|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:16 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
No, it doesn't mean that, but it's evidence that points to that. Also, there is a lot of good stuff in Aristotle's ethics.
And exactly that's how science works, so if you dont believe in science, it's a fruitless discussion. (to all those 'bleh, nothing is objective')
If you search for undoubtly proves in science, you are wrong there, that's only possible in the helping science math(and even there only if you make axioms, that are undiscussable)
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:50 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:51, 21 Nov 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
No, it doesn't mean that, but it's evidence that points to that. Also, there is a lot of good stuff in Aristotle's ethics.
It definitely isnt evidence because you cherry-pick. Both Aristotales from a bunch of philosophers, and some of his ideas among many of them. (I'm guessing you share his praise of acting according to reason, yet his concept of eudamonia in the center of his ethics is a totally different ball game than your post-industrial, individualism based ethics. Not that I have some grudge against individualism, but it's inevitably different from what they had in Ancient Greece). For something to be considered evidence and especially evidence of universality, you need consistency.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 02:25 AM |
|
|
There are few people who are correct in any age, though of course knowledge grows with time (on average). Pointing out a pioneer (flawed as Aristotle is) isn't cherrypicking, any more than pointing out Galileo isn't cherrypicking if you're trying to find someone who believed in heliocentrism centuries ago.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 02:41 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
If you want me to be more precise than I think is necessary, I'll put it differently: all else equal, a disease is bad for you.
The fact that you have to qualify it in this way should tell you something. Frankly, I don't your statement means a thing. It's a circular argument. You maintain there are certain objective truths like "people all act a certain way", and therefore "good is objective". And then you use thought arguments as evidence that all people act a certain way, and when an exception is brought up, you hand-wave it away with a fatuous, "well, it's true when all things are equal". Well, duh! If all things are equal, then I'm sure all people act a certain way. But in the real world, things aren't really equal. So the argument is an empty one.
Back to the problems with your specific statement: in addition to certain biological cases like the one I mentioned above (sickle cell), it completely neglects the quality of a disease from an outside observer's perspective. Yes, a disease may be bad for you, personally, but it may benefit a large number of people if you get a disease. A ruthless despot gets cancer and dies: bad for the despot, good for the people who suffer under his regime. An abusive husband has a heart attack and dies: bad for the wife-beater, great for the wife. In the wild, diseases also have a benefit by ridding a herd of lame or unhealthy animals which may be a detriment to the healthier individuals by consuming resources - humans don't really have this problem, of course, at least not now. Anyway, then, are cancers and heart attacks good or bad? Well that depends on the situation and the person's perspective, and the realities of the local environment (in the case of evolution). Which is practically the definition of subjective.
Also, I still don't understand what this has to do with the thread topic. Even if I agree with you that "a disease is bad for you" is an objective statement, what you mean is that a disease is detrimental to your health. You don't say "a disease is evil". And as rigid concepts, good (morality) and evil have only abstract meaning. So what relevance does it have here?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But in the real world, things aren't really equal. So the argument is an empty one.
So, I take it that all of the study of medicine is empty, because no two human bodies are the same and so there's no point in predicting the effect of any drug. Right?Quote:
Yes, a disease may be bad for you, personally, but it may benefit a large number of people if you get a disease.
Then my statement stands. I'm talking about things that are bad for you, not for other people.
The whole point about bringing up medicine is that morality is similar to it. People can disagree about what's medically good for a person, and it's fundamentally for a person - medical goodness isn't an inherent property of chemicals, but a feature of the relation between chemicals and human health. The same is true for morality. Moral goodness isn't an inherent feature of objects or acts, but a relation between them and a person's happiness. People disagree about what's morally good, but it's not subjective because there is an objective truth that is possible to discover.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 03:57 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:03, 21 Nov 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
There are few people who are correct in any age, though of course knowledge grows with time (on average). Pointing out a pioneer (flawed as Aristotle is) isn't cherrypicking, any more than pointing out Galileo isn't cherrypicking if you're trying to find someone who believed in heliocentrism centuries ago.
Those are not analogous. Heliocentrism is proved, your stance isnt proved plus it contradicts with what we actually see when we compare moralities of various ages, cultures and social classes.
Quote:
there is an objective truth that is possible to discover
And how do you know that truth is a universal set of norms if it's not discovered yet?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 04:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Heliocentrism is proved, your stance isnt proved plus it contradicts with what we actually see when we compare moralities of various ages, cultures and social classes.
We see different beliefs about what's real in different cultures and social classes. Christianity, Islam, anti-vaccination, UFOs, etc. That doesn't mean they're all equally correct.Quote:
And how do you know that truth is a universal set of norms if it's not discovered yet?
