there was this girl who was not allowed to play sports in her highschool b/c ppl found out she was an atheist and used the whole she didnt fit with the team spirit and unit cohesion with her team... she was basically bullied and ridiculed by her town, students and teachers.. actual teachers..
it was on the news on 2o/2o or one of those i am sure you can find the video if ppl google it..
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
there was this girl who was not allowed to play sports in her highschool b/c ppl found out she was an atheist and used the whole she didnt fit with the team spirit and unit cohesion with her team... she was basically bullied and ridiculed by her town, students and teachers.. actual teachers..it was on the news on 2o/2o or one of those i am sure you can find the video if ppl google it..
Once there was this girl, who wouldn't go and change with the girls in the change room. But when they finally made her, they saw birthmarks all over her body. She couldn't quite explain it, they'd always just been there.
Originally posted by Bardock42not sure what that means?
Once there was this girl, who wouldn't go and change with the girls in the change room. But when they finally made her, they saw birthmarks all over her body. She couldn't quite explain it, they'd always just been there.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just tell your religious friends that faith has nothing to do with the belief in a God, then set back a watch their heads explode. 😄
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And where is this?
Originally posted by King Castle
there was this girl who was not allowed to play sports in her highschool b/c ppl found out she was an atheist and used the whole she didnt fit with the team spirit and unit cohesion with her team... she was basically bullied and ridiculed by her town, students and teachers.. actual teachers..it was on the news on 2o/2o or one of those i am sure you can find the video if ppl google it..
Originally posted by Digi
Getting back to a topic from a while ago, and this is primarily directed at inimilist from our conversation a while back, I guess I just can't bring myself to believe something (or someone) is intrinsically good or evil in an objective sense. I have no problem saying Hitler wasn't at fault for any of his actions.
I think you are confusing objective and intrinsic though.
In vision research, we can talk about the wavelengths of light that are "red". In fact, there are 2d maps of chromatic space, and using special equipment, most perception research give a x and y value for the "red" they are using.
red is therefore an objective quality of light. it is not an intrinsic one though. It is only because of our anthropic perception that the specific wavelength values corresponding to red are grouped together, and it is human language and abstract cognition that builds an anthropic construct of red. however, while not an intrinsic or absolute, and subject to all the human relativities and whatnot, it is still objective.
thats sort of what I mean with objective morality. Sure, it only applies to humans in our limited social contexts, but it is applying the same principles of logic that we apply to all other problems. Rather than just saying, "there are no good ways to solve moral problems", we should say "we know certain outcomes will follow certain actions, and we can measure in many ways the impact, we can use this data to calculate a moral cost associated with action based on its potential disruption of others".
Originally posted by Digi
I am an advocate of no-fault determinism, in which there is no such thing as blame, fault, right/wrong, etc. and justice is doled out on the basis of its ability to protect others from future harm, not as a punishment to the "criminal" (which I use in a loose sense here).So, if a person is forcefully invading the freedom of others (enslaving, stealing, killing, etc.) he or she needs to be detained or killed according to the crime. By invading the freedoms of others to serve yourself, you forfeit your own. But you are no more "at fault" for the action than an apple is for falling to the ground when it breaks from a tree.
cool, and I can respect that, if I disagree, but to me, that isn't really addressing moral questions. Its more like saying morality is irrelevant in the first place.
So like, if I asked you what kind of music you liked, and analogous response would be to forego ever commenting on aestetics because it is not absolute. and yes, music is subjective, but the Beatles aren't just subjectively one of the greatest bands of the past 100 years
Originally posted by Digi
So certainly we can identify that which is conducive to suffering in any context, and you can try to label it as immoral in an objective sense. But insofar as morality is a human construct, and suffering a subjective experience, I don't think it's possible to make anything truly objective, not only from our limited perception but ever.
Suffering in some instances is very subjective, and any moral question can be made more grey by adding additional conditions to it. However, all people need food, water, shelter, security, social settings, medicine when they are sick, etc. On a very basic level, we can point to the deprevation of these things from people as being a very basic form of evil, because there is no time where starving a person to death can be construed as good for them, unless one uses some fanatically twisted religious dogma (almost a tautological evil in my moral views).
