Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Objectivism vs Reletivism
06-30-2017, 09:29 PM
Post: #121
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(06-30-2017 09:23 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  Morality is subjective. You kill animals to eat their meat but feel outraged if some animal kills your baby.

That makes no sense... no one blames a lion for being a lion.

----------------------
Does anyone know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2017, 09:41 PM
Post: #122
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(06-30-2017 09:29 PM)The_Squid Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:23 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  Morality is subjective. You kill animals to eat their meat but feel outraged if some animal kills your baby.

That makes no sense... no one blames a lion for being a lion.

No one should blame the human for killing another human -- Survival of the fittest
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2017, 10:05 PM
Post: #123
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(06-30-2017 09:41 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:29 PM)The_Squid Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:23 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  Morality is subjective. You kill animals to eat their meat but feel outraged if some animal kills your baby.

That makes no sense... no one blames a lion for being a lion.

No one should blame the human for killing another human -- Survival of the fittest

You're very confused. We are conscious animals in a way that no other animal seems to be. We have moral systems that, for the most part (the better ones), are against wanton killing of other people.

----------------------
Does anyone know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2017, 10:08 PM
Post: #124
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(06-30-2017 10:05 PM)The_Squid Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:41 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:29 PM)The_Squid Wrote:  
(06-30-2017 09:23 PM)DaphneEllenFissel Wrote:  Morality is subjective. You kill animals to eat their meat but feel outraged if some animal kills your baby.

That makes no sense... no one blames a lion for being a lion.

No one should blame the human for killing another human -- Survival of the fittest

You're very confused. We are conscious animals in a way that no other animal seems to be. We have moral systems that, for the most part (the better ones), are against wanton killing of other people.


Tell that to US troops killing innocent civilians as collateral damage
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 06:46 AM
Post: #125
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
@Peter, post #106:

Calling some idea ridiculous or magical does nothing to prove it wrong, it is an appeal to ridicule.

You more than the rest of us make use of appeals to ridicule in our conversations (see Herm's post #77, top). I like that you generally don't attack us persons, but you do ridicule our views way too much. It is in fact a rhetorical tool, and in the purpose of debate works as a fallacy.

That being said:

It's "argument from ignorance" that grounds your entire worldview. Tell me how many things you reject as false from the mere fact that they cannot be "proven" as true. Allegations that someone uses "argument from ignorance" are very often misled, because it is a very valid inductive behavior to be skeptical of what cannot be known. It's a fallacy only in deduction.

You can explain things, but being able to give explanation is not proof that the explanation is correct. So we cannot ever conclude that because you can give an explanation, that something is "not just a brute fact", until the explanation rests on some evidence.

So here's your "evidence":

Quote:You feel that way because youve been given the goal by ecolution and society, to aim to act in certain ways.

Problems with this:

1. If someone has a goal they can't even sense, where's the proof they have a goal?! All goals in the sense that they are goals, are known subjectively by the very fact that the person sets them. And that's where "wants" show up. A goal is always wanted, in order to be a goal at all. If evolution put a goal in me, I should sense it. If I cannot sense a goal, you are in no position to say it's in me, with or without evolution. The evidence would be lacking. The only evidence that would be sufficient to say a goal is in me (evolution or not) is the subjective sensing of that goal (= feeling a want).

2. The idea that society can give me a goal is actually incredible. How does society give me a goal in your view? By saying "You should do X" before I even have a want for X (otherwise the should would come from the want)? If that's what they're doing, and I suddenly develop a drive to do X, that looks a lot like what I'm saying, where I say that a should precedes a want.

Now say what you will about society "giving" me a should. All they really do is say some words. The sense of "should" makes itself manifest in me because it is somehow built into me to understand what "should" even is. If someone tells me "I am in pain", I understand because I have felt pain before.

