I really think on the basis that you swap from making an evolutionary argument, to a cultural argument, to a religious argument, to an ethical argument that you are similarly disinterested in the means by which you achieve what you consider to be of the highest importance. The strong outperforming the weak is the basis of evolution and in a situation without laws this is probably exactly what would happen and one merely needs to look at countries that verge on lawlessness to see this truth. Destabilised countries are not democracies where all folks have a say, rather gangs of men with guns take what they want... they rape and they pillage and they don't spare one thought for the problems it causes for others or society at large. Surely you are worldly enough to know that things don't work like that, once again it just feels like everything you say is convenient to you and it bothers me. Things that you don't like don't make sense? The world has a thousand examples of it happening yet for you it doesn't make sense? Of course it would raise problems but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen - it does happen!!
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

I'm sorry I thought you were saying my believing a blasphemy law was a bad thing and someone else believing it was a good thing was the same?


Well they are opinions, neither opinion is objectively superior.
But you said a blasphemy law would be a horrible thing? How can neither opinion be superior but one opinion horrible and the other not?
If you are talking about results then surely you can argue that the results of a blasphemy law are a bad thing? I understand your argument that welfare doesn't exist objectively, it's not a property of the universe (or at least there's no evidence for that). But it surely exists subjectively? As in it's objectively a fact that most humans desire welfare. So if we are talking about blasphemy being bad then it's fair to suggest that that is true for most humans. The only humans this wouldn't be true for are ones who don't value their life, the life of others, or welfare (I believe all these things are linked, but that is a different argument). Now personally that's good enough for me to say that blasphemy laws are bad for almost everyone. life which doesn't agree that life has value is kind of a threat to itself and other life. I don't value the opinion that life has no value because I do value life. Like I said you have to start with an axiom, but I don't believe this is an unreasonable axiom or that all axioms are the same. The point I was making about evolution was that evolution tends to lead to life which values life irrespective of the personal opinions of said life.
you can't tell people to think for themselves yet control what they think.
I was specifically talking in this example about both thinking for yourself and being close to reality. If you are far from reality and thinking for yourself then anything is possible. In the real world the strong constantly steal from the weak, law or no law makes no difference. So the question is in this stealing are they increasing welfare? I would debate that net they are not increasing welfare and even for themselves it is unlikely they are increasing welfare. Being super rich sounds like a great thing but money is not reality.
Then what is an example of the same level of subjectivity but counter to my claim that I value my life. As in an equivalent but contradictory claim which can't be demonstrated to be better or worse?


There are not levels to subjectivity
Apologies, the point I was trying to make was what is a counter to me claiming I value my life. I wasn't trying to debate levels of subjectivity. For example you could say you do not value your life? Is the claim I value my life worth the same as the claim I don't value my life.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

But you said a blasphemy law would be a horrible thing? How can neither opinion be superior but one opinion horrible and the other not?
Clearly not everyone thinks it is a horrible thing? Your proof that they are wrong essentially amounts to "might is right" but how can we move forward and adopt better philosophies or attain more knowledge if all we do is assume what the majority of us believe in the present is undoubtedly objective truth? You have your axiom and others have theirs, you have to show that your axiom is objectively superior to all others, mine, the Muslims and whoever else happens to different values to you. All you can do is say because biology or because majority and I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way. The second kind of subjectivity cannot be scrutinised as true/false and that is the end of it, there is nothing left to say.
I was specifically talking in this example about both thinking for yourself and being close to reality. If you are far from reality and thinking for yourself then anything is possible. In the real world the strong constantly steal from the weak, law or no law makes no difference. So the question is in this stealing are they increasing welfare? I would debate that net they are not increasing welfare and even for themselves it is unlikely they are increasing welfare. Being super rich sounds like a great thing but money is not reality.
This is a gross oversimplification and the more you talk about "being close to reality" it seems to simply mean "acknowledging the correctness of my way of thinking" and this might make sense to someone who believes in moral objective law but naturally I think it is an absurd way to put things. Once again it is about alignment, do you understand what I mean by this? Either counter my argument, agree to disagree and walk away or acquiesce your view - we are going in circles big time here. Alignment means that for your "axiom" certain actions make sense and certain actions don't make sense on the basis of your "axiom(s)". If I want the world to be filled with peace and love then my actions ought to reflect this and this is what I call alignment. If I don't care about anyone except for myself and so i take things from others at their expense then that is in line with my axiom, it makes sense to ME. You may feel that we should measure the worth of an axiom by how useful to society it is but that is really rather irrelevant as it just yet another axiom for you that nobody else NEEDs to follow. You can argue that values will end up being harmful to the people who hold them, you can argue that they will be harmful to everyone and you may be right! I am not arguing that all axioms are equally intelligent or productive but clearly they make sense to the people who hold them or else they wouldn't. It just in the end comes back to your belief that you can't be wrong and that surely anyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. So much of what you have to say is just convenient heavy-handedness towards the various aspects of human kind that you find disagreeable and this is all objective law arguments come down to in the end. I agree that most people hold similar things to be of importance and so there are some actions that just seem plain stupid but when you allow people to think for themselves you cannot control their conclusions and this is why a framework must exist to incentivise and enable productive behaviour and punish or deincentivise destructive behaviour. History does not lie, the biology of man you are so enamoured with is clearly selfish and destructive - without rules follows chaos and religions like Christianity start to seem useful in these environments. Just understanding the history of Christianity will show this and so I am not convinced of the idea that free thinking people in a world without rules will end to co-operation and compassion, this is all the result of culture and legislation and time proves it over and over.