Originally posted by Digi
However, I think we're in agreement that avoiding and preventing suffering (as defined subjectively by the person experiencing something) is a valid moral goal. So the big stuff is there, just not the details.
well like, if all you want is me to concede that nothing, in the post modern sense, can ever be truly objective, then sure, ok, done.
moving forward, as we have done when we were faced with the fact that there is no universal "redness", we can define a form of objective morality in the same way we operationally define other concepts. I don't want to say "scientific morality", because that is totally inappropriate, but something like that.
But unlike "redness" wavelengths, we can't define a unit of measurement for morality, good/evil, etc.
To borrow one of your suggestions of my thinking, I really probably do believe that concepts of morality are irrelevant. At the risk of sounding overly existential, reality just is. Application of meaning is only subjective. I think even if you were able to find some measurement that everyone in the whole of time and space could agree upon, it wouldn't change my stance.
And yes, the Beatles are only subjectively great. Any unit of measurement created to try to prove otherwise would be arbitrary (popularity, sales, number of songs, chord progressions, influence, etc. etc.). You could say they're objectively one of the best-selling bands of all time. But again, we have an objective criteria for basing it off of.
...
I feel like I might be missing the whole of your argument, in, and I'm sorry if you think you've accounted for my objections. I just can't see it myself.
Originally posted by Digi
I feel like I might be missing the whole of your argument, in, and I'm sorry if you think you've accounted for my objections. I just can't see it myself.
I'll do a little bit better of a response when i get a chance, im sort of running out the door, but I think you have it.
basically, I got out of religious/polisci/anthro because of what you are talking about, as it seems so trivial whether humans will ever know anything in an absolute sense. The brain in the vat situation give me no pause at all. It seems like an approach to knowledge that is entirely antithetical to solving problems.
Not that I think its a value judgement at all, I'm just personally more interested in dealing with the concrete. that I know everything is limited by my humanity is interesting, and I'll be humble because of it, but it in no way informs me that I can't know what is right or wrong, especially when it comes to how to treat other people.
lol, lets call this impasse "the scientist and the philosoper". I really just think you and I emphasize different points that we are probably in agreement about anyways. To me, that we can identify objective suffering is the most important part of my moral code, it appears, to me at least, that the fact we can't make absolute statements about good and evil is most important to you (or that such terms are irrelevant or subjective in the first place).
I hope none of that sounds harsh, I'm honestly not trying to bastardize what you were saying...
You of course had to simplify my position to paraphrase it in relation to your point, but I don't think it was changed as a result. This statement:
Originally posted by inimalist
To me, that we can identify objective suffering is [b]the most important part of my moral code, it appears, to me at least, that the fact we can't make absolute statements about good and evil is most important to you (or that such terms are irrelevant or subjective in the first place).[/B]
...is one I can agree with, as is the fact that our opinions are similar otherwise.
At one point I read a "philosophy of the mind" book that complied dozens of articles all written from different perspectives. It was fascinating, but by the end of it seemed rather absurd. The whole discussion, from internet forums to the world's "experts," seems to me to be purely academic. It's not going to be settled, nor will it ever be an intrinsic part of religions, political views, or even scientific endeavors. It was just too abstract and subjective for my taste.
Neuroscience and the like can be useful though, for obvious reasons. But that's a different field almost entirely.
I'll concede that there may be a way to quantify morality on the basis of suffering (in a general sense), or its opposite (happiness, perhaps) as a measurement. And that the suffering involved would be measured subjectively by the person experiencing it, but could then be used to make objective moral decisions. I just can't bring myself to see that as more than a vague possibility due to the subjectivity involved with either the person experiencing the event or the person affecting the suffering in some manner, and the various criteria by which you could judge influence over such factors.
.....
Anyway, unfortunately and amusingly, we probably agree on too many things to make for terribly interesting forum chat. Mostly I only read what you have to say to get a new perspective on what I usually already consider to be my opinion. This isn't much of an exception, it seems.