How do you know that there are objective laws of physics if they haven't all been discovered yet?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 05:36 AM |
|
|
ROFL:ROFL:ROFL:ROFL
_^___
L __/ [] \
LOL===__ \
L \________]
I I
--------/
Go back to the OSM or I shall go off topic again
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How do you know that there are objective laws of physics if they haven't all been discovered yet?
In fact i'd like to see one link to a prove of a physical law.
Only out of interest, not to approve or disprove anyone of here.
Cz i searched and cant find one 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 08:58 AM |
|
|
Christ, Mvass.
Moral is the consequence of the fact that while the human SPECIES is a SOCIAL species, the human INDIVIDUAL is able to and CAN CHOOSE be a predator on its own species. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "happiness" or "being happy", only with the fact that the human individual can freely decide what they are doing.
WESTERN morals are (still) massively influencd by GOD'S WORD. Take for example suicide. It's been considered a big, big sin, so it's immoral. In the Japanese culture, however, the only moral in connection with suicide has been that you can somewhat eradicate shame with it: you screwed up -> you can make up for it by ending your existence which follows the underlying morals that if you screw up your whole "clan" loses face which isn't ok for the clan, so you are voluntarily sacrificing yourself as an individual for the greater good of your "clan".
Consider this: NO individual human NEEDS to accept something like a higher authority above and except him/herself. Every individual COULD simply define "good" as "good for me" and "evil" as "bad for me". However, the fact that we are a SOCIAL species and WANT to be in contact with others of our kind makes a compromise necessary. That's where moral comes into play - and it's UTTERLY subjective and arbitrary, although it always follow certain rules and has certain goals.
Next thing is: ONLY HUMANS can act morally or immorally. A sickness cannot be "evil". A sickness can be bad for you or your health, but that has nothing to do with morals. Morals have also nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL happiness, but only with GROUP happiness. It's a LIMITATION of the individual, a boundary.
Then there is quantifiable, observable and objective. A human is fundamentally UNABLE to OBJECTIVELY observe, but can PER DEFINITION observe only SUBJECTIVELY, as an individual. Any REGISTERTING the individual does is based on that individual's "configuration", that's why all OBJECTIVE observations are made by contraptions designed to always do the observation in the same way.
Now suppose you put a human person to an EEG machine recording the brain waves and so on. And then you confront that human with an input, like, you throw abuse at him. This will lead to a reaction, but
a) the fact that the person is observed, may change the reaction and
b) you have no idea what kind or MIX of emotion the input will provoke;
There is also no way to conclude from an ASSUMED emotion to a following act. Any causality is mere assumption.
Example: YOU observe your guy who has an expression that YOU interpret as ANGRY, sledgehammering another guy to pulp. Now, the ONLY thing you can safely say is that what REALLY happens: A guy is sledgehammering another guy, and neither is your interpretation of his facial expression objective nor can you conclude anything from it concerning the emotional state of the sledgehammerer.
Now, Paul Ekman did a lot of study in the field of emotions and their relations to facial expressions, and if you follow his theories - which are not proven or universally accepted, mind you, you can assume UNIVERSAL EMOTIONS EQUAL FOR ALL HUMANS.
BUT, in this case you speak only of an instinctive, involuntary biological reaction, like a faster heart rate: WHAT EXACTLY leads to an emotion and how a person will REACT to it, depends solely on the person, not on the emotion.
So what DID Ekman do? He tried to QUANTIFY emotions with a view on facial micro expressions and THEREBY make them OBJECTIVELY discernible.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 09:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We see different beliefs about what's real in different cultures and social classes. Christianity, Islam, anti-vaccination, UFOs, etc. That doesn't mean they're all equally correct.
Since I don't claim any of those to be correct, I fail to see your point here. It's YOU who's telling me (the correct) moral norms derive from a universal human nature that does not change by time and is not effected by social conditions. I'm telling you, not only there is no indication of such norms (if we put aside the overwhelmingly basic stuff) but there is also evidence of the contrary: When we compare moralities of different times and cultures we see variety not unity. That has nothing to do with them being correct or not.
Quote:
How do you know that there are objective laws of physics if they haven't all been discovered yet?
Again, we only assume physical laws when they are observable (directly or indirectly) and can be concluded by experiment. Besides, if the universe is a scientifically observable one, there has to be measurable laws. That's what the positive sciences are based on. There is no such necessity when it comes to moral norms.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 10:00 AM |
|
|
actually i came to this point:
To ask a man about the universal never changing truth is like asking a blind man about colors.
Further:
To ask this man what is right or wrong in a always changing world is like asking a blind man about green and yellow.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 10:19 AM |
|
|
|
If a blind man wears dark glasses, why don't deaf people wear ear muffs?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:16 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
People disagree about what's morally good, but it's not subjective because there is an objective truth that is possible to discover.