Apologies, the point I was trying to make was what is a counter to me claiming I value my life. I wasn't trying to debate levels of subjectivity. For example you could say you do not value your life? Is the claim I value my life worth the same as the claim I don't value my life.
Personally I would judge your decision to value your life or not value your life based on empirical benefit and alignment but to answer your question yes, they are equally subjective and both are the second kind of subjectivity (interpretations of reality) and thus we cannot objectively differentiate one opinion from the other.

The standard way of looking at actually countering the claim that you value your life would be that there are two options 1. You are do value your life and 2. You don't value your life and so one might say that there is an objective truth here and one option is true and the other false. I think this is a language fallacy and I have described this idea to you before but if you want me to repeat it you can ask, but I assume you can recall. To digress there are loopholes around this interpretation because we are dealing with language and not objective fact. It may be an empirical fact that you claim that you value your life however if you had attempted suicide five times and you were addicted to drugs then I could make an argument that you do not value your life on the basis of your actions regardless of what you felt - this would be my personal interpretation and thus the second kind of subjectivity. So I could contest the idea that you valued your life in this sense although such drastic circumstances aren't required. A Muslim might say that anyone who values their life would devote themselves to God because otherwise your life is a waste and thus you cannot possibly care about your life. Once again when it comes to language all kinds of things are possible and it is because interpretation is necessary to understand the concept of "valuing" that means it can be twisted and bent in such ways that one must recognise its subjective nature.

What of what I am saying do you disagree with or perhaps does not make sense to you? I feel it is time to wrap this up because I have nothing left to say but to repeat myself - my argument has been laid bare and whether you accept it or reject it, I feel that you are no longer providing counterarguments to what I have had to say and whether that is because you have also said all you have to say yet remain unconvinced or because you perhaps find that you do not disagree with what I have had to say I can't tell. I hope you have at least learned the differences between the two kinds of subjectivity and also which of my arguments have been the first kind and which have been the second because I do not ask that you agree with my interpretation of reality. The problems of this thread are fairly obvious to me and if you've understood what I've said then I don't see how anyone could think differently - the different interpretations of reality between whatever elected officials were to govern us should not be forced upon people because they can't even be objectively correct, it doesn't matter whether you are a genius or an expert or whatever. There is no way that any group of experts would share ideologies and in fact they are specifically said to have intentionally opposing ideologies... So which subjective interpretation of "the right way" are we going to follow and how is it going to be decided? It is a bunch of crap. As for your arguments Eduk, honestly your axiom as I said before is exceedingly common and it is a pretty good one, I am sure you are a good guy irl but I think if you relinquished the idea that your view was determined by nature or objective truth and determined simply because you are a compassionate person who cares about other people then it would open up your horizons to appreciating other peoples views and the differences that exist between people. Perhaps open your eyes to the nuance that exists between all of these people who have come to different conclusions yet so many of them having similar intentions and even Muslims who promote blasphemy laws in their own deluded way are probably doing it because they were taught that it is necessary for the well being of their people. Yet even though most people care about well being - even if they all did - this doesn't create objective moral law and that is not substantial evidence to someone who values the scientific method or cares about REAL proof.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

You can argue that values will end up being harmful to the people who hold them, you can argue that they will be harmful to everyone and you may be right!
Is this not quite important though? Isn't that the crux of my argument? Shouldn't we attempt to not hold harmful values as best we can?
I am not arguing that all axioms are equally intelligent or productive but clearly they make sense to the people who hold them or else they wouldn't.
Again this seems quite important? I'm not arguing that many negative theories don't make sense to those who hold them. I am arguing that some theories are better than others and that everyone should ideally pick the best theory they can with our current knowledge and current ability to test said theories. If that knowledge changes then so do the theories.
It just in the end comes back to your belief that you can't be wrong and that surely anyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong.
I don't remember saying that was my belief. This is a good example of where being closer to reality is useful. If you are correct that this is how I think then you should dismiss my opinion and avoid me as a person. If you are incorrect then you should change your opinion, apologise and try to work out why you would come to the wrong conclusion in the first place to avoid that in the future. In the long run being correct will increase your well being and being incorrect will decrease your well being, don't you want to increase your well being? Would you not like to know for sure if you were right or wrong about me? It is an objective truth as to whether you are right or wrong. Even if that is an objective truth you can't currently measure perfectly.
a framework must exist to incentivise and enable productive behaviour and punish or deincentivise destructive behaviour.
I don't understand how this comment makes sense in the context of what you are saying? One person's constructive behaviour, killing infidels, is another's destructive behaviour, killing innocents. You are telling me there is no way to choose between subjective beliefs and then you are telling me you choose between subjective beliefs. I don't understand your argument?
History does not lie, the biology of man you are so enamoured with is clearly selfish and destructive
I am sorry I am not a glass half full or a glass half empty guy. Human's have achieved miraculous things both good and bad. On the whole I would say the current state of humanity, with all it's many flaws, is not destructive overall, as evidence of this I present the fact that we are alive.
It may be an empirical fact that you claim that you value your life however if you had attempted suicide five times and you were addicted to drugs then I could make an argument that you do not value your life on the basis of your actions regardless of what you felt
There are a few things here. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence. We can agree on that. Just because someone says they are X does not mean they are X. You can look up the effects on self reporting in medical studies and see the issues. Sometimes self reporting is the best we can do though. And in the absence of a better way it's, again, the best we can do. Self reporting can likely be trusted up to a point, the key is to know where the point is.
Your example is quite bad. People who try to commit suicide five times almost certainly value their life. There is nothing to suggest an addict does not value their life either? At the end of the day if you think your life is so bad you want to kill yourself then you must be measuring that badness against some goodness. You are still making a value judgement. In reality suicide is complex and certainly does not demonstrate any lack of value of life. The true opposite to 'I value my life' is 'I am neutral to my life'.
The problems of this thread are fairly obvious to me and if you've understood what I've said then I don't see how anyone could think differently
Again this seems quite inconsistent. If it's your opinion that an opinion can't be closer too or further from reality then how can you declare your opinion is correct and my opinion is wrong? Surely the best you could say is that your opinion is correct to you and my opinion is correct to me and we can wish each other the best? But you don't draw that conclusion and I don't understand why. Then you say some argument from the masses about you don't see how anyone can think differently even though there is someone telling you directly that they think differently.