Originally posted by Digi
But unlike "redness" wavelengths, we can't define a unit of measurement for morality, good/evil, etc.
not to sound conceited, but thats almost exactly what I claim to do. Like wavelengths, or the anthrogenic classification of natural phenomena into "this" and "not this" in general, it is true, there is no intrinsic unit of morality, as there is no intrinsic unit of colour. All of our chromatic values are only as they are because there is universal agreement on definitions, not because of these inherent units of measurement, as the concept of measuring things and variables are human constructs.
Historically, morallity has classically regarded human interaction with other beings who society deemed worthy of moral consideration. Sure, by deconstructing the language, we can make any word mean anything we want, but the way in which there is nearly, at least common, agreement on what "moral" means (as in, if a co-worker used the word "moral" in a sentence, you know what they mean) sort of insinuates what these unite of measure would be. If we adopt a religious perspective on morality, they become violations of a written code, a secular version would be violations of rights or constitutions. In terms of an empirical morality, it would be harm and suffering, the abstract concepts that have been at the heart of all moral perspectives. At least what I feel this is doing is removing these unneeded interpretive layers, but without abandoning the idea at their core. Just because religion holds no universal truths, doesn't mean that their goals (reduction of their interpretation of harm) need to be meaningless.
I'm the first to admit that most situations wont be obviously good or evil, and will probably be shades of grey within shades of grey.
Originally posted by Digi
And yes, the Beatles are only subjectively great. Any unit of measurement created to try to prove otherwise would be arbitrary (popularity, sales, number of songs, chord progressions, influence, etc. etc.). You could say they're objectively one of the best-selling bands of all time. But again, we have an objective criteria for basing it off of.
but again, this is only possible if we accept that because we can deconstruct word meaning, we should therefore have no definitions for words.
The word music means something. Regardless of what measure you want to use, it still means something. Music is something that is not just other noise or language. Yes, there are arguable borders and individual differences, but untimatly, unless we are abandoning the use of linguistic categories, the beatles were a good band.
Similarily, I would say the same of morality. Unless we are accepting the idea that there is no fundamental difference between punching someone in the face and giving them a hug, the term "moral" means something that does have observable qualities in the world, namely those related to suffering.
Originally posted by Digi
Neuroscience and the like can be useful though, for obvious reasons. But that's a different field almost entirely.
personally, at least, I find it more relevant than philosophy, as much as we can separate the two
Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, unfortunately and amusingly, we probably agree on too many things to make for terribly interesting forum chat.
oh, but im trying
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, but im trying
Heh, indeed you are.
Originally posted by inimalist
not to sound conceited, but thats almost exactly what I claim to do. Like wavelengths, or the anthrogenic classification of natural phenomena into "this" and "not this" in general, it is true, there is no intrinsic unit of morality, as there is no intrinsic unit of colour. All of our chromatic values are only as they are because there is universal agreement on definitions, not because of these inherent units of measurement, as the concept of measuring things and variables are human constructs.
To be clear, I'm not trying to semantically break down words into an absence of meaning. You're absolutely right that that isn't the right way to view this. But as you said, there's no intrinsic unit of morality or color, but in the case of color there are concretely definable wavelengths upon which we can objectively base the otherwise-subjective color labels. The labels themselves are arbitrary, but the measurements upon which they're based are not. Both label and measurement would be arbitrary for morality, and there's the difference imo.
Let me try another approach, however (though it branches off of something I mentioned earlier). If I remember correctly, you are, like me, a determinist. As such, everything we do is determined by that which proceeded it, and could have happened no other way. Reality is a series of causes and affects, and "choice" (in a free will sense) is nonexistent. Where, then, morality to an inevitable action? Morality necessarily has to imply blame for immoral actions, and I can't justify blame of any sort in a deterministic universe.
Originally posted by inimalist
In terms of an empirical morality, it would be harm and suffering, the abstract concepts that have been at the heart of all moral perspectives.
These are the only parameters I'm comfortable discussing as potentially moral/immoral, and it seems you are fine with it as well, so we'll go from there.
Originally posted by inimalist
At least what I feel this is doing is removing these unneeded interpretive layers, but without abandoning the idea at their core. Just because religion holds no universal truths, doesn't mean that their goals (reduction of their interpretation of harm) need to be meaningless.
