|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted September 11, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's your subjective view of what "good" should mean, though.
Indeed, "the fact that objectiveness is objective makes it subjective" 
Seriously, when you say "but it was good for person X" it means it is SUBJECTIVE. That is why, the objective good has nothing to do with "people feeling good" because that's good FOR a certain GROUP or INDIVIDUAL, thus subjective.
Therefore, objective good has absolutely NOTHING to do with that "feeling" good (after all, feelings ARE subjective). So please don't try to show subjective arguments against my objective definition. Of course you CAN make a subjective definition of "good", but then, people can make a subjective definition of 1+1 = 3. This does NOT prevent a certain objective definition to exist (1+1 = 2).
Now, if you want to be objective, use "God mode" or "Universe mode" (also called neutral mode). You see, this way, you don't favor, you have no preferences, no feelings towards anyone. That's why it's objective.
If a given individual uses his freedom to suppress the same thing (freedom) from someone else, then he is evil. It's as simple as that. Why? Well, if he USES it, it means it's a worthy quality. However, he uses it to abolish it from someone else. That is why it's "evil".
Killing, imposing preferences, forcing, torturing, and just about any "disturbance" means a violation of freedom. Of course there are certain degrees (a hit is not the same as a killing), and it's not black & white. That is, a person might donate charity to white people (good in this respect), but kill black people (evil in this respect), and they do NOT cancel each other. It is complex, believe it or not, entire BOOKS have been written about it.
Why should only the individual use freedom (since HE abolishes freedom WITH his freedom)? That's why we consider it evil. It's simple. If it were the other way around, things would be the other way. Such is the nature of evil.
If I am not mistaken, I have already gave you enough examples of "neutral/absolute system of alignments" such as those used in most games (point is: the designers HAD to come up with a system that DID NOT FAVOR anyone ).
Next time you try to counter my objective definitions of "good", try to use objective arguments rather than "I have a subjective definition of good thus yours is flawed!".
Or are you telling me that, since everyone can come up with a subjective definition of the Earth (let's say flat), that there is no objective definition (Round)?
BTW: please do not be childish to get yourself confused up on WORDS/LANGUAGE, think of the MEANING!
Yes the word "good" subjective, just as absolutely any word is. The meaning is objective in my definition. It's subjective in yours. I'm not saying morals can't be relative, after all, man can make absolutely everything subjective, but there are absolute morals (without favoring anything). Best way is to make a computer simulation where you are "God" mode.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 07:55 AM |
|
|
Who says that's evil?
What is evil?
You can't just define evil as being that.
Someone would have been perfectly able to post the exact same post as yours just there but say that restricting someone's freedom is GOOD.
Why would you be any more right than they are?
Because more people would agree with you? (legitimate question)
How are you to know what is objectively good or bad?
How are you to know what is objective when your entire life, and everything you know, is a subjective interpretation of reality?
Just because it doesn't favor anyone doesn't make it good or bad.
That just makes this moral system comparable to the roll of a dice.
Sure there might be an objective definition of what is good or bad. But no one can ever know what it is because that is human nature (of course there are instances such as science or whatever where we can be certain, but not in morality).
Thus all we have is each person's subjective views of what is good and bad.
I have no problem with you defining good and bad as that. But to say that that is the objective definition is rather pretentious IMO.
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine you have more food than you will ever need for your entire life.
Next to you is a man dying of starvation. If you shared your food with him you will still have enough food for your entire life, and it will really make no difference to you. To him, the difference is life or death.
You decide to be neutral, make no action and do nothing.
He dies.
I would say you effectively killed this man, and are guilty of inaction.
I strongly disagree. No one should compel anyone to do anything. Period. He isn't guilty of killing this man unless he physically prevented him from eating.
Well, in my opinion, to do exactly that would be evil.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 01:31 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:35, 12 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Who says that's evil?
What is evil?
You can't just define evil as being that.
Thanks for pointing out exactly what I warned you with the last bolded phrase 
Quote:
Someone would have been perfectly able to post the exact same post as yours just there but say that restricting someone's freedom is GOOD.
Why would you be any more right than they are?
Or he can say that it is "xyz", just skip the meaning already. Besides, you know why it's "evil"? Because "good" things are ALWAYS reciprocal. If you kill someone, it's not gonna be reciprocal. If you take someone's freedom, it won't be reciprocal, because you NEED FREEDOM to do that.
It's as simple as that. Nothing to do with "agreement" since it's objective.
Quote:
But no one can ever know what it is because that is human nature (of course there are instances such as science or whatever where we can be certain, but not in morality).
This is science (as much as math is anyway ), a definition for something. I discovered the "classification" of people's attributes. It's objective because it doesn't favor anyone, and good deeds are always reciprocal (you help someone else, he can do the same).
Quote:
I have no problem with you defining good and bad as that. But to say that that is the objective definition is rather pretentious IMO.
I did not only say, I explained why.
Quote:
Well, in my opinion, to do exactly that would be evil.
Here I agree with mvass actually 
That's not evil, that's just neutral. My definitions are much more complex than just black & white.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 10:40 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
That is why, the objective good has nothing to do with "people feeling good" because that's good FOR a certain GROUP or INDIVIDUAL, thus subjective.
"Good" means "makes the largest amount of people feel good". That is the objective definition, but its implementation is subjective.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Good" means "makes the largest amount of people feel good".
No, look up how I defined it.
You can keep on defining as many subjective definitions (since "what people feel good" is SUBJECTIVE! ask someone and he'll give you different answers) as you want, it's not my problem. But I have given an objective definition. No other has been presented.
Of course just because "absolute" morals exist doesn't mean you can't come up with "relative" morals. But that doesn't mean absolute ones don't exist, just because you replace them with subjective ones.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"what people feel good" is SUBJECTIVE! ask someone and he'll give you different answers
You missed my point. It's true that people like different things, but the fact that they like them is objective. For example, let's say that one person has a fried liver, and one person has a rap CD. (To pick 2 objects completely at random ) Person 1 hates liver, but loves rap. Person 2 hates rap, but loves fried liver. Thus, whether fried liver or rap is good is subjective. But it is objective that one person likes one thing, and the other likes the other. Since to trade would make them both feel good, it would be good for them to exchange the two.
Or let's say there is a beggar. You are certainly richer than him, so you give him some money. This exchange makes both better off - you receive an emotional benefit, and the beggar receives money. Therefore, this exchange is good. (Although emotional benefits vs. good is sort of a chicken-or-egg question.)
Quote:
But that doesn't mean absolute ones don't exist, just because you replace them with subjective ones.
Your objective definition of morals is flawed because it is just your definition.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 12, 2008 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You missed my point. It's true that people like different things, but the fact that they like them is objective.
Oh please, not this again. What good does it do? Just for the sake of arguing?
"1+1 = 2" -> objective
"1+1 = 3" -> subjective
"No it's not, because the fact that the guy said it is objective"
Seriously, what the hell does that serve? What good? You're just trying to avoid my point with your pointless rant.
Quote:
Your objective definition of morals is flawed because it is just your definition.
As much as the definition of 1+1 = 2 is flawed?
Listen, I gave arguments, objective arguments (since they don't favor anyone, and an action that is not necessarily reciprocal (cannot be) is evil). Not my fault you reduce my post to a claim.
Good actions are "good" because, if you use something (FREEDOM) to perform something on someone else without actually affecting his same "thing" (FREEDOM), he if he wants could use the same back. In evil case, if you torture someone and then he tortures you, it's still evil. Because you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone. If what you did was "good", and the abolishment was good, then why did you use that something?
See you USED that something to abolish it from someone else -> evil. Objective evil. Why should only you have that something? (freedom).