I am trying to get to a key disagreement, but keep getting side tracked :)

I guess if I say you can be closer to or further away from reality. Then we can agree? It's still subjective opinion against subjective opinion but some subjective opinions are closer to objective truth than others. We can agree on that I assume?
But now I think the point you are making is 'so what'. I agree that opinion X is closer to reality than opinion Y but I don't agree that opinion X is 'better' than opinion Y. Is that the point you are trying to make?
I could argue opinion X is better if you want to survive or increase quality of life (and I will be objectively right or wrong). But then you can say why is surviving or increasing quality of life 'good'. Prove that survival is 'good'. Prove an objective 'goodness' of life as a property of the universe. Of course here I can't. I already said I can't. I said 'life is good' is an axiom.
My counter that 'life is good' is true of that life that holds this axiom you seem to dismiss as a word game? But I don't really get what you are saying, I apologise. Thoughts are physical things. Opinions exist physically. If you remove my brain I cease to have thoughts. Granted there is an undefined point where physical things appear to grant things like consciousness. And granted no one has any idea how this can happen. All I'm saying is that it does. It's not understood so it's hard to draw strong conclusions. But it's no word game to say it's objectively true whether or not I value my life. You can perhaps argue that you don't take the true thoughts of humans as objectively existing, I would be interested to hear the argument, but I don't think it's fair to say it's just a word game and dismiss it.
Finally I agree with you that if you had two entities and one (X) truly believed life to have no value and the other (Y) believed that it did. Then in this case I agree there is nothing to separate the two beliefs objectively (that we know of). X is not better or worse than Y, they are just different.
Of course logically there won't be many X entities because they presumably would not survive long. This does not mean they are 'wrong' it just means there are less of them due to survivability issues.

-- Updated July 3rd, 2017, 5:15 am to add the following --

Oh and this last point is not an argument to say it's 'right' to value life. It's just an argument to say that most life does value life. This does not mean most life is 'right'. As I already agreed there is no objective 'right' as a property of the universe. If a life form ceases to exist then this is not objectively a 'bad' thing from the point of view of the universe (or at least I can't currently prove that, in reality it might be).

-- Updated July 3rd, 2017, 5:25 am to add the following --

Again to be clear. What I am trying to say is that if you exist then you almost certainly value your own life. It's not a 100% true thing it's purely an odds on thing. Again this does not mean it is 'right' to value your own life. I'm not making any appeals to anything which can't be empirically tested.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

Is this not quite important though? Isn't that the crux of my argument? Shouldn't we attempt to not hold harmful values as best we can?
Perhaps, I am mostly making the argument that appealing this to me demonstrates the subjectivity of the subject and whether I agree with you or not doesn't change the facts. Personally I agree with you but even with that, there is no way we will agree on what are harmful views and what are not - this is the meat of the issue even once you've accepted the second form of subjectivity. Any agreement on this would not be a unification of any kind, few take values knowing they will lead to destruction - you say that means people should be closer to reality and I agree but things are not that simplistic. Values transcend consequences because they are not necessarily based on them - Japanese Samurai culture is the best and most extreme example of this, that they are harmful is not necessarily consequential and almost everyone will have views that transcend consequence. My view is that consequence should always be held to the highest value but even if we agree on that - the method for achieving this and the interpretation of harm will differ. I don't think you are saying anything controversial or disagreeable it's just simplistic with assumptions which are highly unrealistic - as though nature and reality offer solid guidance on what people should do and the answers are in fact very obvious. If you understand what I've just said and you still feel your view unifies those who accept your argument then there isn't much more I can do to show you.
I don't remember saying that was my belief.
It's a hyperbole to have you confront the implications of your "subjective" view - to show you how meaningless your idea of subjectivity is and how it ends up recreating objective moral law under the guise of the only logical and rational conclusion; that in fact what you say is subjective. This is a far more common thing I see, compared to people literally declaring objective moral law exists, which I felt you were verging on earlier on in this conversation - you believe in a spectrum of subjectivity, you believe closeness to reality solves problems of interpretation and you don't recognise categories as being language based instead of descriptions of physical realities. Because you believe in these things, it severely undermines the notion that opinions founded upon alternative interpretations can be correct and in fact since interpretations such as blasphemy laws can be considered less true than opinions based on your own values on an objective level, you are literally signalling your belief in your own objective moral correctness. What is the alternative here? As I said you can make arguments based on validity and alignment but once you disregard interpretations as incorrect, you can only really negotiate within your own mindset. This may not be so intolerant that it is fair to say you cannot entertain the invalidity of your own views but it is all dependant upon you, your way of thinking could very well include a vast majority of alternative views such as my own as unrealistic or incorrect, despite obviously having no evidence to back that up seeing as objective evidence cannot disprove interpretations - something you have admitted on multiple times and continue to admit later on in this post.

