U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2016, 02:58 AM
 
Location: Dothan AL
1,450 posts, read 870,689 times
Reputation: 991

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
DNA wise all human beings are potentially beastly and thus evil.
Human babies are born as necessarily narcissistic to facilitate their survival and this tendency is weaned off as they grow older.
Some toddlers kill and injure their younger baby siblings out of jealousy and aggression.
Thanatos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2016, 09:17 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,875,461 times
Reputation: 3667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
Odd that you call yourself a philosopher. I've read posts and had minor discussions with some real philosophers and none of them had your arrogant tone. You sound like one of the swelled head wannabe "philosophers" on craigslist.
Have you ever talked to real philosophers about the topic of continental philosophy? Most philosophers view continental philosophy like doctors view acupuncture or chemists view alchemy. That second example might be a bit extreme, but I think it gets my point across.

I'm not arrogant about philosophy generally. Continental philosophy just isn't real philosophy as understood by most philosophers in the world today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
I don't know what you mean by this, but get the impression it's an attempt at humor...right? So exciting to meet a "real' philosopher like you WG. My day has been made. Now you can go back to your job at Walmart all proud and feeling like a real man.
I wasn't actually trying to be funny. The post you were responding to was absolutely filled with meaningless jargon. Good philosophy is clear and articulate. Further, real philosophy attempts to actually explain or solve problems in ways that are as compatible as possible with the rest of our view of the world. The post you were responding to was mostly nonsense. Again, I'm not trying to be arrogant, but even continuum himself admitted that most philosophers would disagree with what he said in the post you responded to (look at his post above).

Btw, how on earth do you think you can glean anything about my occupation from my posts? You are turning the debate of ideas into an attack on me personally, and I don't appreciate it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
At one time, the majority of humans would have pleasure [ease of fears] of killing the next tribe and eating them. At one time, slavery was maximizing pleasure and minimal suffering with less laborious task for the master.
What we need is a fixed goal post for human moral that is independent of time, location, cultures and human empirical variables.
I don't think you are understanding consequentialism correctly. It doesn't suggest that an individual, such as a slave master, should attempt to maximize his or her own personal pleasure while minimizing his or her own personal suffering. It says the total amount of suffering in existence (or average amount, depending on version of consequentialism) should be minimized and the total amount of pleasure should be maximized. Consequentialism is a very strong argument against slavery. There is no way that the slave master's increase in pleasure would outweigh the collective suffering of his slaves. The same is true for one tribe killing and eating another tribe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I am very familiar with philosophy of the analytical [American and otherwise] tradition.
It is just that I am 60% non-analytical and 40% analytical.
Note there are criticisms of professional and academic philosophy as well, i.e. incestuous, bastardization, too rigid [spock/robot like], inhuman, etc.
I believe both has their pros and cons. I don't reject the analytical but lean more toward the non-analytical.
The purpose of philosophy is to solve philosophical problems. It is not to inspire humanity or produce writings that the average human finds relevant. Analytic philosophy is committed to this goal. Continental philosophy is not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I did not dispute the certainty [99.9 but not 100%] of lying. These days one can detect lying with a higher degree of certainty with lie-detectors that read neural activities. This may be an issue for criminality, social and political matters.
More importantly, I can detect when I am lying. How can I not be 100% certain that I am lying?

Kantian ethics says one shouldn't lie in the scenario of lying to a murderer to save innocent lives. The reasoning is that we cannot know with complete certainty the outcome of lying to the murderer -- it may or may not save lives -- but we will be committing the known "wrong" of lying. However, this analysis attributes the same weight to each wrong. In other words, the lie is given the same weight as the murder of the innocent lives. If we recognize that the death of an innocent person is even 1,000 times worse than a lie (which is an arbitrary and far too small number), then we would be justified in lying even if our lie would only have a 1% chance of saving the innocent lives. The fact that we cannot know with certainty whether our lie will save lives is irrelevant if the good we are attempting to accomplish with our lie is sufficiently good and has a sufficiently high likelihood.

Another problem with Kantian ethics is that it is very hard to explain the justification for the maxims without pointing to consequentialism. Similarly, in the system you've outlined here, it seems as though the explanation for the morality gap would almost always involve a consequentialist explanation. If true, then what is the need for the maxim? Why not just be a consequentialist?

Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 03-01-2016 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
14,558 posts, read 8,386,623 times
Reputation: 29100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
we are 1/2 a step away from a monkey. I wouldn't call that evil. stupid maybe, not evil.
Why are you assuming monkeys are stupid?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,568,284 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
More importantly, I can detect when I am lying. How can I not be 100% certain that I am lying?
If you have a deliberate intention to lie, then it is obvious you know you are lying.
There are cases where one is lying unconsciously, e.g. in confabulations.

Quote:
Kantian ethics says one shouldn't lie in the scenario of lying to a murderer to save innocent lives. The reasoning is that we cannot know with complete certainty the outcome of lying to the murderer -- it may or may not save lives -- but we will be committing the known "wrong" of lying. However, this analysis attributes the same weight to each wrong. In other words, the lie is given the same weight as the murder of the innocent lives. If we recognize that the death of an innocent person is even 1,000 times worse than a lie (which is an arbitrary and far too small number), then we would be justified in lying even if our lie would only have a 1% chance of saving the innocent lives. The fact that we cannot know with certainty whether our lie will save lives is irrelevant if the good we are attempting to accomplish with our lie is sufficiently good and has a sufficiently high likelihood.
Kant gave some examples and one of them was about lying in some circumstances but they were never meant to imply one cannot lie is the empirical practical world if one has to.
In the whole of Kant's system of Morality and Ethics, there are about 5 examples [if not, not >10] as compared the many "trolley examples" used in other system of ethics.


Kant Framework and System of Morality and Ethics work as follows;

A. Transcendental -Moral
1. Lying [maxim example] is absolutely not permissible -transcendental
2. This meant one cannot lie even to save innocent lives in a transcendental condition.
Note both of the above are meant to be in the transcendental perspective.


B. Empirical -Practical Ethics
1. Lying is absolutely not permissible - an empirical maxim adopted from the transcendental
2. If lying can save innocent lives in the empirical world, then
3. one should lie. [consequentialism]


C. Conscience
1. Review action done and its consequences
2. Compute Moral Gap and manage to narrow the gap


From the above one will note the Kantian approach to Morality and Ethics is based on a complete Framework and System that will facilitate real continuous improvements toward an never-achievable ideal. This is not like the conventional deontological nor consequentialist approach to Morality and Ethics.


The above is merely a very crude model of Kantian Morality and Ethics. The real thing is much more complex than the above.

Quote:
Another problem with Kantian ethics is that it is very hard to explain the justification for the maxims without pointing to consequentialism. Similarly, in the system you've outlined here, it seems as though the explanation for the morality gap would almost always involve a consequentialist explanation. If true, then what is the need for the maxim? Why not just be a consequentialist?
There are elements of consequences in Kantian morality and ethics but these elements of consequences are not in accordance to the conventional "consequentialism".


Basically we need an overriding absolute moral principle to cover all the other sub-absolute principles. There are 4 sub-absolute principles within Kantian Morality and Ethics.
What is critical is how do we ground the above absolute moral principles?
This is very complex, and though Kant could not be provide full proofs [no philosophers could], he provided proofs that are as sound as can be from the highest possible human reason.


Absolute moral maxims are extracted from the absolute moral principle.
Maxims are sub-fixed goal posts, e.g. 'Killing is absolutely not permissible' -based on principles of the overriding Absolute moral principle
These absolute moral maxims are then adopted in the empirical world as part of the whole process of the system to guide the practical for continuous improvement toward the ideal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 01:33 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,875,461 times
Reputation: 3667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Kant gave some examples and one of them was about lying in some circumstances but they were never meant to imply one cannot lie is the empirical practical world if one has to.

B. Empirical -Practical Ethics
1. Lying is absolutely not permissible - an empirical maxim adopted from the transcendental
2. If lying can save innocent lives in the empirical world, then
3. one should lie. [consequentialism]
Kant himself said otherwise. Benjamin Constant raised the question of the murderer at the door to Kant during Kant's lifetime, and Kant responded to it in "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives." Here is the last line of that paper:

To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred unconditional command of
reason, and not to be limited by any expediency.


The paper is short, and Kant's position is quite clear. Kant certainly did not agree that the consequences of one's lie could serve as justification for lying.

Here's the paper: http://www.sophia-project.org/upload...kant_lying.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post

There are elements of consequences in Kantian morality and ethics but these elements of consequences are not in accordance to the conventional "consequentialism".


