199 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

She's about got it. You completely ignore the idea of morality, good, evil, etc. It's about ethics and objective valuation. You construct notions of right and wrong based on simple factual statements. But no one will every agree with this for at least the next 100X years. And so we will continue to have constant conflict.

Out of curiosity, how does the simple, factual statements approach deal with this very aspect -- that such simple, factual statements establishing one's ethics will vary from person to person? In other words, in situation where the viewpoints don't match and someone else acts in way conflicting with your ethics but matching theirs, what rules are applied? Do you consider the other person to have right to fully exercise their point of view? Does your take precedence? Is it always, is it sometimes? Are there exceptions?

Because i'd imagine that can be very much a grey area in itself, and far from black and white approach.

edit:

Pretty much all existing moral systems are biased and corrupted in some way, but people adhere to them dogmatically. Religions, laws, philosophies. Everything has been corrupted over time by bias and subjectivity. You  begin with the simplest of starting points: don't harm things.

Isn't this starting point very much a dogma as well? As such, why believe your system works where any and all others fail? How do you know if your basic point doesn't also stem from some sort of personal bias?

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:02 .

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
She's about got it. You completely ignore the idea of morality, good, evil, etc. It's about ethics and objective valuation. You construct notions of right and wrong based on simple factual statements. But no one will every agree with this for at least the next 100X years. And so we will continue to have constant conflict.

Out of curiosity, how does the simple, factual statements approach deal with this very aspect -- that such simple, factual statements establishing one's ethics will vary from person to person? In other words, in situation where the viewpoints don't match and someone else acts in way conflicting with your ethics but matching theirs, what rules are applied? Do you consider the other person to have right to fully exercise their point of view? Does your take precedence? Is it always, is it sometimes? Are there exceptions?

Because i'd imagine that can be very much a grey area in itself, and far from black and white approach.

Whenever someone is "trying to do the right thing" there are always a lot of assumptions involved. The concept is that a person can always identify what "the right thing" is if that person can also identify and recognize all the facts. Which is not possible. So absolute determination of "the right thing" is not possible. This leads to constant disagreements based mostly on misunderstanding or a lack of info.

But here is an example of what I am talking about with regard to a simple factual statement:

"It is bad to harm something."

Now, before you even start, I'm already well aware of the standard response to this. "Well what if you need to cut the tree to make lumber for shelter? What if you needed to kill the animal for food?" Etc. etc. etc. This is what I'm talking about when I say it branches into infinite scenarios.

The first simple factual statement is all that matters. "It is bad to harm something." You ignore anything else that could possible be applied to this statement. Context does not exist. This is like a thought expiriment. By it's very nature you are allowed to say that nothing except what is included in the statement exists.

"It is bad to harm something" because you are harming it and this is detrimental to the thing. In being detrimental to the thing, it is bad.

Then you start adding context. Individual situations. Unique scenarios. All the "gray areas" that are actually no more that a summation of individualized factual statements. And to go inreverse, you have to take a scenario and break down to it's sum of individual simple factual statements.

This is not a practical approach. It is not easy. It is not kind. It cannot be applied in law due to the sheer scope of things. But it is fair and ethical and objective.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...
 As such, why believe your system works where any and all others fail? How do you know if your basic point doesn't also stem from some sort of personal bias?

I don't believe my system works, as I just pointed out in the last post. What I am propsing is impossible to apply in real life. It is only a line of thought that supposes that objective ethical valuations are indeed "possible." 

This is all just an exploration of the notion that objective valuation exists. Not that it can actually be used on a societal scale.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:09 .

[Wicked 702]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But here is an example of what I am talking about with regard to a simple factual statement:

"It is bad to harm something."

Without going crazy nuts on this, I asked how you could make a judgment that things are black and white and that "grey areas" are BS if you fail to use some form of good/evil or right/wrong labeling.

Well, your statement right there proves my point...it can't be done.

[Wicked 702]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

Do I have to? I thought they didn't actually exist...

Interesting response. It's very possible you and I share a similar view on the subject.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:15 .

[the_one_54321]

Wicked 702 write...

the_one_54321 wrote...
But here is an example of what I am talking about with regard to a simple factual statement:

"It is bad to harm something."

Without going crazy nuts on this, I asked how you could make a judgment that things are black and white and that "grey areas" are BS if you fail to use some form of good/evil or right/wrong labeling.

Well, your statement right there proves my point...it can't be done.

Did you read the rest of the post? Because I am completely aware of all the "crazy nuts" stuff that is often responded to this kind of thing and I talked about them. As for it being a label, it only is if you want it to be. The only thing this statement does is separate "harming" from "not harming." 