As a side note to the rest of this paragraph - do you really believe my life will be any worse off if I had this view of you, correct or no? You say it will increase my well being but once again there is just conjecture and anecdotal evidence, certainly my genes aren't going to be eliminated because I misunderstood you - I don't know if you maintain this nonsense evolutionary view but surely this reprimand offers a perfect example of the redundancy of the view?

I am sorry I am not a glass half full or a glass half empty guy. Human's have achieved miraculous things both good and bad. On the whole I would say the current state of humanity, with all it's many flaws, is not destructive overall, as evidence of this I present the fact that we are alive.
Neither am I, I haven't tried to simplify humans as murderous beasts but my evidence for the destructive aspect of mankind is well, the plethora of demonstrations of it. You could deny that this is due to nature but being as it is a massively significant influence on our history it would force you to acknowledge the significance of nurture type influences or man made systems like politics and economics and that would be good enough for me. Either biology is flawed or biology is not dominating our existence, either way biology/reality does not make interpretation redundant.
There are a few things here. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.
This is not an example of anecdotal evidence - I find it amusing that you approach this problem as though you are dealing with a murder case or case study. Do you really believe there is an objective truth to be found here? Are you that far gone? You can tell me your interpretation all you like, just don't pretend it is objectively true, this is such a self-indulgent perspective. I showed you here not that suicide demonstrates a lack of value in life but that value can be interpreted to mean different things and thus undermines the idea that there is an objective reality to you valuing your life that I cannot contest. Any objective reality can be interpreted including your opinions and my interpretation is not contradictory to reality but separate. If you think this is just a word game then you haven't understood what I am saying and I've explained it enough times so I can't do much more about that but no matter what words you use won't change anything - it is hardly semantics.
Again this seems quite inconsistent. If it's your opinion that an opinion can't be closer too or further from reality then how can you declare your opinion is correct and my opinion is wrong?
No. My view is not that an opinion can't be closer or further from the truth, my opinion is that there are two kinds of subjectivity - perspective and interpretation. Perspective can be wrong, there is an objective reality and we try to make sense of it but we fail, most of my arguments here are based on this principle and I do believe there is an objective truth and that you are objectively wrong. The second kind of subjectivity; interpretation I have talked about far less. My views have been stated already; that we require values for rational thought yet values hold no objective meaning, thus we should utilise them to give us practical and empirical benefits based on our interpretations. That is not objectively true - just my opinion. I have also said that I do not believe whatever you believe is right for you - if your views are inconsistent or illogical then I will call you out on that. If you care about your freedom but you also believe you have the right to shoot people who look at you funny - I will call you out on that lunacy but I won't say you are objectively wrong. Just illogical, irrational and stupid - I may try to show you the error of your ways.
But now I think the point you are making is 'so what'. I agree that opinion X is closer to reality than opinion Y but I don't agree that opinion X is 'better' than opinion Y. Is that the point you are trying to make?
No that is not my point, I think objective reality is extremely pertinent to both kinds of subjectivity. "I agree that opinion X is closer to reality than opinion y" could be an objectively true statement and "opinion x is better than opinion y" cannot be an objectively true statement. I am starting to worry if you are understanding anything I am saying, am I describing my views unsatisfactorily?
I could argue opinion X is better if you want to survive or increase quality of life (and I will be objectively right or wrong). But then you can say why is surviving or increasing quality of life 'good'. Prove that survival is 'good'. Prove an objective 'goodness' of life as a property of the universe. Of course here I can't. I already said I can't. I said 'life is good' is an axiom.
You are describing alignment. I value alignment very highly and I think it is one of the main ways we can argue against each others interpretations, you could give answers to why life is good and I wouldn't take an issue with that, in fact I think that kind of thinking is necessary for rational thought and isn't really something we can reject - I am good so long as you call them opinions and not objective fact.
You can perhaps argue that you don't take the true thoughts of humans as objectively existing, I would be interested to hear the argument, but I don't think it's fair to say it's just a word game and dismiss it.
This isn't my argument, my argument is that you don't get to own what I think about your thoughts and while your interpretations exist objectively - the thoughts themselves hold implicit subjectivity.
Finally I agree with you that if you had two entities and one (X) truly believed life to have no value and the other (Y) believed that it did. Then in this case I agree there is nothing to separate the two beliefs objectively (that we know of). X is not better or worse than Y, they are just different.
Great, now all you have to do is apply that logic to all interpretations and recognise the difference between interpretations and perspectives. This includes minor considerations that don't influence evolution and honestly understanding just these things will evaporate any serious disagreement between the two of us. I recognise your right to believe life is good and honestly I think it is a very good view.
Again to be clear. What I am trying to say is that if you exist then you almost certainly value your own life. It's not a 100% true thing it's purely an odds on thing. Again this does not mean it is 'right' to value your own life. I'm not making any appeals to anything which can't be empirically tested.
I don't contest that.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

