General
19 Aug 03
19 Aug 03
Hold it, Mike. You just told me in another thread that there exist "evil people" and said you "can't separate the person from the act". It is fairly reasonable to assume that a "person" includes his circumstances to some degre, so you have contradicted your opinion of 3 days ago.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDo you even know what ethical relativism is? Ethical relativism isn't even one doctrine, but rather a family of doctrines. Egoistic ethical relativism would be the claim that an act is right for person P iff P believes it to be right. Cultural ethical relativism would be the claim that an at is right for person P iff P's culture mandates that act. I think both these claims are false. I'm a Neo-Kantian when it comes to ethics, I think that ethics by and large reduces to laws of rationality. Laws of rationality are universal, hence so are ethical claims. Universal ethical claims are rejected by all relativists, so I'm not a relativist.
I think he (bbar) was (and is) trying to divert everything to relavativity again, and I don't agree that it is interesting. Totally outdated and silly. A Waste of effort and time. It is just a place where he hides because he has no substance. Why can't he just yell at me and tell me i'm an ass, or worse. I am, you know when arguing with people i don ...[text shortened]... needs to worry about how I feel. To borrow a phrase from the 60's "Let it all hang out!"
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrcorrect. You do the deed, i don't want to hear your excuses. Where does punishment come into it. Try "Defeated Enemy". I know that it is difficult to get out of the politically correct mind set, but there is no punishment to defeated enemies. No euphamisms here. The enemy is vanquished, not punished.
Apparently he is to be treated just as an actual Talibani for purposes of punishment.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrYes. It is bbar. So? If you claim to be rational, why do you and i hate each other so much? I doubt it has much to do with rationality or anything universal. Did you prove yourself to your liking? Not mine.
Do you even know what ethical relativism is? Ethical relativism isn't even one doctrine, but rather a family of doctrines. Egoistic ethical relativism would be the claim that an act is right for person P iff P believes it to be right. Cultural ethical relativism would be the claim that an at is right for person P iff P's culture mandates that act. I thin ...[text shortened]... l claims. Universal ethical claims are rejected by all relativists, so I'm not a relativist.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis entails that one's intentions when acting are morally irrelevant. That, in turn, entails that there is no ethical distinction between hurting someone on purpose or hurting someone on mistake. But there is an ethical distinction between acting so as to hurt someone and acting without that intention. So your initial claim is false. Would you care to revise your position?
Yes.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWySo, your claim that my arguments are relativistic is false. I don't hate you, and I don't know why you hate me. I do think it's sad that you could read my posts and see me as someone deserving of hatred. I take ethical questions seriously because I think that many injustices are committed by essentially good people who, unfortunately, do not see the contradictions in their own positions. If this means I'm to be hated, then so be it.
Yes. It is bbar. So? If you claim to be rational, why do you and i hate each other so much? I doubt it has much to do with rationality or anything universal. Did you prove yourself to your liking? Not mine.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenOh, to be young. His purpose is to win out over me. My purpose is to win out over him. This has nothing to do with anything except who hates whom the worst. Or best. That is the point of this thread, and i'm thinking it is pretty obvious now what the real differences are between liberals and conservatives. They may like each other personally, as beings, but they can grow to hatred easily over "Me" vs. "Us" issues. The fact that you believe you can "build" a moral principle is not something I would ever think of. Morality is indivisible from action, in my world. I have no clue what a "position" is as realted to actions. You act morally or you don't. All the "positions" in the world will not change that.
Mike, no-one is really trying to divert anything to ethical relativity. In fact, bbarr recently gave me quite the dressing-down for what he saw as excessive skepticism and moral relativism. I think the purpose of the question is merely to take a few scenarios and actually build some useful moral principles that are widely applicable.
And he's not ...[text shortened]... you're an ass because everyone here really has insufficient data about anyone's personality.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat is utter nonsense.
correct. You do the deed, i don't want to hear your excuses. Where does punishment come into it. Try "Defeated Enemy". I know that it is difficult to get out of the politically correct mind set, but there is no punishment to defeated enemies. No euphamisms here. The enemy is vanquished, not punished.
