This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 117118119 120121 ... 502
3541
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:56:54 PM »
Good health does not require bad health in order to exist. The entire concept of health requires inequities in health to exist in the first place. There would be absolutely no relevance to such a concept otherwise. It's a fact that if you were to jump right now, the Earth's gravity would pull you back to the ground, assuming there are no other unmentioned factors at play, such as you using a jetpack. Okay? That doesn't contradict a single thing I said. The very purpose of the truth is that it is not subjective, but objective, given the overwhelming evidence, logic, and most importantly, facts that support it. Did you watch the video? You can't apply evidence or logic to reach facts until you presuppose the values of those very things. You have to define your epistemology before you can even begin drawing conclusions. I have trouble figuring out how all three of those requirements fit into morality Because, like epistemology, you have to define your morality before you can begin drawing conclusions. I suppose I should ask--do you believe in a higher power? As in some kind of supernatural entity? No.
3542
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:41:56 PM »
Although I can't say I'm satisfied that we live in a world where most objective truths get shit on and ignored in favor of shortsighted-ness.
Nobody is. It's just that all of us--at least in one area--are usually incapable of realising when and where we lack a proper approach to obtaining objectivity.
3543
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:34:28 PM »
Lot of good that objective fact did you, didn't it? So? Facts aren't defined by utility of action. You could say religion is a fantastic way of reaching social cohesion, and you could be right but it would have precisely zero bearing on the truth of religious propositions. Likely, nothing. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the fact, however; it's possible my perception on the issue is poor, but my perception doesn't define the objectivity of that fact. As far as I'm concerned, the utility of me smoking is higher than the disutility of me smoking. If information asymmetries exist, and I'm indeed wrong about my own preference that still doesn't negate the existence of the fact. So I seriously question, what is the actual point and value of an objective fact when it can actively be ignored, stepped over, bent and broken, and discarded in favor of somebody's own personal stupidity/preferences? Objective facts have value to us as agents because we seek it; the fact that we have perceptional biases that prevent us from reaching true objectivity--and always will--doesn't negate the journey of seeking it. Even the most incorrect, psychotic nutjobs incorrigibly believe they are objectively correct.
3544
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:16:59 PM »
Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health. Of course it wouldn't; we wouldn't have developed a concept of health at all because it would be totally irrelevant. "Good health" and "bad health" are entirely relative to one another; in the future, it could be considered a crippling disability to not live to 250, or to not be able to run a marathon every weekend. The world could be configured such a way, in the future, so as to make our current conceptions of health starkly unhealthy in every respect; yet inequities would still exist. If we literally managed to abolish poor health, there would be no point in the concept whatsoever other than some kind of historical artefact. Physics is based on provable facts No, it isn't. Physics reaches 'provable' (or, more accurately, high-probability) conclusions on the assumed bases of things like physicalism, naturalism and empiricism; which we assume entirely because they are rational to assume. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of truth?
Not at all: Try and ignore the religious context of the video and focus on the epistemological considerations.
3545
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:08:42 PM »
Objectively, yeah, you exist in a better state when you're healthy and physically fit.
Which is the point. People not giving a shit doesn't negate the existence of facts regarding health.
3546
« on: September 09, 2015, 11:05:30 AM »
I wouldn't describe us as god
Depends how you define God, I guess. If you literally define it as "that which gives the Universe value" then sentient life could indeed collectively be considered God. But that's a silly definition anyway.
3547
« on: September 09, 2015, 11:04:11 AM »
If I forgot the pleasure of ever eating something I enjoy right after eating it, no, I don't think it would serve any purpose to enjoy it.
This is basically saying people with Alzheimer's shouldn't do anything.
3548
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:57:38 AM »
Because everything you experience will be gone by the time you die, as though you never experienced it in the first place.
So if you eat your last every strawberry ice cream, there's no point in enjoying it? In no way does eventual non-experience devalue current experience. We're still experiencing it now.
3549
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:16:18 AM »
Absolutely
And this is the point where I realise the conversation may as well end, since your perspective is so far removed from my own.
3550
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:02:12 AM »
If I were to choose anybody to represent the human race, it'd be Reagan.
3551
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:00:39 AM »
If there is no God
If God commanded you to murder and rape, would it be moral?
3552
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:54:07 AM »
How can you define it as objectively "wrong?"
How can you not? This is the point, you need the definition before you can be objective and Verbatim and I's contention is that a definition of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures is the only sane definition you're going to get. How can you claim vomiting constantly is objectively being ill? What if you come across a person who disagrees with your definition of ill? It's because vomiting comes under the only sane definition we have of illness.
3553
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:45:02 AM »
monarchy is THE most backwards system of governance. ever.
Well now you just sound like a progressive.
3554
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:43:34 AM »
Why is that the only sane definition?