you say that means people should be closer to reality and I agree but things are not that simplistic. Values transcend consequences because they are not necessarily based on them - Japanese Samurai culture is the best and most extreme example of this, that they are harmful is not necessarily consequential and almost everyone will have views that transcend consequence. My view is that consequence should always be held to the highest value but even if we agree on that - the method for achieving this and the interpretation of harm will differ.
I never once said or implied that humans are perfect. Of course interpretations differ. What I am though saying is that some interpretations are more right than other interpretations. Of course in the real world the exact harm done is often either very hard to demonstrate empirically or basically impossible. Personally I am hopeful techniques will improve and demonstrating empirical harm will become easier and easier. Much like the weather is horribly complex to predict but models improve all the time. Of course many people don't accept empirical evidence (back to interpretation) but those people are denying reality. Being wrong, being proven to be wrong, that won't change their minds, it should, but it doesn't. Again humans are not perfect.
Oh and just to be clear not having empirical evidence doesn't mean you are wrong it just means you can't prove you are right. Einstein famously thought about things while doing his utmost not to be restricted by what he 'knew'. But at the end of the day he absolutely recognised the need for empirical evidence. I'm not degrading unknown techniques as false before they start I'm simply requiring results which can be demonstrated consistently and independently. How exactly that is achieved I am open to.
it severely undermines the notion that opinions founded upon alternative interpretations can be correct and in fact since interpretations such as blasphemy laws can be considered less true than opinions based on your own values on an objective level, you are literally signalling your belief in your own objective moral correctness.
Again interpretation does not effect reality. I'm not disagreeing that people interpret differently. I am saying that blasphemy laws harm life (on the whole). So logically if you value life then regardless of your personal interpretation you would be closer to your goals if blasphemy laws didn't exist. I am saying that certain objective facts follow from the axiom 'I value life'. As I said this does not make you 'better' it makes you better at long term survival and well being etc but it's not objectively 'better'.
do you really believe my life will be any worse off if I had this view of you, correct or no?
Yes of course, if you are wrong. In this specific instance only extremely mildly and it's basically irrelevant but the answer is yes.

A small advantage to gene survival over time will lead to change, even if that advantage is very minor. If you take the passage of millions of years then any advantage is desirable. I'm not saying that evolution is a one way street to increased survival and fair enough some of what I've said is hyperbole. I can imagine various scenarios.

1. Life as a whole (not just humans and not just on earth) goes extinct. In this scenario there is no logical reason to suppose any of that life always headed towards reality.
2. Life doesn't go extinct and somehow demonstrates that it is secure in not going extinct. This again doesn't prove that that life is heading inexorably towards reality but it shows a range of something. Not too far from reality to go extinct at the least. The longer life goes on then logically the chances that the life is just getting lucky over and over and defying the odds get less and less likely. Again by no means conclusive. I am more hopeful here than anything to else to be honest, so please don't consider that I believe this is proven. It's more suggested at. It is at least a possibility. The end goal in this scenario I can't imagine.
3. Life waxes and wains. Never too far from reality to go extinct and never near enough to prove anything of consequence. Hey this is still pretty miraculous but in this scenario reality only does so much.

To which universe we live in I have no idea.


Evolution is such a blanket term it's almost trivial in a sense. You can summarize it as whatever survived survived. So humans are still in that process even if something like natural selection isn't. You could argue that a culture war is a part of evolution. The ideas that survive survive. Certainly that's the idea behind memes and again it's trivially true. But of course the conclusions you can draw are complex.

You aren't an island. You influence others. If you are thinking incorrectly that will rub off on others. Again in the case above it's minor but you do that enough and enough people are influenced and influence others then who knows where it leads. There are a lot of obviously crazy ideas in this world and I would say they drastically effect quality of life and decrease chances of life continuing. Sure we haven't gone extinct yet, but it's a possibility. Any amount of incorrect thinking contributes to this, again for most people most of the time not in huge and obvious ways but you take those small disadvantages and add them up over a life time and you will be having a profound effect on your life and those around you.
I find it amusing that you approach this problem as though you are dealing with a murder case or case study. Do you really believe there is an objective truth to be found here?
I don't understand your comment. You were saying someone who tried to commit suicide five times didn't value their life and I was saying that that is too simplistic? It is of course an objective fact of whether they value their life or not (or to what degree), although an objective fact that is impossible to demonstrate categorically.
that we require values for rational thought yet values hold no objective meaning, thus we should utilise them to give us practical and empirical benefits based on our interpretations.
But I still don't understand. If the value can't be demonstrated then how can the practical and empirical benefits be demonstrated? Again I value blasphemy so I demonstrate the empirical benefit by those who have been hung and me getting into heaven or wherever. You value not blasphemy so you demonstrate your benefit by pointing at higher well fare as a whole on earth. I can't argue with the higher well fare (well I can but let's assume we are both going with empirical evidence). I can agree that blasphemy leads to lower well fare but I can still value blasphemy higher than well fare due to my interpretation. We are both logically sound and it's both just two opinions. But the issue I have here is the lack of gods to make blasphemy valuation higher than well fare. After all blasphemy is either right or wrong. If right then they are right to value it over well fare, if wrong then they wrong to value it over well fare. This is an objective fact.

