superiorsavior wrote:You only end up adhering to the law if you dislike the punishment more than you like the crime, at the time of the deed at least. If you forget about the punishment for a moment due to strong emotions or drugs, you may desire the crime more than the punishment, when in a more sober moment you would not.some of the things there will get the death penalty- which is very bad, m'kay?
Oh crap- you're right!
I know i'm not the smartest one on here nor the favourite one in here and what i'm about to do.
Let's debate. It's a great way to nudge my skills and etc, So. Make the topic, About religion.
And lets see whether I can hold it for a while.
Don't expect long paragraphs though.
Humans have the power to evaluate and alter our values; thusfar in history our power to do so has been hampered by limited understanding of the brain and mind, but as we develop in these sciences, I anxiously anticipate that it is all but inevitable that we shall obtain the power to really choose our own values for the first time. Of course, weather or not we exercise this power will be dependent upon our initial values and the subsequent situations that shaped them naturally, and so would in no way be free; but it would at least be real choice for once. The problem that has plagued my life, and led to my debating morality, is that of what values we should choose for ourselves, when the power is at long last available. Even before that time, the fact that it is both possible and conceivable for us to hold different values, but that we do not, is enough to make it a pressing question.
Though the power does not require that we make a correct choice, as our current power does not; we will likely continue to develop our values based on our situation and current values, irregardless of the ability and speed at which we could change them. Perhaps there is no 'correct' choice after all, but i feel it necessary to at least look.
I've yet to see a means by which God could legitimately be the source of an objectively justified set of values; if they come from God they come from a subject and are as subjective as if they stem from any individual, plus, people will only share these values if their physiology and experiences are such that they would have built them into a person who would have had those values weather or not God so happened to share them.
I like to argue that we should, in order to be consistent, value those things that allow as many people as possible to live in a way they value for as much time as possible, as everyone values acting in accordance with those things they value; if a world where you live a life you value is good, it is inconsistent to say a world where more people, or rather more time, is spent living a life that is valued. But the question of why we should be consistent raises it's ugly head and damns this moral theory. Part of me still clings to the idea that the 'greatest value for the greatest number' principle may be salvaged, as it stands above the content of our values, does not attempt to impose a specific set of values on all people, and could work down from the nature of value to some guidance on their preferred content. This is a vain hope; but as I can see no way right or wrong could retain meaning without it, I shall continue to hold to it.
that’s the thing that’s really missing in terms of technolocay I think the venus project for example is pretty simple.
it could be done much better.
not to meniton being able to get energy at much higher efficiencies.
I would disagree to their being no correct route only choices put it this way… their are definetly wrong routes.– at-least most can agree to that.
superiorsavior wrote: Don't get me wrong, I desperately want a theory to be true, I just struggle with any of them avoiding flaws.
Any value can be wrong under the right (THE right) definition of wrong. Wrong is relational; my wrong may or may not be different than your wrong, but even a largely shared set of values doesn't imply universality. Therefore THE right definition of wrong, or the true nature of righteousness, depends on the person doing the judging, and is not so much non-existent as it is variable and fluctuating. While there's no universal, absolute set of right and wrong values, every person has his/her set, and many overlap (most people think killing is bad). And despite their variation, they're still very, very important.
I have no problem disposing of global morality; it never existed in the first place, and it never will. It's always been either a few, or more frequently, many assh*les of the same mindset imposing their values on others, whether forcefully or not.
However, I do have problem with you're belittlement of higher morality. Though I believe there's less than a .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of any existing "god," to say every one of us is a slave to a mindset based purely on natural selection is preposterous. Darwin had a lot right, yes. But the proliferation of a species depends on a lucky flip as much as it does a lucky hand; there are more than a few extinct species which would dominate the species today had they been given more favorable conditions. In other words, chance is our creator. Certain conditions only change the probabilities of certain thoughts and certain outcomes; our decisions lie somewhere between the realm of objectivity and spontaneity, as does our conciseness, and for that, they are ours. The world is nothing but random data and our interpretations of it; we have control over everything but the random data.
If you accept it, you are god.
that’s one part i don't like about it just impossing a new definition of god everytime, dude… how many gods am I? how many gods are You? how many gods is he/she/it?
Well I kind of do I consider us nothing more then… an evolved being that happens to essentially be a self containing sack of different microbial cells.
so now that we realize the probabilistic nature of the macroscopic world by necessity of my internal philosophy, their by being the objective judge.–
really just look at the venus project,
http://www.thevenusproject.com/contribu ... ers/videos
theirs also the home documentary it’s about planet home[earth=our home].
my morality isn't that good but it doesn't need to be,
our knowledge of anything isn't perfect either.
moral choices depend on knowledge and values the wider the range of values, and the greater the knowledge the better the moral code tend’s to be at-least assuming a non accumulative logical code.
so here I’ll stop exploiting a bug in your definition of god for the betterment of man.