I'm glad to see some people still believe in objective truth. In this case relativism is inconsistent and self-refuting. ex: "There are no absolutes and everything is relative --- which means this sentence too is not absolute and relative."
For the sake of this conversation you guys ought to realise that when we speak of morality we are trying to appeal to the highest source of morality, which I would argue that is God. Anything besides that is arbitrary and relative.
The Japanese example: If they commit suicide they save some face for them or their clan. --- From THEIR perspective, that's morally good. From GOD's perspective, that's morally wrong.
So it all boils down to this, which moral code do you want to follow, God's or man's. I would follow God's absolute will to the detriment of any other moral or ethic code or any local, national, international, galactic, intergalactic, universal or whatever other fancy-named law. They call me crazy, some even a terrorist 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:53 PM |
|
|
Sorry, "God's" morale is too low for my standards. God may have no problems killing homosexuals and adulteresses, and at one point he had no qualms to kill all of his "children" except one family, which is something I would not call a moral thing to do.
In short: GOD'S WILL SUCKS. A LOT.
And don't let me even start with Allah's will, who supposedly is the same God, but felt it necessary to send another prophet to another people and tell them different things than the one before.
If God comes to me and tells me, hey, I would like you to do this and that and not do that and this, I will take it under consideration, and if I think he has a point or two, I will accept it. But as long as I strongly suspect that what is called so pompously "God's will", is in fact a lot of human-made-up bull that is just sold with a high seal of authority, "God's will" is as absolute for me as the 1000-years lasting Empire of the Germans that started about 75 years ago.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 02:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:44, 21 Nov 2013.
|
Heh, heh... Looks like you have a supporter mvass.
@JJ
Quote:
That's where moral comes into play - and it's UTTERLY subjective and arbitrary, although it always follow certain rules and has certain goals.
The word arbitrary is quite misleading. There are certain paths and themes like preserving stability, passing experience to younger generations etc etc. Not any behavioral pattern can turn into a moral code of conduct.I'll use evolution as an analogy, there isn't an ultimate masterpiece animal that evolution is destined to arrive at, because it's not an upgrading process as some people think it is. But that doesn't mean all kinds of features are evolvable. Some things like agility and sharp senses always has a better chance etc etc. Where Mvass is completely wrong is assuming an ultimate moral normative such as the "masterpiece animal" when in fact any morality based code of conduct will transform or become obsolete as the conditions that produce it disappear. Needless to say, that includes religions, they either adapt (nerf themselves, develop new theological defense mechanisms such as "hey that verse is metaphorical") or they go extinct and become dead religions like the mythologies of Egypt, Greece or Vikings. But this process is never arbitrary, it is the result of the relationship between people's infrastructure, daily lives and their ideological superstructure. In almost every agricultural society, sexuality of women is a taboo for instance, that's not a coincidence. But to continue the analogy, just like we can never know what evolution will bring up next but we can objectively study what it did in the past, we can objectively study why moral norms of the past emerged the way they did. To prevent any confusion, I don't use the word objective in an idealistic sense like mvass, like the ultimate, timeless truth, the completed puzzle. I mean objective as in my previous example of the box match: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
So although I agree with the basics of your post, I'd say calling morality arbitrary can be confusing to some just like calling evolution random.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 02:34 PM |
|
|
I moved the thread. Please keep in mind, now, what the topic is, because usual OSM rules apply.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 05:41 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 17:43, 21 Nov 2013.
|
Ehem... excuse me JJ, I appreciate your honesty but, I really don't get why God's standard is too low for you.
The best example I can give you on this issue of morality is from Genesis. God made Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden. They were to eat of any tree they wished, but God forbade them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He told them that if they would eat they would surely die. Knowing this, they disobeyed God and ate from it. So God punished them with death. Which was not immediate, because He intended to save them by having them believe that a Savior would come and pay the price of their sin for them. But even if He didn't wanted them to be saved, and put them to death right that second, why would that be unjust? He told them what not to do, He told them that they will be punished if they ate, and they still did it.
And He's still bad. Yea, why would He ever punish us, the innocents. Why did He killed the people from Sodom and Gomorrah, they were just having a little fun... Why would He kill the Canaanites, they were only sacrificing children and women for Moloch...
God has all the right to punish us for our disobedience, which is sin. Not exacting that immediately, giving us time for repentance, is an act of love and grace. Yet when he does justice, when He actually intervenes to punish sin, He's the bad One. The Judge makes justice, that's not good, it's bad, God's evil.
Let me ask you this: One night a man enters your house and starts looking for something to steal. Then your mom finds him and starts screaming. He shots her 3 times and runs away. By the time you got come your mom lies dead in a pool of blood. The authorities catch the criminal and he's brought to court to be judged. He's found guilty of murder and the punishment is death. But the judge says "I'm a loving judge so I'll acquit him." --- Is that fair?