Like you I measure success by results. Things like requiring empirical evidence have brought results. If you can demonstrate that not requiring empirical evidence can bring results then I'm happy to listen.
I recognise your right to believe life is good and honestly I think it is a very good view.
I don't think either of us is unreasonable or what we would generally call a 'bad' person in normative use. I'm not trying to attack you personally or argue. I'm quite happy to have a discussion and try to understand a different viewpoint and attempt to express my own. I hold this would be a lot simpler if we just in the same room, though we may have to agree to disagree :) I mean a lot of what we are saying comes down to degrees, we are both more or less wanting high well fare for ourselves and our loved ones so we aren't against each other on that. I guess I'm just pushing for things like 'good' or 'bad' to have more real world meaning than you, even though at the end of the day in normal use we likely call many of the same things good and bad :)
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

What I am though saying is that some interpretations are more right than other interpretations
When I say interpretations, I mean things like "what is justice", "what is beautiful", "How much charity should one give?" and things of this nature. Where choices exist but our basis for any conclusion cannot be objectively verified because of the nature of the choice. Perhaps a lot of what I've been saying has made little sense because we are not talking about the same things here. Once again I distinguish between two kinds of subjectivity; perspective and interpretation.

Perspective comes through experience, knowledge and feeling, it is our flawed attempted to understand objective reality. We have opinions about objective reality that differ from others because not all is known or we refuse to accept the methodology that other people are using, in a different world, perspective could completely coincide with objective reality and in this sense, our perspective can be more or less correct and closer to reality. Perspective is very relevant to interpretation because we can only interpret that which we perceive as a matter of course and this means that perspective has a great influence over interpretation. Perspective is also relevant because of one's anticipation of application and causality in the context of interpretation, for example your interpretation is "life is good" and you would have an understanding of what that meant, then using your experience and knowledge you would have ideas about how your ideas will be implemented and what kind of impact you expect they will have. I acknowledge that these terms are not ideal but I can't think of anything better right now, I am not accustomed to explaining these things to others yet. Basically for any view or opinion where an objective truth exists, this is perspective.

Interpretation is the opposite, in the case where your opinion or view cannot be measured as being true or false because you are not attempting to show the existence or true causality of something, in essence you are stating your preference but really it is more complicated than that. Hypothetically it is preference because there are no limitations to our interpretations but in reality we conform to nature/nurture influences and how we understand and interpret things is not something that most people do not simply decide at their leisure. Religion, culture, morality, hormones, physiological influences, emotions, experiences and so much else goes into how we interpret things and this form of subjective thinking is by nature, just a choice made by a creature with free will and since there is no evidence to show any objective truth to how free will should be utilised, there is no knowledge that contradicts whatever an individual chooses to do. So in this case, nobody can be more correct than anybody else because there is no objective truth to begin with.

Therefore when you are criticising someones interpretation, it is redundant to say that it does not effect reality - you said that you recognise your axiom is just your own interpretation but then surely you realise that an argument of validity/alignment could be made by the opposing side to defend their position by making their own equally unfounded claims and the two of you would get nowhere? And then so commences either a culture war or real war, both of which we are currently fighting against Islamists. You have absolutely no evidence to support that people who believe in blasphemy laws are going to go extinct and in fact all logic and evidence is in stark opposition to your claims. Islam is hardly a new religion as far as civilisation is concerned, you keep saying "let's not underestimate how amazing it is that we are alive today" yet ironically the path we took to get here is firstly, not dissimilar to Islam or blasphemy laws and in many cases in fact far worse than this. And secondly Islam is not having any problems surviving, Muslims are not on the verge of destruction nor seem to be heading anywhere close to destruction and in fact Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world despite the Quran and hadiths very clearly stating apostasy is punishable by death. Almost everything you've said up until now about anything involving death has been utterly ridiculous and nonsensical and this new iteration of this lunacy against Islam is no different. No evidence, absolutely no evidence and continually forces the issue on debating instances where death is the focal point to drive home this notion that ignorance = death, stupidity = eliminated from the collective gene pool and "my ideas may not be objectively correct, but everyone else is going to die so who cares". The vast majority of issues don't involve death as a consequence of bad judgement and even the topics you've chosen with death as a clear focal point still have yet to demonstrate any signs of genetic elimination or long term survival problems.

This here is the problem, you are happy to preach about the importance of "closeness to reality" and the scientific method, that believe mandates proof to others - condescend towards Christians and other groups yet when it comes to your own belief, there is no evidence that you practice anything that you preach whatsoever. Where's the evidence? Where's the evidence? Even when I disprove your claims - something in your words that I shouldn't have to do, you still persist! Tell me what is the difference between you and the religious types you disagree with so much? I don't see any but that isn't what bothers me, it is the hypocrisy and hubris which is all too common amongst atheists.
I don't understand your comment. You were saying someone who tried to commit suicide five times didn't value their life and I was saying that that is too simplistic? It is of course an objective fact of whether they value their life or not (or to what degree), although an objective fact that is impossible to demonstrate categorically.
Previously you agreed that "welfare" does not objectively exist because it is a categorical language term and what it describes is subject to interpretation - the things that one might interpret welfare to mean do objectively exist but the term "welfare" itself does not. The same logic applies to all words, "value" is no exception. You asked me to show you a counterargument to the idea that "you value your life" and honestly I don't know why you asked for this but I obliged nonetheless simply to prove that I could - it is not my argument that someone who commits or attempts suicide cannot/does not value their life, I am just demonstrating an easy to understand argument against the idea that you value your life. In actual fact, even if you didn't attempt suicide, I can easily make an argument against the idea that you value your life - all I need to do is create prerequisites for "valuing" life that you don't meet and I have created a valid argument against you. These prerequisites could be nonsensical, they could use logic that you acknowledge or the argument might end up changing your mind because it aligns with your own thinking. You say it is an objective fact but there is actually no evidence to support this, a common theme here... Whether you understand the more significant point that the concept of "valuing" is not actually an objective reality but a description of an objective reality or not is irrelevant if you actually require proof in order to believe things. If you define "valuing" and I define "valuing" and the two definitions are not the same, how do you propose you will prove that my definition is incorrect? A dictionary? A dictionary is not objective reality, it is a book written by men and it does not provide any evidence to show that what you call "valuing" is the same as whatever you are actually feeling or not.