I understand when someone uses the word "should" because I know what "should" even means. But no person actually takes the "should" and actively puts it in me. They don't have that power. It is something working upon me me (that has nothing to do with them) that hears them, and then puts the "should" in me. It's just an associationist rule of reality. The "subconscious" is really just a cluster of associationist rules of reality that act upon our consciousness, leading them to believe certain things, act certain ways, etc.

Quote:Shoulds dont require an 'earlier' goal, they require an adjacent goal. One that co-exists with the imperative. An imperative cannot exiat without a goal. This is a brute fact of how imperatives work. Can you show otherwise? Name an imperative without a connected goal.

Ok then Peter, tell me if I am reading this part right.

If I should do X, before I want X, and before X is my goal, but as a result X becomes my goal and my drive to do X can be called the want, is this okay?

If that's true, then there's a moment where the should precedes the goal-making and the wanting, where the should exists alone. Don't you see that's what I'm arguing for?

That's why I'm criticizing the view that wants or goals precede shoulds, because that's the only way that the should, for as long as it exists, will have a goal or want always there with it. If the wants or goals succeed the shoulds, then there's time when the shoulds exist alone.

And that's exactly the thing with villains, they reject following the moral oughts which they should follow, so they never make it their goal or drive ("want" in one sense) to follow those oughts. The oughts thus remain in that first stage. The villains could start to pay attention to the oughts though, and what follows after this is that they make it their goal or drive to follow them.

@Peter, post 107:

Nothing you've said here really impacts anything I've said.

For example, this is incredibly vague, enough that I can't agree or disagree with it on its own:

Quote:Morality is the same. Its a representation of real facts of reality. Facts about wellbeing imo.

And I don't think you understood the point about the infinite reduction. The point was just to show that we need first premises which are just brute facts. So I was only criticizing the attitude that is dismissive of any claim to a brute fact. That's all. Your earlier posts did convey the possibility of that kind of attitude. So I made sure to strike it down before it could be used as an "a-ha!" moment.

"To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery, even as to rule over them is the only liberty." -Justin Martyr
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 11:27 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 12:09 AM by PeterPants.)
Post: #126
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
Shiver, clearly you've entirely missed the point. ive never said that goals precede should, ive said that they conceptual are required, this is not a claim from ignorance, its a claim based on an understanding of how language works, a should makes NO SENSE without a conceptual goal, whether the person feeling the should realizes what goal it is reaching for is totally irrelivent.

you 'feel' you 'should' do x, logically a goal HAS to be attached to it, otherwise its not a 'should' at all, its just nothing.

i DO understand your point about infinite reduction, its a valid point for ALL ARGUMENTS, if i say, atoms are made of neutrons, protons and electrons, then you say, AH! but thats not rright because you can split them down more, but thats irrelevant, they are still made of protons neutrons and electrons.

Yes i sometimes ridicule what i perceive as wrong, im sometimes rude... so what? im not actually putting them forward as arguments. dismissing my actual arguments based on the fact that they are accompanied by insults is the fallacious argument. as ive said before, the insults, while undesired and probably unjustified, are freebies Tongue i do apologise if i insult anyone personally, i really dont mean to. i dont really see why insulting your ideas should come across as an insult on you.

Quote:If I should do X, before I want X, and before X is my goal, but as a result X becomes my goal and my drive to do X can be called the want, is this okay?

again, nothing to do with my argument. im not saying that in peoples minds there has to exist a known goal, in order to feel a 'should.
im saying that a should HAS to be coupled to a rhetorical goal otherwise its not a should at all.

Quote:
Quote:You feel that way because youve been given the goal by ecolution and society, to aim to act in certain ways.

Problems with this:

1. If someone has a goal they can't even sense, where's the proof they have a goal?! All goals in the sense that they are goals, are known subjectively by the very fact that the person sets them. And that's where "wants" show up. A goal is always wanted, in order to be a goal at all. If evolution put a goal in me, I should sense it. If I cannot sense a goal, you are in no position to say it's in me, with or without evolution. The evidence would be lacking. The only evidence that would be sufficient to say a goal is in me (evolution or not) is the subjective sensing of that goal (= feeling a want).

2. The idea that society can give me a goal is actually incredible. How does society give me a goal in your view? By saying "You should do X" before I even have a want for X (otherwise the should would come from the want)? If that's what they're doing, and I suddenly develop a drive to do X, that looks a lot like what I'm saying, where I say that a should precedes a want.

Now say what you will about society "giving" me a should. All they really do is say some words. The sense of "should" makes itself manifest in me because it is somehow built into me to understand what "should" even is. If someone tells me "I am in pain", I understand because I have felt pain before.

I understand when someone uses the word "should" because I know what "should" even means. But no person actually takes the "should" and actively puts it in me. They don't have that power. It is something working upon me me (that has nothing to do with them) that hears them, and then puts the "should" in me. It's just an associationist rule of reality. The "subconscious" is really just a cluster of associationist rules of reality that act upon our consciousness, leading them to believe certain things, act certain ways, etc.

so yeah, all this is bunk because its based on a complete misunderstanding of what im actually claiming. my sentance that your responding to is why YOU feel that way, not why everyone feels that way, nor why anyone SHOULD feel that way, clearly they dont, i could give reasons why they should, but we have not gotten that far yet.

im responding to the part i bolded here, 'how does society give you a goal?' by teaching you to value certain things which all point towards a conceptual goal, regardless of whether you know about that goal. but again, im NOT claiming that we actually know about these goals.

When society teaches you 50 values. and ALL of them have the conceptual goals of, 1- make the economy more sustainable, and 2- increase human wellbeing, then regardless of weather you recognize the goal, you fulfilling the individual values does work towards the goal.
but a goal MUST exist, even if we consider a single value, say, dont steal, the conceptual goal is to reduce stealing in the world.
'why should we not steal?' 'to reduce theft'.

further, to convince someone not to steal, an appeal to goals is the oinly way, 'do you want to stay out of jail?' 'do you want to safeguard other peoples wellbeing?' hopefully the person does desire one or another relevant goals. otherwise too bad for us (or him).


I do hope this has cleared up some misunderstandings. and again, i really am sorry for insulting anyone.

I feel like youve gonenout of your way to assume the least charitable interpretation of what ive said.. Though i guess thats highly unlikely. Its proberbly just a little language communication problem i guess.

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2017, 03:25 AM
Post: #127
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(07-01-2017 11:27 PM)PeterPants Wrote:  Yes i sometimes ridicule what i perceive as wrong, im sometimes rude... so what? im not actually putting them forward as arguments. dismissing my actual arguments based on the fact that they are accompanied by insults is the fallacious argument. as ive said before, the insults, while undesired and probably unjustified, are freebies Tongue i do apologise if i insult anyone personally, i really dont mean to. i dont really see why insulting your ideas should come across as an insult on you.

When you ridicule someone's ideas so much you are implicitly ridiculing them as well for holding these views. It doesn't help that you in fact go beyond this and actually call others insane for disagreeing with you.

Instead of ridiculing a view so much, keep your posts shorter and focus only on arguments. You're not really bringing up anything interesting by continually insisting other people's views are insane, irrational etc. Just give an argument and leave it there. If the argument is any good it will get the message across.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2017, 01:56 PM
Post: #128
RE: Objectivism vs Reletivism
(06-26-2017 10:07 PM)Achrelos Wrote:  In a way, that would make morality objective, because a universal goal or value would mean that, even if we cannot attain it and must settle for practical better or worse scenarios, there is some theoretical objectively best way way to attain that goal in a given situation?

Science is the best OBJECTIVE way to look at anything that happens in our universe.

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Ayn Rand and Objectivism shiverleaf15 5 1,105 01-10-2014 12:51 PM
Last Post: wanderer



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)