But everytime you fail to respond to them you just respond with "no they're flawed because they're your definitions". Of course, are you going to say 1+1=2 is subjective as well? Forget about the WORD, think about the MEANING. Jesus, how many times do I have to BOLD and REPEAT this thing?
you know something, I'm really tired of detailing myself and you to summarize my post to a simple claim like you do. Next time when I post, if you truly want to go in that direction, I can show you how claims look like, and trust me, it ain't gonna be constructive. Not that now is either, since you seem to use the same claims all over again.
I know already what you're going to reply with! "No that's only YOUR definition" -- am I right?
how about you start to examine my details as to WHY i think so?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 03:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"1+1 = 2" -> objective
"1+1 = 3" -> subjective
1+1=2 ->objective
1+1=10 ->objective
Right?
Quote:
As much as the definition of 1+1 = 2 is flawed?
Binary?
Quote:
Good actions are "good" because, if you use something (FREEDOM) to perform something on someone else without actually affecting his same "thing" (FREEDOM), he if he wants could use the same back. In evil case, if you torture someone and then he tortures you, it's still evil. Because you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone. If what you did was "good", and the abolishment was good, then why did you use that something?
Fine, then. Call your definition of good "x", and mine "y". Now tell me why "x" is "better" than "y". Specifically, respond to this point I made in our earlier debate:Quote:
The first question that the original "core" society should ask itself is, "Would society benefit from giving these [name of group] rights?" In the case of black people and women, the answer is obviously "yes", for the same reason that rights were created in the first place; that is, if people keep being infringed upon, they can't act in their full maximum capacity, which not only harms them but also everybody else. That is, it makes no sense to keep people forcibly enslaved and denied opportunities simply on basis of their skin color when both sides would certainly benefit from giving them rights. That is, people who work without being forced to do so work better, and don't look for attempts to work as little as possible. When people are paid according to what and how they produce, that will of course be more efficient than slavery.
If the answer to this first question is "yes", then society should give these beings rights, and that's that. But if the answer to the first question is "no", that does not necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Take, for example, TheDeath's favorite analogy: the aliens on Mars are sentinent, but aren't interested in talking to or dealing with humans. Why, then, would it not be all right to force this group into slavery? Simple - because they are sentinent. Society is not agile or shapable. Society can only give general rules - it can't be very specific. If it tries, it seriously risks endangering a group that it is trying to protect, or protecting a group it doesn't want to protect. In this case, if society said, "Enslaving humans is bad, but enslaving these aliens is OK.", some people would ask, "Hey, these aliens are sentinent, just like us. If we can enslave them, why can't we enslave humans?" And they might take action on this line of thought. That is clearly undesirable. Thus, these aliens should also have rights.
But what about animals? Here we run into a problem. First, we can't make animals respect our rights. Thus, any kind of social contract with them would be laughably one-sided. Let's say that a hunter is hunting wildebeest in the savanna, and he runs into a lion. He says, "You know what, I could kill you, and you could kill me. So let's just leave each other alone." The lion replies, "Rawr, no.", and eats the hunter. Not much of a contract, is it? Second, would we, the "core" society, gain anything from giving animals rights? No, except for maybe a few people who would get an emotional benefit. Third, if we use animals, can anyone confuse themselves and think that it's also okay to use humans like that? No, probably not.
Thus, to extend rights to someone, the group of beings has to be able to keep the contract, and also it has to be useful to original group and/or this being could be confused with humans.
Your main argument against my argument is that my societal system doesn't include animals, and so on. So my question to you is this: if it doesn't fulfill one of the above two criteria, why should we extend our consideration to them as individuals? And don't just say something like "We're tyrants if we don't." Be more specific.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 05:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Or he can say that it is "xyz", just skip the meaning already. Besides, you know why it's "evil"? Because "good" things are ALWAYS reciprocal. If you kill someone, it's not gonna be reciprocal. If you take someone's freedom, it won't be reciprocal, because you NEED FREEDOM to do that.
It's as simple as that. Nothing to do with "agreement" since it's objective.
Says you.
What if you help to carry a cripple up a mountain
Just because it does not favour anyone and the reciprocal nature does not make it necessarily objective.
Even if it were, it would rely 100% on subjective views of a sitation, and even if it didn't, it's objectivity wouldn't necessarily make it TRUE.