As I started off, if you are prepared to take the leap of faith and say that our word "valuing" with 100% certainty describes the same and appropriate thing whenever the word is used then I don't have a counter argument to that. Even if there is an objective reality that the word valuing 100% accurately describes, we would also need a way to show with certainty that you are not incorrectly labelling what you are feeling as "valuing" rather than simply taking your word for it. If you know it to be so concrete then naturally, evidence must exist to support this otherwise you are just making assumptions. If you want to have a discussion about this within the context of claims requiring proof - or else they are just opinions and naturally opinions can be disagreed with - then what other conclusion can one come to? You want to debate how it "should" be whereas I am uninterested with how it "should be", I am just describing "what is" and at times "what we must assume" if we are to say that without proof, we cannot conclude in the positive.
But I still don't understand. If the value can't be demonstrated then how can the practical and empirical benefits be demonstrated? Again I value blasphemy so I demonstrate the empirical benefit by those who have been hung and me getting into heaven or
First up there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates hanging people for blasphemy get you into heaven or improves God's mood or whatever else the Islamists claim that it does but there is empirical evidence that it has results some would describe as "higher welfare". Naturally results require interpretation because the universe does not care about what happens to us, it has no opinion. Empirical just means it can be demonstrated, practical just means it has demonstrable causality - it doesn't mean objectively right.
But the issue I have here is the lack of gods to make blasphemy valuation higher than well fare. After all blasphemy is either right or wrong. If right then they are right to value it over well fare, if wrong then they wrong to value it over well fare. This is an objective fact.
No that is your opinion, even if God did exist I would still say punishing blasphemy by death is a horrific practice and I would still support individual welfare... As soon as you say "they are right to..." you know that it isn't objective fact, the universe doesn't give two hoots about what you do and certainly there is no evidence to show that there is something we have to do and if we don't do that then we are wrong.
I guess I'm just pushing for things like 'good' or 'bad' to have more real world meaning than you, even though at the end of the day in normal use we likely call many of the same things good and bad :)
I'm sure you've noticed that my hatred towards ideas I disagree with has not been tempered by my belief that interpretations cannot be objectively wrong, plenty of things make my blood boil such as atheist bloggers in Bangladesh being butchered by Muslims for their beliefs, I don't feel impartial towards that kind of behaviour at all. You may feel what I am doing is trying to water down the idea of things being "good" or "bad", arguing that they are meaningless but the reality is that I take my beliefs very seriously and I think you would be surprised by how ruthless and unforgiving some of my opinions are. Most of what we are arguing about is based on the consequences of believing that claims require proof and the consequences of that belief is that much of what some take for granted are in fact unsubstantiated and baseless claims. I am trying to show you that your view is actually very far away from what you are saying it is, your view is idealistic - it is based on what you wished were true. I much prefer your world to reality but it isn't an option for me, I choose reality.

I guess you would have to define "real world meaning", for me there are two things I feel I need to make clear. First is that I am a willing participant of the culture wars, I have a vision for how I think things should be and I vote for it, argue for it and care about it. Nothing about what I do would change if objective moral law existed or if God made his presence undeniable, there is nothing more important than what I care to me but I do recognise I have to co-exist with people and being the change I wish to see in the world is as important to me as anything else. There is plenty that I disagree with yet am powerless to stop but name calling and false certainty in the damnation of those I disagree with is not satisfying to me, I want those atheists in Bangladesh to be able to blog about what they want without being butchered and I don't really believe nor care whether their murderers are objectively right or wrong, I want real results and that is what I care about. I am at peace with the fact that there isn't much I can do about it but that doesn't mean I think my beliefs have no real world meaning, it's just that I have limitations and other things I want to protect. So what is the difference between you and I really? If we get mad at the similar things, if we care about the similar things, if we want real demonstrable changes to bring us closer to our ideal world? I don't really think your view ends up giving "good" or "bad" more real world meaning, it just mistakenly assumes their meaning to be objective. This topic is probably too complicated for us to ever get across every relevant idea we have about it to each other no longer how much we debate but for me, this has not been about admonishing you for your values but trying to hold you to what you originally claimed - that claims require proof and we ought not need to disprove claims.

I came to this forum to become better at wording my ideas and to have them challenged, I have seen that there is a lot of work to be done in wording my ideas and being concise and intelligible and I am happy to talk about any evidence you have to challenge me. I didn't really come here to change the world by convincing one person at a time and I am happy to walk away without you acquiescing your view, we can agree to disagree... I do feel somewhat dissatisfied that you have neither presented evidence to prove me wrong nor admitted defeat on almost anything you've said up until now, in the end is it just enough for you to believe it is true no matter what and that's the end of it? Perhaps my tone has made it hard for you to back down now but I hope you will seriously consider in earnest whether your views hold up to your standards or not even if you never admit it to me.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