Basically we need an overriding absolute moral principle to cover all the other sub-absolute principles. There are 4 sub-absolute principles within Kantian Morality and Ethics.
What is critical is how do we ground the above absolute moral principles?
This is very complex, and though Kant could not be provide full proofs [no philosophers could], he provided proofs that are as sound as can be from the highest possible human reason.


Absolute moral maxims are extracted from the absolute moral principle.
Maxims are sub-fixed goal posts, e.g. 'Killing is absolutely not permissible' -based on principles of the overriding Absolute moral principle
These absolute moral maxims are then adopted in the empirical world as part of the whole process of the system to guide the practical for continuous improvement toward the ideal.
Can you give me an example of an action that would be acceptable under Kantianism that wouldn't be acceptable under consequentialism, or vice versa?

I think it's clear that your understanding of Kant is very different than the traditional understanding. Most philosophers hold Kant to be the father of deontology, yet you don't consider him a deontologist at all. I think it would be helpful if you could delineate just one difference between Kant as you understand him and modern consequentialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,568,284 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
Kant himself said otherwise. Benjamin Constant raised the question of the murderer at the door to Kant during Kant's lifetime, and Kant responded to it in "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives." Here is the last line of that paper:

To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred unconditional command of
reason, and not to be limited by any expediency.

The paper is short, and Kant's position is quite clear. Kant certainly did not agree that the consequences of one's lie could serve as justification for lying.

Here's the paper: http://www.sophia-project.org/upload...kant_lying.pdf
It would be obvious from my stance I have read the above paper and debated its claims by non-Kantian many times.


a sacred unconditional command of reason
Kant was referring the absolute moral principle in the transcendental sense.
At no time did Kant state a person cannot lie in the empirical, judiciary, legislature, social perspective.
Kant knew lie is a human nature and inevitable within the empirical world.
Note one of Kant's forte was Anthropology;
http://www.amazon.com/Kant-Anthropol.../dp/0521671655

Quote:
Can you give me an example of an action that would be acceptable under Kantianism that wouldn't be acceptable under consequentialism, or vice versa?
The general rule is the absolute moral principle and thus the absolute moral maxim must never be conditioned upon any thing empirical consequences, e.g. pleasure, sufferings which are all grounded on the instinct of pleasure and pain and their related emotions.
Once the absolute moral principle is conditioned by any elements of consequences of the empirical, then the whole Framework and System loses its essential fixed-goal-post [also like a fixed lighthouse] to compute the moral gap to facilitate continuous improvement toward the unachievable ideal.


In this case, all actions that are acceptable under consequentialism can be acceptable under Kantianism but they will fit somewhere as a jigsaw piece within his complete system.

Quote:
I think it's clear that your understanding of Kant is very different than the traditional understanding. Most philosophers hold Kant to be the father of deontology, yet you don't consider him a deontologist at all. I think it would be helpful if you could delineate just one difference between Kant as you understand him and modern consequentialism.
I told you my understanding of Kant is different from most.
There are not many out there who understood Kant's philosophy thoroughly and fully. Most has a superficial understanding of Kant because Kant's philosophy is very complex and one need some degree of mental gymnastics to comprehend his views. I am fortunate because Kant's philosophy [more rigorous and systematic] is parallel to Eastern philosophy [my forte]. This is why I did not mind spending almost 3 years studying Kant full time.


The problem with the misinterpretations of Kantian philosophy, i.e. ethics in this case is many relied upon secondary sources which were wrong in the first place.


Note I admit I am not very fluid with details and nuances of Kantian philosophy [but not the main principles] at the moment because I had diverted to study the Quran full time since the last 12 months.


The general point is Consequentialism is a subset within Kantianism.
In Kantianism one can use utilitarianism, consequentialism, axiology, and whatever that is necessary to manage the closing of the moral gap for the individual, groups and humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 05:25 AM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,792,568 times
Reputation: 17982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post

Note the critical word in the OP, i.e. "POTENTIAL."