Here's what I'll grant you: we can look at an action, gauge it in terms of harm/suffering, and determine whether or not it was a good or bad action based on its affects. I'll even go so far as to say we might be able to objectively determine this. However, the person and the action itself can't be moral or immoral....no more so than, say a coffee machine is moral or immoral after you press a button to make you a mocha. I guess I'm again hedging toward the idea that morality as a concept is irrelevant. Actions can be retroactively determined to be good/bad to try to affect future action based on the criteria of suffering/happiness, but we can't extend that to the person in the act of something that is potentially moral/immoral.
Originally posted by Sappho
DAMN. ive been following your guys' chat for a while and its pretty interesting.
It's mostly inamilist. I'm thrilled when I understand his posts because I'm in constant fear that the conversation is suddenly going to go over my head.
Originally posted by inimalist
not to sound conceited, but thats almost exactly what I claim to do. Like wavelengths, or the anthrogenic classification of natural phenomena into "this" and "not this" in general, it is true, there is no intrinsic unit of morality, as there is no intrinsic unit of colour. All of our chromatic values are only as they are because there is universal agreement on definitions, not because of these inherent units of measurement, as the concept of measuring things and variables are human constructs.Historically, morallity has classically regarded human interaction with other beings who society deemed worthy of moral consideration. Sure, by deconstructing the language, we can make any word mean anything we want, but the way in which there is nearly, at least common, agreement on what "moral" means (as in, if a co-worker used the word "moral" in a sentence, you know what they mean) sort of insinuates what these unite of measure would be. If we adopt a religious perspective on morality, they become violations of a written code, a secular version would be violations of rights or constitutions. In terms of an empirical morality, it would be harm and suffering, the abstract concepts that have been at the heart of all moral perspectives. At least what I feel this is doing is removing these unneeded interpretive layers, but without abandoning the idea at their core. Just because religion holds no universal truths, doesn't mean that their goals (reduction of their interpretation of harm) need to be meaningless.
I'm the first to admit that most situations wont be obviously good or evil, and will probably be shades of grey within shades of grey.
but again, this is only possible if we accept that because we can deconstruct word meaning, we should therefore have no definitions for words.
The word music means something. Regardless of what measure you want to use, it still means something. Music is something that is not just other noise or language. Yes, there are arguable borders and individual differences, but untimatly, unless we are abandoning the use of linguistic categories, the beatles were a good band.
Similarily, I would say the same of morality. Unless we are accepting the idea that there is no fundamental difference between punching someone in the face and giving them a hug, the term "moral" means something that does have observable qualities in the world, namely those related to suffering.
personally, at least, I find it more relevant than philosophy, as much as we can separate the two
oh, but im trying
Do biologists who say that morality is ingrained/hardwired into us, honestly believe that? Or do their professors/peers/literature compel them to say that? Saying that its not learned, but innate seems to belittle the whole idea of being morally good; you're not being good, its actually nature doing it for you.
Is nothing learned or cultural to those people? They seem to be able to churn out arguments, or find a way to make everything inherited. "Why do I like rap, but not country?" "Well, according to Darwin...."
Originally posted by DigiI already feel behind the 8-ball with either of you, and high-five myself when a I finally do get a spark of understanding.
It's mostly inamilist. I'm thrilled when I understand his posts because I'm in constant fear that the conversation is suddenly going to go over my head.
Good discussion, guys. I've been tempted to jump in (where I can -- see above), but this show is yours.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do biologists who say that morality is ingrained/hardwired into us, honestly believe that? Or do their professors/peers/literature compel them to say that? Saying that its not learned, but innate seems to belittle the whole idea of being morally good; you're not being good, its actually nature doing it for you.Is nothing learned or cultural to those people? They seem to be able to churn out arguments, or find a way to make everything inherited. "Why do I like rap, but not country?" "Well, according to Darwin...."
Very few people believe in only nature or nurture, biologists included. It's not a zero-sum problem. That said, it might seem like they're saying everything is genetic because more of our behavior is based in genetics than most people initially assume. Tracing evolutionary trends in culture is a relatively new scientific field, so it's replacing a lot of previously accepted knowledge about how we come to be who we are.
lol, jeez... 😮
and, the most likely answer is, if you can't understand what I'm saying, I'm probably talking shit