An objective definition of good and evil would be one that can accurately label everything as "good" or "evil" or whatever the grey areas are. Unfortunately we can never know this definition, and we can only come up with our own ones like yours.
A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people.
Your definition of "good" CANNOT be true for every situation.
There will always be exceptions.
What if two people have kidney disease in one kidney. One person donates his healthy kidney to the other to save his life, and abolishes his disease, while keeping his own. 
Quote:
See you USED that something to abolish it from someone else -> evil. Objective evil. Why should only you have that something? (freedom).
That's your opinion that that is evil.
It could be untrue, regardless of whether you think it's objective or subjective.
Quote:
Quote:
"Good" means "makes the largest amount of people feel good".
No, look up how I defined it.
LOL I love this.
Your definition does not hold any more weight than Mvass'.
Just because it does not favour anyone does not make it objective or necessarily true.
They are both your subjective definitions on what you think is good and what you think is evil.
Your definition was thought up by you (or whoever coined it) based on your experiences.
As for the meaning... how can we talk about a meaning that is in your mind, without using the word and definition that you use to describe it?
Besides, what's the point of talking about this meaning if it isn't really "good" or "evil", but something else?
If you say that abdbbd is something that does not favour anyone reciprocal etc. then that's fine. But what is the use of defining something as that do you know what I'm saying? Like, if it's not actually talking about good or evil then it's not really relevant.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 01:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1+1=2 ->objective
1+1=10 ->objective
Right?
Quote:
Quote:
As much as the definition of 1+1 = 2 is flawed?
Binary?
The value, mvass. The freaking VALUE. 10 in binary is THE SAME as 2. Why are we arguing about symbols? Haven't I bolded that sentence enough? What? You want me to use capitals now? 
Quote:
The first question that the original "core" society should ask itself is, "Would society benefit from giving these [name of group] rights?"
That doesn't have anything to do with objectiveness. Society in itself is subjective. Period.
Please stop using subjective viewpoints to counter my definition. All you do is argue with other relativist morals.
Quote:
if it doesn't fulfill one of the above two criteria, why should we extend our consideration to them as individuals? And don't just say something like "We're tyrants if we don't." Be more specific.
Be more specific? All the threads I posted this, were not specific enough? 4 pages of details? I think with what I have written here I would be able to write a mini book! I'm sorry mvass but I am not going to be more specific just so you can ask the same thing in another thread or possibly in a later page. I'm seriously done with it.
Tyrant = strong exploit the weak. Absolutely nothing here with the word "human". Period. At least if you wanna be objective.
Oops seems i used quote wars  
@TA:Quote:
LOL I love this.
Your definition does not hold any more weight than Mvass'.
It's measurable outside a human society. Measurable. It's also from a "God-view" which is objective. A freaking AI can measure it, without any FEELINGS, and other subjective stuff.
That's why it has more "weight". Seriously ppl, am I talking to the walls. Please stop using those claims already, when I always reply to why mine is 'different' or some say 'better'. I always say, and you keep on your claims. What's the point of asking or making the claim if you are not prepared for a counter and keep on your claims?
Quote:
As for the meaning... how can we talk about a meaning that is in your mind, without using the word and definition that you use to describe it?
[sarcasm]Eating is a very subjective action you know. Even though 900 different languages have 900 different symbols for it, it's subjective, right? I mean, eating as the biological process. Sure, it's subjective.  [/sarcasm]
Geez I feel like I'm in a childish debate.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 01:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's the point of asking or making the claim if you are not prepared for a counter and keep on your claims?
The thing is that you don't counter properly at all
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is that you don't counter properly at all
Well then at least reply to the counter. Saying that it isn't properly isn't going to shed light on explanations
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 03:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@TA:Quote:
LOL I love this.
Your definition does not hold any more weight than Mvass'.
It's measurable outside a human society. Measurable. It's also from a "God-view" which is objective. A freaking AI can measure it, without any FEELINGS, and other subjective stuff.
That's why it has more "weight". Seriously ppl, am I talking to the walls. Please stop using those claims already, when I always reply to why mine is 'different' or some say 'better'. I always say, and you keep on your claims. What's the point of asking or making the claim if you are not prepared for a counter and keep on your claims?
Counter what?
You have stated that XYZ is "Good" when we say that we disagree, you say we can't because you're being objective. When we say what you are defining is "Good", well, ISN'T (always), then you crack it because we're arguing over definitions (of course we are arguing over definitions).
I even went so far as to give an example of when your definition doesn't hold up.
Your definition of what is good doesn't always hold true, regardless of objectivity.
Therefore what you think you are describing as "good" and "evil" isn't really objective "good" and "evil". It's something else, and I don't really care about your definition of something irrelevant.
It's not even morality, whatever it is you're talking about.
Reciprocation and the fact that it doesn't favour anyone?
My calculator can objectively do math but it can't tell me what's good and evil and neither can your definition. In fact, it's objectivity has nothing to do with morality either. 
Sure being measurable would be a good thing to have in the case we are able to find an objective definition for good and evil. But on it's own it's kinda useless.
Whatever. Sure, you've come up with a formula for good and evil well done
Quote:
Quote:
As for the meaning... how can we talk about a meaning that is in your mind, without using the word and definition that you use to describe it?
[sarcasm]Eating is a very subjective action you know. Even though 900 different languages have 900 different symbols for it, it's subjective, right? I mean, eating as the biological process. Sure, it's subjective. [/sarcasm]
Geez I feel like I'm in a childish debate.
Yeah, I feel like I'm in a childish debate too.
Who uses /sarcasm?
Eating is a pretty simple process. You're either eating or you're not.
Good and evil aren't. At all. In fact there have been thousands of texts written on the nature of morality, but no, The Death has come up with his objective definition and no one can disagree because it doesn't favour anyone. "/sarcasm"
Seriously.
Let's put it like this.
You say X is objective good.
We say, it's not, good is Y. You say STOP ARGUING DEFINITIONS AND SUBJECTIVITY AND TALK ABOUT THE MEANING OF X.
But unless you tell us what you really mean by "good", as far as I can tell your only insight into what "good" is, is, well, X.
So all you've done is say X is X and now we're no longer talking about "good".
You see?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Society in itself is subjective.
Society is subjective? Society consists of all obviously sentinent individuals who are or once were capable of interacting with others and being interacted with. That is an objective definition.
Quote:
Tyrant = strong exploit the weak.
So?
I agree with TA. You are saying that X is X. So? I'm saying that Y is Y. Now tell me why X is better than Y.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society is subjective? Society consists of all obviously sentinent individuals who are or once were capable of interacting with others and being interacted with. That is an objective definition.
Ok sorry let me put it differently. Society's goals, society's "benefits" and all that society thinks is subjective, as a group.
Quote:
I agree with TA. You are saying that X is X. So? I'm saying that Y is Y. Now tell me why X is better than Y.
You've asked this question a million times before. I've already answered it. I'm not going to details again
Let's just say: X is measurable on an objective level (by AIs as well, without FEELINGS or instincts). X is taken from a God-view-mode. (truly, if we think the Bible is true, then those are absolute morals, right?). So to not confuse it with religion, I put OURSELVES in God's mode, and we philosophize how would we classify. I classified above why evil is evil, and why good is good. I'm not going in that example with freedom again.
That's why it's better. If you were to say that "Earth is flat" and you asked me why my definition with roundness is "better", I would say that from God-view (let's say space) it is round, regardless of the illusion you have here on Earth.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Counter what?
Why do I always have to respond to your questions, by detailing each response, and you ppl always respond with "What makes you think yours is any better?" when I already detailed it?
Quote:
You have stated that XYZ is "Good" when we say that we disagree, you say we can't because you're being objective. When we say what you are defining is "Good", well, ISN'T (always), then you crack it because we're arguing over definitions (of course we are arguing over definitions).