I know we could have a subjective non-cognitive morality, and that our value judgments are dependent on naturalistic factors like our experiences, brains, and chance; but if we ever become free to choose what our values are and to change them, is there a set we should hold? If not, we can choose any value set.
We cannot predict our own or others behavior, that is true, but this does not mean their behavior is 'spontaneous,' just that the web of causes is too complex for a human to predict. To my knowledge, the only truly random factors are quantum and cancel out at the scale of the brain processes, though i admit my sources aren't wholly reliable. However, even if they were indeterminate, they would not be 'ours,' as we chose the outcome of chance to the same extent that we chose our original value set and what our subsequent experiences developed them into. We are ultimately the product of certain laws, which determine how we interpret the world. That last statement is cool but absolutely meaningless; it serves to show that just about anything could be criteria for defining what 'god' as.
e the better the moral code tend’s to be
In what way can a moral code be better, or worse, than any other?
And no, the definition of god hasn't changed, and isn't meaningless; once a being's reached the highest echelon of their abilities, they become a god. Most people haven't understood enough about the world to believe that humanly possible, so they invented beings which embodied their highest ideals, whether that be compassion, love, hate, or just extreme power. I think that such high ideals are humanly possible, extremely significant, and should be pursued, even though they might not be the same for everyone (the man who, in even the deepest corners of his heart, wants to be a terrorist, should become a terrorist, and the man who only wants to bring peace to the world should do everything he can to eliminate/subdue the other).
A moral code is best if it is YOUR best; it's best if its better than whatever you've encountered/come up with, and it needn't be the same for everyone.
in the judgement their is some subjectivity but we can pretty clearly determine that we are having probably what is most objectively seen as a detrimental effect, rather then a neutral or positive effect.
objectivity in some sense isn't exactly hopeless it’s just well we’re never that objective to begin with and we’ve got a-lot vested in not being wrong essentially.
anyway at-least theirs some ability to try to judge it effectively.
logic.[simple and short, rules that are logically justified based on agreeable philosophical and scientific principles. Not including logical fallacies, considering notions such as other peoples perspectives being per default equal to ones own and the non existence of an advantaged view point. The use of systemic logical reasoning, based on sound principles. understandability.]
[individuals[humans and anials], groups of people and animals, the people in general, animals in general, the environment, resources.]
[how one treats people of different incomes. different races, ages, not discriminating. rewarding proportionally without bias. helping those in need.]
consideration of circumstance.
proportional blame and judgment.
where i didn't list some things it’s either a given or just a bit of relativistic crap.
oh well you get the point theirs no point one can't even determine intention very well let alone decide if it was good. besides is making a good law good or bad intentions, the purpose of such a discussion is to argue forever in hopes of starting a violent conflict.
PS:but you defined it as accepting that we are a product of chance. my world view requires me to accept it their by i am god by your definition.
somehow I disagree about you assertion about god.
besides even their god sure subjective.
I’m not a post modernist I still just believe in one reality.
Having values which cohere well with each other, such as eating, drinking, being educated, having friends and living, rather than suicide, eating, drinking, education and having friends, rest upon the assumption that you want to have those things you want, or value; this may be true by the definition of value, and is perhaps an open path to identifying a guideline for a good set of values, that they should cohere well. It is better to value a bunch of things that let you achieve more of what you value, than a bunch of things that preclude you from achieving as many of them.
Perhaps we can identify from the nature of value alone, or with consideration of what value is and of our nature, what we should value. I'd love to say that society should have a coherent set of values, but society has no values or desres; it is merely a construct made of individuals, with desires. Perhaps it is best for the desires of different individuals to mesh, so the majority can be achieved; but does this stem from the definition of wanting or desiring alone?
Edit: I'm starting to turn from hyper-socialist universalist ethics to hyper-capitalist egoistic ethics thanks to some wordplay. If you want to do what you want, which you do, you should do that which gets you most of what you want. Survival is nesicary for everything but avoiding, so unless avoiding outweighs everything else (in which case suicide is the rational option) your values should be based on individual survival. The rest of the values have to cohere in such a way that they maximize your personal value; this is sounding suspiciously like rational egoism and would end up with some libertarian system via a fear/power mechanic like Hobbes described. This is the first ethical theory that doesn't require praise/blame and moral desert, apart from universalism, and seems for once more justified. Maybe it's just a force of habit but i prefer universalism still and want to defend it; my best ideas are a hare-style appeal to some aspect of rationality and from there the idea that to be truly rational someone has to be universal, if you think you should have what you want then everyone should have what they want, but this adds the "consistency" element: an "if value is good then it's better if there are more things of value" argument, but this un-nesicarilly conflates value with good: the idea that people are not really distinct but shape each other, making it senseless to speak of one person's value set, but this idea in itself seems senseless. I certainly can't appeal to my "its this or nihilism" argument anymore, as rational egoism is shaping up to be a strong contender to universal consequentialism :S
Oh wait, there is something good on tv now..King of the Hill. Mike Judge f*cking rocks. He is God.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests