Originally posted by TacDavey
So to say "This plan is good unless you can provide a better one" is logically flawed, isn't it?
In a contextual view of "good plans" it seems perfectly consistent to say that the best plan you have is always a good plan but that it can become a bad plan when a better alternative is provided (since not following the best plan is a bad plan).
Originally posted by TacDavey
Irrelevant. As I said, another plan being provided does not influence whether this plan was good or bad. So to say "This plan is good unless you can provide a better one" is logically flawed, isn't it?
If no better alternative exists then by definition the 'best' plan is the plan a rational being goes with.
Originally posted by inimalist
not when good is relative to the options you have at the time, no
A plan can be better or worse than another plan, yes. But you just admitted thst a plan's worth is not based off of other plans. Unless you are saying that fact does not apply to WW 2. In which case you would have to explain why.
Originally posted by TacDavey
A plan can be better or worse than another plan, yes. But you just admitted thst a plan's worth is not based off of other plans. Unless you are saying that fact does not apply to WW 2. In which case you would have to explain why.
actually, i said the opposite of what you are thinking
plans are rated as good based on what other plans are available. a good plan is only good relative to the other options, I apologize if this wasn't clear
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In a contextual view of "good plans" it seems perfectly consistent to say that the best plan you have is always a good plan but that it can become a bad plan when a better alternative is provided (since not following the best plan is a bad plan).
I wouldn't say the best plan you have is always a good plan. I gave an example earlier of a "best plan available" that was not a good plan. It's just the best you've got.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is a pointless diversionary argument to distract from the fact that you've lost your main debate.
First off, I didn't start this side debate, you know. It came about when one of my points was challenged.
Second, it IS actually relevant to the main debate. In the sense that, depending on the outcome, specific points in the main debate will be relevant or not.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
If no better alternative exists then by definition the 'best' plan is the plan a rational being goes with.
Yes, you should go with the best plan you have available, but that doesn't make the plan good, it just makes it your best option.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, i said the opposite of what you are thinkingplans are rated as good based on what other plans are available. a good plan is only good relative to the other options, I apologize if this wasn't clear
But I asked you what made a good plan. You gave specific variables to consider that make a plan good or not, which I pretty much agree with.
Originally posted by TacDavey
But I asked you what made a good plan. You gave specific variables to consider that make a plan good or not, which I pretty much agree with.
sure, but in my definition I made it clear that I thought that definition was only relevant when compared to other plans.
I don't think a plan can be good in the abstract, rather, it is only good compared to the options.
Whatever qualities I described can only be seen as good versus the qualities of other plans. In some abstract sense, where plans are not viewed relative to one another, I don't think you can actually say what makes one good or bad, the same way you can't say what the best ice cream is without comparing it to other ice creams.
Originally posted by inimalist
In some abstract sense, where plans are not viewed relative to one another, I don't think you can actually say what makes one good or bad, the same way you can't say what the best ice cream is without comparing it to other ice creams.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but in my definition I made it clear that I thought that definition was only relevant when compared to other plans.I don't think a plan can be good in the abstract, rather, it is only good compared to the options.
Whatever qualities I described can only be seen as good versus the qualities of other plans. In some abstract sense, where plans are not viewed relative to one another, I don't think you can actually say what makes one good or bad, the same way you can't say what the best ice cream is without comparing it to other ice creams.
I don't know about that. If you base a plan's worth off of how much of those criteria it fills you should be able to judge a plan good or bad.
For example, if a plan fulfills all the criteria perfectly, it can be considered a good plan, even if there are no other plans available to compare it to.
In the same way, if it fulfills none of the criteria mentioned, then it can be considered a bad plan, even if there are no other plan's available for comparison.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know about that. If you base a plan's worth off of how much of those criteria it fills you should be able to judge a plan good or bad.For example, if a plan fulfills all the criteria perfectly, it can be considered a good plan, even if there are no other plans available to compare it to.
In the same way, if it fulfills none of the criteria mentioned, then it can be considered a bad plan, even if there are no other plan's available for comparison.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know about that. If you base a plan's worth off of how much of those criteria it fills you should be able to judge a plan good or bad.For example, if a plan fulfills all the criteria perfectly, it can be considered a good plan, even if there are no other plans available to compare it to.
In the same way, if it fulfills none of the criteria mentioned, then it can be considered a bad plan, even if there are no other plan's available for comparison.
but something can't just be "good"
for something to be good, it inherently assumes a value judgement compared to something else
a plan that fills all the criteria is "good" compared to those that don't. If there are no other options, though, it really isn't good so much as, well, the only viable option
Originally posted by inimalist
but something can't just be "good"for something to be good, it inherently assumes a value judgement compared to something else
a plan that fills all the criteria is "good" compared to those that don't. If there are no other options, though, it really isn't good so much as, well, the only viable option
Tac Davey is about to school your sorry Canadian ass and prove to you something that the greatest philosophers in history have all failed to prove: an objective good.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
In what situation would there not be any alternate plan to compare it to?
I'm not saying there ever would be.
Originally posted by inimalist
but something can't just be "good"for something to be good, it inherently assumes a value judgement compared to something else
a plan that fills all the criteria is "good" compared to those that don't. If there are no other options, though, it really isn't good so much as, well, the only viable option
Just because something is the only option doesn't mean it can't be good or bad. If you think of "good" in terms of how much criteria it fills, you can still judge a plan "good" or "bad" without another plan being needed. You base the worth of the plan off of the criteria, not off of other plans.
I mean, are you saying that if a plan fills absolutely none of the criteria, you cannot consider that plan bad without another plan being present? You cannot see that it does none of the things you wanted it to do unless you have another plan available?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hey don't be so cocky.Tac Davey is about to school your sorry Canadian ass and prove to you something that the greatest philosophers in history have all failed to prove: an objective good.
Objective good I can understand. Objective, as in, demonstrable through empirical means...
otherwise, ya, I don't understand how anything could be good without there being a context of other things that are not good... Like, I think that is the definition of the word...
Originally posted by TacDavey
Just because something is the only option doesn't mean it can't be good or bad. If you think of "good" in terms of how much criteria it fills, you can still judge a plan "good" or "bad" without another plan being needed. You base the worth of the plan off of the criteria, not off of other plans.I mean, are you saying that if a plan fills absolutely none of the criteria, you cannot consider that plan bad without another plan being present? You cannot see that it does none of the things you wanted it to do unless you have another plan available?
I think you are confusing success/failure with good/bad
good and bad are, tautologically, terms that require more than a single item to have any relevance. If there is literally only one option possible, and it fails to meet your goals, there is nothing wrong with your plan, it is that your goals are untenable.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are confusing success/failure with good/badgood and bad are, tautologically, terms that require more than a single item to have any relevance. If there is literally only one option possible, and it fails to meet your goals, there is nothing wrong with your plan, it is that your goals are untenable.
I don't know... a bad plan can still succeed, can't it?
Take a plan that doesn't meet any of your criteria. And has a very low chance of success. What word would you use to describe it?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Take a plan that doesn't meet any of your criteria. And has a very low chance of success. What word would you use to describe it?
without comparing it to other, even if just hypothetical, plans, essentially in the way you described it: it fails to meet the needed criteria and probably wont work.
it only becomes a bad plan when another can be articulated that performs better than it would.
like, this isn't even about plans anymore, we are arguing the semantics of the word "good".
Originally posted by TacDavey
I wouldn't say the best plan you have is always a good plan. I gave an example earlier of a "best plan available" that was not a good plan. It's just the best you've got.
There are various dimensions of "good" to work with.
Contextually the best plan is always good because following the other plans is always worse, which would be bad.