When I say interpretations, I mean things like "what is justice", "what is beautiful", "How much charity should one give?" and things of this nature. Where choices exist but our basis for any conclusion cannot be objectively verified because of the nature of the choice.
I would argue that there are better or worse interpretations of justice, beauty and charity. For example you might decide someone is 'ugly' and then discriminate against them. Whereas a fairer person might consider more than outside appearance when valuing people. But I think you can go further too. You can recognise that beauty has a cultural aspect which is very subjective, a biological aspect which is subjective but can be closer to interpretation or perspective (using your definitions) and perhaps some more objective aspects to do with function for which something like beauty might be considered an unconscious attempt at perspective. I mean it's complicated and messy. Some people look ugly to me because their life choices are on display. Be that heroin addiction or arrogance or whatever. Others look ugly through some injury or disease. Now ugly is this blanket term, some people are ugly and deserve a certain level of judgement and others are ugly and deserve no judgement.
Perspective comes through experience, knowledge and feeling, it is our flawed attempted to understand objective reality. We have opinions about objective reality that differ from others because not all is known or we refuse to accept the methodology that other people are using
So it is somewhat cyclic. If you refuse to accept perspective which is correct due to interpretation which is wrong, then is the interpretation not wrong?
You have absolutely no evidence to support that people who believe in blasphemy laws are going to go extinct and in fact all logic and evidence is in stark opposition to your claims.
I never said they would instantly or necessarily. Was there a evidence for extinction of the Dodo before man arrived and quickly killed them all? Very few, if any, believe in Zeus anymore. There is a reason for this. Because Zeus is not based in reality. You cannot discover Zeus. You can invent Zeus but what's the chance of someone inventing Zeus who had never heard of Zeus?
you keep saying "let's not underestimate how amazing it is that we are alive today" yet ironically the path we took to get here is firstly, not dissimilar to Islam or blasphemy laws and in many cases in fact far worse than this.
That's not ironic. That shows a clear improvement. I am talking from our origin. A self replicating bunch of cells unaware of anything to humans, that is impressive by any definition.
axiom is just your own interpretation but then surely you realise that an argument of validity/alignment could be made by the opposing side to defend their position by making their own equally unfounded claims and the two of you would get nowhere?
Absolutely and I said so. I have no answer to the axiom that life is not of value. I already agreed with you, 'life has value' is an axiom. It is not 'right' objectively. Or at least there is no evidence to believe this. Actually in reality there may be some purpose to the universe, it's just we don't know what it is and I can't think of any educated guesses.
Almost everything you've said up until now about anything involving death has been utterly ridiculous and nonsensical and this new iteration of this lunacy against Islam is no different.
I said nothing against Islam? Islam is not the only religion to have blasphemy laws.
condescend towards Christians and other groups yet when it comes to your own belief, there is no evidence that you practice anything that you preach whatsoever. Where's the evidence? Where's the evidence?
What do I preach that I am not practicing? Can you be specific please?
A dictionary is not objective reality, it is a book written by men and it does not provide any evidence to show that what you call "valuing" is the same as whatever you are actually feeling or not.
Yes a good point. I have an emotion I call love. You have an emotion you call love. In reality it's quite likely that these two emotions are not 100% the same. After all there was a time that the emotion love did not exist. But how different is your emotion of love from mine? Are we 99% compatible? Or close to that? Are our emotions close enough that we can work together? Pain is a good one. What I call pain and what you call pain should logically be very slightly different. And yet I'm pretty sure if I hit your thumb with a hammer it would hurt you and I'm pretty sure you would avoid such pain.
As I started off, if you are prepared to take the leap of faith and say that our word "valuing" with 100% certainty describes the same and appropriate thing whenever the word is used then I don't have a counter argument to that. Even if there is an objective reality that the word valuing 100% accurately describes, we would also need a way to show with certainty that you are not incorrectly labelling what you are feeling as "valuing" rather than simply taking your word for it.
No I think it almost impossible that my subjective reality is identical to yours. I do however believe it to be extremely similar and similar enough to act upon with reason.
No that is your opinion, even if God did exist I would still say punishing blasphemy by death is a horrific practice and I would still support individual welfare
That is an odd statement. If God is defined as objectively good and his word is objectively good and he tells you to do something you say it's not good? Who is working off of evidence now?
I think you would be surprised by how ruthless and unforgiving some of my opinions are
I would not be surprised at all based on our conversation. It is somewhat ironic that my position may be considered much harsher and more unforgiving than yours but in practice the conclusions I draw are consistently much more forgiving than the conclusions you draw. This is not ironic to me, but may seem so to others.
First is that I am a willing participant of the culture wars, I have a vision for how I think things should be and I vote for it, argue for it and care about it. Nothing about what I do would change if objective moral law existed or if God made his presence undeniable
Again I don't get this. I believe in God the least possible. Yet if God exists then I would concede that he exists and change my behaviour appropriately.
So what is the difference between you and I really? If we get mad at the similar things, if we care about the similar things, if we want real demonstrable changes to bring us closer to our ideal world? I don't really think your view ends up giving "good" or "bad" more real world meaning, it just mistakenly assumes their meaning to be objective.
Seriously then why? Why do you value X over Y? Please describe your system for deciding what matters to you? and why something mattering to you matters to you.
I do feel somewhat dissatisfied that you have neither presented evidence to prove me wrong nor admitted defeat on almost anything you've said up until now, in the end is it just enough for you to believe it is true no matter what and that's the end of it? Perhaps my tone has made it hard for you to back down now but I hope you will seriously consider in earnest whether your views hold up to your standards or not even if you never admit it to me.
Again why? By your own argument we are both interpreting things differently with no objectively correct interpretation which exists. Why would my interpretation cause you any consternation at all, I don't understand?
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021