Because it's literally the only one that makes sense; the only one that is rational. Defining morality by any other standard would be like defining physics as something other than the study of physical phenomena.
3555
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:42:34 AM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity. Wrong: Any state of disutility imposed on sentient life forms that is not offset by its utility, if any at all.
That isn't objective.
. . . How is it not? Disutility is a measurable, non-arbitrary phenomenon.
3556
« on: September 09, 2015, 04:33:31 AM »
I would actually very much be interested in being convinced that morality is actually an objective set of ideas, rather than a subjective one, as I currently view it. That's why I'm discussing it here. I'm fully capable of arguing about the morality of actions within general human parameters (Don't hurt others, be nice, don't steal, etc.), and am fully capable of making monumental progress without diving into the gritty, depressing topic of moral nihilism.
good
and now i've lost track of where you're having trouble
I fail to understand how morality has inherent truths to it, no matter how many ways people have spun it for me. That pretty much spans all of my confusion and doubt.
Truth comes from definition. The only sane definition of morality has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. Ergo, we have truths from this definition.
3557
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:14:17 PM »
Why do you people make life so complicated
I think if there's one thing people should work out it's probably morality.
3558
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:05:20 PM »
but this thread reeks of escotericism.
We're discussing philosophy. It's always going to be esoteric.
3559
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:01:45 PM »
No morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective. "Near Death Experiences are derived wholly from human experience, and are subject to different characteristics in different cultures, thus making it impossible for us to talk about NDEs objectively." You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.
3560
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:55:47 PM »
First, somebody define what "Bad" means, because I clearly don't know.
A position of disutility, characterised by gratuitous suffering.
3561
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:51:21 PM »
3562
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:50:52 PM »
doesn't such a break from the rule immediately invalidate its objectivity?
No, because the rule is about human well-being. "Suffering" for a masochist is not a form a disutility; gratuitous suffering is the issue.
3563
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:23:01 PM »
Since Verb posted his 'definition', I'll post mine:  Where o is the outcome of action A, and u(o) is the terminal utility of o and p(o) the probability of o.
3564
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:18:18 PM »
I would argue that Gödel's theorems place a much stronger constraint on our ability to ascertain "objective" truth than our mere nature
Godel's theorems have to do with analytic propositions, no? The relation of ideas? I was discussing synthetic propositions only.
3565
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:16:41 PM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
But that criticism still applies to health. "Not being ill" is reductive to "The difference between wellness and illness"; there is no illness without wellness as a point of reference. We define one by referencing the other, and it's exactly the same case with morality. We define good and evil by using each one as a reference point; in the same way we have a general notion of well-being for "health"--because nobody wants to be not in a state of gratuitous anti-well-being--we should also have a general notion of well-being for morality--for exactly the same reason.
3566
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:11:19 PM »
But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative? Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.
Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?
Plus, you have to ask why we feel no moral obligation towards rocks, and why it would be ridiculous to do so. Questions about morality must relate to some kind of capacity to experience, and basing questions of what we ought to do on causing gratuitous suffering is highly irrational.
3567
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:08:40 PM »
nothing we've theorized through science has a factual basis, either
gravity, electricity, etc.
I wouldn't go that far. It's probably better formulated as "objective truth exists, but our nature precludes us from ever reaching it with absolute certainty". All knowledge is, and always will be, conjectural. Even the strongest conclusions which we can reasonably say will never be overturned.
3568
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:06:10 PM »
Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?
Ask yourself the same thing about the definition of health. Why does the definition of health make more sense if it has something to do with not being dead and throwing up blood all the time?
3569
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:04:38 PM »
I don't understand how the presence of life somehow validates moral theories, though. To me, it seems if you need life to subjectively judge a set of ideas, then those ideas are not intrinsic. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" don't seem to actually have a factual basis, they're only projected judgements from us.
This is a pretty common philosophical error, actually, and it confuses ontology and epistemology. Basically, "what is" and "what we know". Presumably, your objection to some kind of moral objectivity is that it must rely on the subjective experiences of us. Perfectly reasonable question. But think of it this way: does the fact that Near Death Experiences are wholly subjective preclude us from making objective conclusions about them? What about mental illness? Or any other subjective phenomenon? It is absolutely true that our morality must be based on subjective experiences--because all experience is by definition subjective--but it isn't the case that our conclusions must also be subjective. We can be epistemologically objective about the ontologically subjective; or, we can be objective in what we know about events which are subjective in nature.
3570
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:00:09 PM »
Not to mention, you could apply the exact same criticism to health. The definition of health is, quite literally, "the distinction between wellness and illness". The interesting part of the equation is what constitutes wellness, and what constitutes illness--and what constitutes right and wrong analogously.
Pages: 1 ... 117118119 120121 ... 502
|
Show Posts