@artu
I'm itching to kill someone and then have sex with their corpse and then eat their brains. Evolution made me do it. Survival of the fittest, everything goes...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 05:59 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Certainly, individuals can choose to do whatever they want, to murder or steal, to do heroin, to have close and fulfilling friendships, etc. There's more to morality than that, because it's about what people should do, not just about what they can do.
I agree that no individual needs to adopt a higher authority. Morality isn't a higher authority, it's what you'd really want if you understood your interests. Saying "I don't need morality" is like saying "I'm going to eat nothing but donuts all my life" - you have reasons not to do that even if no one would stop you from doing it.
Saying that people can't observe others' emotions is a bizarre claim. Not being able to observe emotions is a sign of autism, which means it's a deviation from the norm. Normally, humans are capable of perceiving emotions.
I don't think you understood my point about sickness. My point - to explain it for what must be the thousandth time - is that like medicine, morality is something that is agent-relative but still objective. It's a function of the relation between the world and an individual's happiness, but that doesn't make it subjective, because the fact of the relation isn't based on opinion. Of course a disease can't be evil, but it can be objectively bad for one's health. Disease is to one's health what an evil act is to one's happiness.
artu:
The point is, the fact that people have different beliefs about morality is no more evidence that morality is relative than them having different beliefs about physics is evidence that physics is relative. You say "if you put aside the basic stuff" - you can't put aside the basic stuff. Obviously more complex stuff is going to vary from society to society and from person to person. But not wanting to be killed randomly and deriving pleasure from close interpersonal interactions (and similar basic things) are human universals, and are enough to start deriving morality. For example, I think you'd agree that any system of morality that assumes that people like being killed randomly is going to be wrong, regardless of context.
You may ask, what about individual preferences and societal norms? Certainly, they can have an influence.
Let's consider societal norms first. For example, from what I've heard, Brazilians are more physically affectionate than Americans, because that's how they're raised. Which level of physical affection is correct? The four obvious answers are "The Americans are right", "The Brazilians are right", "Neither is right", and "It's subjective" are all incorrect. The correct answer is "Both are right for themselves", because how children are raised can affect how actions are mapped to what they mean - so, on average, for an American, physical affection means something different than for a Brazilian. What matters is the message conveyed by the action, not the action itself. It's important to understand that "Both are right for themselves" is not the same thing as "It's subjective", because if both are right for themselves, it's possible to be wrong. For example, if you took the average American and dropped him into Brazil, the difference in social norms would be bad for both him and for the people with whom he comes into contact. Or, if you told Americans to suddenly start acting like Brazilians, it would be bad for them, because the meanings they interpret from actions would clash with the changes in actions. But something being bad for someone is objectively true.
Personal preferences are similar. For example, you can't say that chocolate ice cream is objectively better or worse than vanilla ice cream - but you can say that (all else being equal) a person who prefers chocolate ice cream should eat more chocolate ice cream than vanilla ice cream, and that it would be bad for him if that were not the case. That is again an objective fact, even though it is based on a subjective preference.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:23, 21 Nov 2013.
|
|
You miss my point entirely. Your stance on the matter is teleological, you assume an ultimate final set of moral norms that can and should be (at least in theory) achieved and every other morality is either a "heresy" or an incomplete effort on that right path. You base this on an abstract objective human nature that hangs in there no matter what. Social circumstances, historical context, the cosmology people believe in are all mere details and they only affect subsidiary things like "in northern Europe people go to bed earlier." On the other hand, my stance is based on causality. I don't ignore the basics, I simply point that the basics are there because of a shared causality not because of some shared ultimate goal. You take a bunch of obsolete moral norms like honor killings or obedience to a king and say "hah, those guys were so wrong." as if this was a test and they circled c) instead of a). I try to explain to you that those norms emerged because of a causality just like the norms you believe to be definite and eternal did, although we think they are horrible NOW. Plato did not fail to reject slavery because he was dumb, the social structure and the comprehension of his time caused that. And this is not a process that simply ends in our times because now we finally solved out the puzzle and figured out the objective human nature. Such a thing does not exist. Our moral norms will keep on changing because the world we live in keeps on changing. If you had a time machine and you took your so called objective norms to, say, 16th century France, they would not be executable, and not because the people you meet would be in denial of their perfection. The reason will be that social structure would be incompatible with your norms and social structure is a fundamental part of the equation, it's not just a blanket that influences and cover the core which you assume to be only and only the individual. Your position is like claiming an OS that runs under any hardware. We have absolutely no rational reason to assume such an OS exits. The basics would be just the bytes. (And please don't twist the metaphor by saying it can be produced, it can't because the conditions that causes the norms to emerge in the first place constantly keeps on changing).
|
| |
|
|