1. DNA wise, via evolution, all humans has the potential to be evil.
2. Some, estimated 20%*, are evil prone [has the tendency] to commit evil.
3. Certain circumstances will trigger these evil prone to commit evil.
^^^ The above; one other factor, conscience. Academic debates not required, the bottom line answers fairly simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 08:15 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,180 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Good philosophy is clear and articulate. Further, real philosophy attempts to actually explain or solve problems in ways that are as compatible as possible with the rest of our view of the world.
How in the world would you know what good philosophy is? I've read your posts. You're a craigslist philosopher. The bulk of your posts are critiques of everyone else. You're good at telling everyone else how they're wrong, but haven't posted a single independent idea of your own that I've seen. For crying out loud, you were parroting the value of relative truth in another thread, probably the most self-defeating positions on the planet. If you were a real philosopher you'd have something more valuable to contribute and wouldn't be spending so much time posting on message boards.

I think it's great you're interested in philosophy, even if all you're capable of is blathering at everyone else how terrible and trite their ideas are. But your claim to be a philosopher is absurd. Real philosophers have actual ideas. Pretenders do what you do. And what are explanations "that are as compatible as possible with the rest of our view of the world" Whose view of the world are you talking about, yours mine or someone else's?


Unlike you, I don't claim to be a philosopher. At least one of us is honest, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,568,284 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
How in the world would you know what good philosophy is? I've read your posts. You're a craigslist philosopher. The bulk of your posts are critiques of everyone else. You're good at telling everyone else how they're wrong, but haven't posted a single independent idea of your own that I've seen. For crying out loud, you were parroting the value of relative truth in another thread, probably the most self-defeating positions on the planet. If you were a real philosopher you'd have something more valuable to contribute and wouldn't be spending so much time posting on message boards.

I think it's great you're interested in philosophy, even if all you're capable of is blathering at everyone else how terrible and trite their ideas are. But your claim to be a philosopher is absurd. Real philosophers have actual ideas. Pretenders do what you do. And what are explanations "that are as compatible as possible with the rest of our view of the world" Whose view of the world are you talking about, yours mine or someone else's?

Unlike you, I don't claim to be a philosopher. At least one of us is honest, eh?
I find WG's postings and comments on the views of others [& mine] very obnoxious, odious and offensive. If a person has a reasonable level of self-esteem they would not spout those sorts of condemnations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2016, 10:24 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,875,461 times
Reputation: 3667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
How in the world would you know what good philosophy is? I've read your posts. You're a craigslist philosopher.
What is a craigslist philosopher? I've been published in actual peer-reviewed journals. Respected journals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
The bulk of your posts are critiques of everyone else. You're good at telling everyone else how they're wrong, but haven't posted a single independent idea of your own that I've seen. For crying out loud, you were parroting the value of relative truth in another thread, probably the most self-defeating positions on the planet. If you were a real philosopher you'd have something more valuable to contribute and wouldn't be spending so much time posting on message boards.
1. Most of my posts here have been debates with Continuum. Continuum is very committed to a position that I'm not sure he shares with any other philosophers in the world. We had a good number of posts, but I'm not sure that the fact that most of my posts on this forum have been debates with Continuum about his views implies that I don't have any independent ideas of my own.

2. Most people would do better to learn more about existing views rather than creating their own views, at least to a point. Read this forum -- it is full of people positing some ridiculous philosophical view that proves they know nothing about actual philosophy.

3. Where was I "parroting the value of relative truth"? I'm not sure you even know what relative truth is, because I never advocated for it. I'm a moral error theorist, not a moral realist.

4. You have no idea what I contribute outside of this message board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
I think it's great you're interested in philosophy, even if all you're capable of is blathering at everyone else how terrible and trite their ideas are. But your claim to be a philosopher is absurd. Real philosophers have actual ideas. Pretenders do what you do.

I do have actual ideas. Some of those ideas have been published. Even more have been presented at professional philosophy conferences. I've actually shared some of my ideas on this forum in my debate with Continuum, such as my views of consequentialism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
And what are explanations "that are as compatible as possible with the rest of our view of the world" Whose view of the world are you talking about, yours mine or someone else's?


Unlike you, I don't claim to be a philosopher. At least one of us is honest, eh?
1. I am saying that people should seek to have as much cognitive compatibility as possible when accepting new beliefs. For example, if I walk out and see a piece of paper in the tree in my front yard, it makes more sense to assume that the wind blew it there than to believe gravity stopped working for a moment. The same concept applies to philosophy. We come to philosophical analysis with all sorts of pre-existing beliefs and ideas about the world. Philosophical ideas that require us to overturn a lot of those ideas should probably lose to ideas that requires us to overturn fewer of them.

2. You keep insulting me. Why? Because you disagree with me about what the definition of philosophy is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top