I even went so far as to give an example of when your definition doesn't hold up.
I don't recall not holding up. It always holds true. Of course it doesn't hold true if you compare it with subjective definitions. After all, the Earth being round doesn't hold with the Flat Earth definitions, does it?
Quote:
Whatever. Sure, you've come up with a formula for good and evil well done
This isn't solely my idea. Look at all games that use an alignment system. Most share my view, precisely because in such games, you need objective alignment, since there's more than one bloody race (aka humans) involved.
Quote:
Eating is a pretty simple process. You're either eating or you're not.
lol Good is a pretty simple process, you're either good or you're not.
Quote:
Good and evil aren't. At all. In fact there have been thousands of texts written on the nature of morality, but no, The Death has come up with his objective definition and no one can disagree because it doesn't favour anyone. "/sarcasm"
Oh yeah I'm sure people disagree that Hitler was "aggressive" since you don't seem to be comfortable with good/evil definitions, let's just use the things they represent.
I'm sure that all those morality books say that everyone is "good" since that's what they think. Why can't people be evil? Does it matter what they think? Some criminals even KNOW they are evil, but they don't care.
Yes seriously. Just because you do something doesn't mean that something has to be "good" LOL.
And btw: I not only "say" that 'X' is good, I explain why.
You say 'Y' is good.
#:I try to explain why mine is more objective than yours.
@:You ppl then say 'Y' is good AGAIN, and ask me "What makes you think that X is better definition?"
I go back to #.
You go back to @.
Quote:
But unless you tell us what you really mean by "good", as far as I can tell your only insight into what "good" is, is, well, X.
I already gave enough examples of what good is. Check my freedom examples and LOGIC. I am seriously so not gonna repeat it again.
Do you enjoy repeating yourself? Why do you make me repeat myself?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
|
Death, the problem is that your definition is not ABSOLUTE and doesn't work in all cases. To Quote TA himself:Quote:
I even went so far as to give an example of when your definition doesn't hold up.
So you say he makes you repeat yourself? No, I think you make him repeat himself
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, the problem is that your definition is not ABSOLUTE and doesn't work in all cases.
I already replied to this statement:Quote:
I don't recall not holding up. It always holds true. Of course it doesn't hold true if you compare it with subjective definitions. After all, the Earth being round doesn't hold with the Flat Earth definitions, does it?
Seriously...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 06:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society's goals, society's "benefits" and all that society thinks is subjective, as a group.
Do you get the feeling that we're going around in circles? Yes, obviously everyone has different preferences. That's the point. If everyone liked the same thing, then things would be quite different. But that's why a "y" action is one that does the most good to the most people. Is giving someone a rap CD a good action? If he likes rap, then yes. If not, then it's a neutral action. How can the same action be both good and neutral? Obviously, it depends on the person, which means that it's subjective.
Quote:
X is measurable on an objective level (by AIs as well, without FEELINGS or instincts). X is taken from a God-view-mode.
And this makes it better because...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is giving someone a rap CD a good action? If he likes rap, then yes. If not, then it's a neutral action.
No. My system isn't flawed because you are not reducing it to "likes" rap or not. It's simple:
You give him something (give = you use your freedom). Do you abolish his freedom by doing so? If he starts to spit you because you annoy him with it, then yes, and it's evil (even though that you might not have the intention, but let's say that you DO know he is annoyed by rap CDs, thus this is evil).
If he completely ignores your CD, then it's neutral. You haven't abolished his freedom at all (with yours), but neither have you helped him.
If he is grateful for it, then it's good. Here you also don't abolish his freedom. But even more, you "increase" his freedom or his happiness.
Quote:
And this makes it better because...
Because of what I said above. Surely a system that is dependable, that can be measured from an AI, is much better than a subjective preferences (relative morals).
But if you say why objective is better than subjective, that's a whole different discussion. I am not going to convince you that objective is better than subjective. That isn't even my point. My whole point was that absolute morals exist. (after all, I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether The Earth being round is "better" than it being flat).
|
| |
|
|
