Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

I agree, murder is bad

I do not agree murder is the same as killing.

Rhetorical Question, but isn't philosophy supposed to be independent of agreement? Whether murder is bad or not is not dependent on concensus. Although I wonder if it would be murder to kill someone at a low point in their life, when they do not resist. Perhap that would be a question to consider in aggregate. Is the distinction between manslaughter and murder valid? 

Also whether people equate philosophy to morality, which many do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on your moral system.

utilitarianism would argue you are engaging in a net bad as the person’s future potential is be dissolved for no equal benefit.

we can go thru countless other systems, but you know it would be heroic to help another and a wide range of net zero to net really bad in moats systems.

note: many today accept if a person is going to die in a day, and the pain can’t be alleviated, an increasing dose of morphine until the body shuts down is moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jsbrads said:

Depends on your moral system.

utilitarianism would argue you are engaging in a net bad as the person’s future potential is be dissolved for no equal benefit.

we can go thru countless other systems, but you know it would be heroic to help another and a wide range of net zero to net really bad in moats systems.

note: many today accept if a person is going to die in a day, and the pain can’t be alleviated, an increasing dose of morphine until the body shuts down is moral.

Moral systems is something I'm trying to eliminate in my own mind, perhaps out of entertainment, which might be a poor reason. Utiltarianism and Potential, do they really go together, utility having current value?

To help another I guess could be virtuous, because it is optional, morality is perhaps more obligatory?

I think if they were incapicitated beyond communication or recovery, it would be moral to "end him rightly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utilitarianism argues the ends justify the means (101) so yeah, it works thru time too. 

Not that expressing in terms of utility specifically was important, merely easily quantifiable and communicable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

Utilitarianism argues the ends justify the means (101) so yeah, it works thru time too. 

Not that expressing in terms of utility specifically was important, merely easily quantifiable and communicable. 

So how are the ends determined? Through the means... which are? and for what purpose? "The greater good" which is what exactly? and compared to what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utilitarianism allows you to choose your own goals. It dispenses with universality.

“Ends justifying the means” means you can do things you think are evil now if at the end you will get a good result.

Lying to Nazi soldiers that you aren’t hiding Jews in your basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

Utilitarianism allows you to choose your own goals. It dispenses with universality.

“Ends justifying the means” means you can do things you think are evil now if at the end you will get a good result.

Lying to Nazi soldiers that you aren’t hiding Jews in your basement.

Wouldn't that eliminate morality all together, choosing your own goals despite consequences.

Justifying again implies consensus. By that logic concentration camps could be "justified" as a moral principle, whether S.Africa or anywhere else.

Lying to Nazi Soldiers, would not be evil if you believed the people were innocent, if you were "honest" you would be simultaneously be dishonest with yourself about their intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True utilitarian is about maximizing good for the most people. It is a little like Sam Harris, we can scan all the brains of people in Los Angeles and quantify their happiness points and write laws that maximize total happiness points. It has some flaws, like empathy monsters, people who get tons of happiness points from murdering old people who still have actuarily a year to live and are sufficiently infirm that their whole remaining year of life only attains a minimal number of happiness points.

where as I say it is morally good to kill murderers, utilitarianism requires I quantify somehow total happiness points of the kill vs the leave alive. AND it would in theory apply to any murder as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jsbrads said:

True utilitarian is about maximizing good for the most people. It is a little like Sam Harris, we can scan all the brains of people in Los Angeles and quantify their happiness points and write laws that maximize total happiness points. It has some flaws, like empathy monsters, people who get tons of happiness points from murdering old people who still have actuarily a year to live and are sufficiently infirm that their whole remaining year of life only attains a minimal number of happiness points.

where as I say it is morally good to kill murderers, utilitarianism requires I quantify somehow total happiness points of the kill vs the leave alive. AND it would in theory apply to any murder as well. 

Turning morality into some form of video gameHappiness or joy, I remember mentioning once an example once of arson being motivated through joy rather than happiness, I think you mentioned the ancient greeks using other examples.

"I got out Frank. I've been carrying on the good work. Got me a score of forty." That Russian cannibal creep is telling everyone he did 50 plus. That reflects badly on both of us, Patty. This record should be held by an American." - The Frighteners

Killing murderers as "morally good for society"? or "morally good for yourself"? Personally I'd be more inclined to harvest them for organs(which I guess is done in China) or work them as slaves (also done in China). Though rope might be a cheaper more practical option in a free market, whatever works I guess. Quantify how? by dopamine hits or cold hard cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what you are going to look for in those brain scans is as distant to us as those brain scans. It may be possible to measure cortisol production, and reducing that may be a moral good, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the few useful things the UN ever did was to come up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has no roots in any religion and belief in religion or a deity is unnecessary. If this can be the source of the rule of law, we can actually have morality without fear of a mythological entity that will punish us if we stray from it. This is all we need. I would still fight for anyone's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't violate my human rights...

Ahhh but there's the rub, 57 states claim that they can not follow this Declaration of Human Rights because it goes against their religious beliefs. They came up with their own: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Wonder what religion that could be? :confused:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bluefairy513 said:

One of the few useful things the UN ever did was to come up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has no roots in any religion and belief in religion or a deity is unnecessary. If this can be the source of the rule of law, we can actually have morality without fear of a mythological entity that will punish us if we stray from it. This is all we need. I would still fight for anyone's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't violate my human rights...

Ahhh but there's the rub, 57 states claim that they can not follow this Declaration of Human Rights because it goes against their religious beliefs. They came up with their own: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Wonder what religion that could be? :confused:

 

Here's the golden question: why is the UDHR the true way as compared to say, Islam? 

It is rather difficult to objectively define what is moral without resorting to pragmatism. I.e. murder is wrong (besides because definition) because we fear being murdered. What murder is relative to killing becomes gray since murder=Immoral killing. What is "immoral killing" versus "allowed killing"? 

Practically speaking "immoral killing" is basically violating the NAP while "allowed killing" is self-defense. 

However I have not been able to give an objective measure for what is right or wrong beyond what is practical towards achieving my societal ideal of the Peaceful Parented NAP Roman Catholic AnCapitstan. Or its next best thing the genius/20% aristocracy over the masses.

Perhaps morality is only morality if it is being compared to an ideal. I don't know. The best I can come up with beyond that is essentially whether or not I could justify it to God or my conscience. However if I was an atheist and lacked a conscience, why not do away with morality and use it to bind others for my own supremacy? 

I don't like to refer to "this text is moral" because unless it has an objective proof for it, it is essentially no different than "because God said so" but at least "God", real or not, has come the closest to getting to what's true than any known mortal. Therefore I am inclined to take "because God said so" quite seriously even though I am not sure he exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.N.

Ermm...

"Obviously, the best method to combat human rights atrocities is to appoint one of the most oppressive and violent countries in the world to the head of the board meant to help the problem. Sounds reasonable." (source)

Oh-boy-here-we-go.jpg

annnd this too...

 

Electing Turkey’s Erdogan regime to oversee the work of human rights activists at the U.N. is like picking the fox to guard the henhouse, as he is still wiping the feathers off his mouth from his last meal,”

e32971d4923a4f5fcfe8ca03dca6aad6f2490494

Actually, ... yes.

(source 2)

Edited by barn
sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Human Rights." "Divine Right of Kings." What gives a person the moral authority to state & to force what is right or not for another?

Is morality a component of Ethics or is it a distinct entity in its "own right"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.