To apply your reasoning to WWII, the Jewish holocaust survivors who were forced to work in munitions factories should have been held responsible for the bombs they helped build.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI find the first to be ridiculous and belittling. Yes, you're both trying to win. You should start by submitting an ethical point of view that is not contradictory with the one you submitted when last we spoke. Why can a moral principle not be built logically, the way a scientific principle, or a standard policy, can be constructed?
Oh, to be young. His purpose is to win out over me. My purpose is to win out over him. This has nothing to do with anything except who hates whom the worst. Or best. That is the point of this thread, and i'm thinking it is pretty obvious now what the real differences are between liberals and conservatives. They may like each other personally, as being ...[text shortened]... ctions. You act morally or you don't. All the "positions" in the world will not change that.
19 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrIn my very first >edit < reply to you in RHP forums you called me several names. I read them before you could edit them. I remember though. I am not ashamed to be human. A big part of that is what you do to me and mine and what i do to you and yours. Your first impression of me was of a... well... you had to edit it, so i'm not going to repeat it here. You bought me as an enemy. Maybe we could get to know each other over a beer and some good talk, but I doubt it. You just aren't going to admit you don't like me are you? Stubborn.
So, your claim that my arguments are relativistic is false. I don't hate you, and I don't know why you hate me. I do think it's sad that you could read my posts and see me as someone deserving of hatred. I take ethical questions serious ...[text shortened]... eir own positions. If this means I'm to be hated, then so be it.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by rwingettGeez! I know. There are 3 or four to me i have not had time to even read. Feel like a jittterbug crossing a frogs tongue.😛
You guys aren't posting quickly enough. It's going to take you thirteen days to pass up "The Longest Thread in RHP History" at this rate.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenBecause the human brain has a "morality" intuition. It also has a "Count And Match" intuition. The species hasn't had time to evolve a "math" intuition or indeed a "writing" intuition. Speech, Yes. Math No.
I find the first to be ridiculous and belittling. Yes, you're both trying to win. You should start by submitting an ethical point of view that is not contradictory with the one you submitted when last we spoke. Why can a moral principle not be built logically, the way a scientific principle, or a standard policy, can be constructed?
Hense we struggle in schools for years with math and writing, using language intuition to solve the problem of leaning the unlearnable. By posting up strange images and analogies.
Hense, i am without the ability you have a- Earned through hard work or b- Inherited in your brain or c- A combination of both.
To use logic to build what is an inborn intuition is like using math to learn to play baseball. We are born with a "Physics" intuition... "Grog! Look out for the dammed falling Mountain. Run, Grog. Run!"
And a "Morality" intuition... "Grog. You killed my child. You die!"
But no "rational logic" intuition. Sorry. I didn't design this mess... just live here.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo. We have a moral intuition that says, "Don't self-flagellate in public", "Don't skin the eldery", "Respect others' prosthesis", etc. But we DON'T have an ingrained uniform method for deciding what to do in extremely unfamiliar moral situations, and this is why we reason instead. We are trying to find a overriding moral set of rules to govern what we do, and one that coheres well with our intuitions. I'm just wondering about the sanity of some of the intutions I've seen in this thread.
Because the human brain has a "morality" intuition. It also has a "Count And Match" intuition. The species hasn't had time to evolve a "math" intuition or indeed a "writing" intuition. Speech, Yes. Math No.
Hense we struggle in schools for years with math and writing, using language intuition to solve the problem of leaning the unlearnable. By ...[text shortened]... "
But no "rational logic" intuition. Sorry. I didn't design this mess... just live here.
20 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchicken"fairly reasonable" to whom? Me? Not. You? i have no clue. Starved to death once trying to immitate Kreshkin. I said then and now... "You can't separate the person from the act." RC... lets not bring that discussion into this... the idea of 'evil' in that discussion, and 'personal responsibilty' in this discussion are only peripherially related. Here we are saying that the "poor, coerced, innocent guy... is forced to support the Taliban. The issue is whether "being" forced and "volunteering" hold any different weight to a murdered woman in the town square whom... said person executes. A volunteer is certainly "more evil" than a coerced recruit. But both deserve to die for their act. Else how can we ever prevent another Dachau?
Hold it, Mike. You just told me in another thread that there exist "evil people" and said you "can't separate the person from the act". It is fairly reasonable to assume that a "person" includes his circumstances to some degre, so you have contradicted your opinion of 3 days ago.