[Ortaya Alevli]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

Do I have to? I thought they didn't actually exist...

Interesting response. It's very possible you and I share a similar view on the subject.

Maybe, maybe not. My view is, the concept of morality is there to cater to an individual's own conscience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Moral and ethical decisions are all simple arithmetic based on the established moral premises.

The problem arises when you try to justify those premises. Which is probably impossible.

Even the_one's assertion that it is bad to harm something, though arguably tautological at its core, fails to wield any prescriptive force or give someone any reason to care - and even that assumes that one presupposes such a principle can be applied universally.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Maybe, maybe not. My view is, the concept of morality is there to cater to an individual's own conscience.

My view is that an individual's own conscience can't be trusted.  Even one's own conscience is suspect, as it does not arise from conscious deliberation.

[Wicked 702]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Did you read the rest of the post? Because I am completely aware of all the "crazy nuts" stuff that is often responded to this kind of thing and I talked about them. As for it being a label, it only is if you want it to be. The only thing this statement does is separate "harming" from "not harming." 

Yeah I did, I guess I understand how and where you are going with this.

I happen to believe that in order to make determinations (absolutes, black-and-white) about anything, you have to plant your stake in the ground at some point. I'm just not sure I agree you can approach it from the angle you describe.

On my end, you have the abolishment of such a stake. As such, ALL things are grey-areas and nothing is black-and-white. And in that decision, all things becomes constructs and do not exist in the natural sense.

I'm always very curious how others arrive in their beliefs is all. Helps the opponent learn about his/her own.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:23 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Maybe, maybe not. My view is, the concept of morality is there to cater to an individual's own conscience.

My view is that an individual's own conscience can't be trusted.  Even one's own conscience is suspect, as it does not arise from conscious deliberation.

Indeed, it can't be trusted. It is too fluid to be trusted.

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The first simple factual statement is all that matters. "It is bad to harm something." You ignore anything else that could possible be applied to this statement. Context does not exist. This is like a thought expiriment. By it's very nature you are allowed to say that nothing except what is included in the statement exists.

"It is bad to harm something" because you are harming it and this is detrimental to the thing. In being detrimental to the thing, it is bad.

Not trying to pick holes, because clearly theres no way anyones going to budge one way or the other, but I'm geniunely interested and this is something you've clearly thought about and/or researched to some extent:

How can you remove context? Surely the "grey" exists within the context? If you remove the grey, theres no grey, granted, but other that being able to say "there is an objective morality, but it doesn't apply here", I'm not seeing what that gets you.

Plus, I don't believe it's inherently "bad" to harm things. I think that's based on empathy, which again is subjective, so I'm unlikely to be convinced any time soon!

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:28 .

[Maconbar]

When is Woo going to add his two cents to this ethics discussion?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Indeed, it can't be trusted. It is too fluid to be trusted.

No.  It's too opaque a system to be trusted.  Even if it were stable and unchanging, it still couldn't be trusted because the process behind it wouldn't be available for review and modification.

[Wicked 702]

*never claimed he was stable*

[Sylvius the Mad]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Not trying to pick holes, because clearly theres no way anyones going to budge one way or the other, but I'm geniunely interested and this is something you've clearly thought about and/or researched to some extent:

How can you remove context? Surely the "grey" exists within the context? If you remove the grey, theres no grey, granted, but other that being able to say "there is an objective morality, but it doesn't apply here", I'm not seeing what that gets you.

I understand what the_one is trying to do, but I think he requires more assumptions than he's admitting.  He wants to build a system of morality based on a set of objectively verifiable axioms.

Plus, I don't believe it's inherently "bad" to harm things. I think that's based on empathy, which again is subjective, so I'm unlikely to be convinced any time soon!

This response, I think, is evidence that you didn't understand the_one's point.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Indeed, it can't be trusted. It is too fluid to be trusted.

No.  It's too opaque a system to be trusted.  Even if it were stable and unchanging, it still couldn't be trusted because the process behind it wouldn't be available for review and modification.

I'm not a hundred percent certain its underlying premises cannot be identified in detail. Benefit of doubt and all. However, I'm pretty sure it's too fluid. Hence pointing to it as a valid reason.

[David Gaider]

I don't think anyone's aware just yet as to the circumstances whereby Hawke becomes the Champion of Kirkwall. That's sort of the point of the entire story: how did this happen?



If one wishes to assume the player lacks proper motivation to do that, I guess that's fine. We're not going to comment on it just yet. Ultimately, however, this is still heroic fantasy-- if someone doesn't want to buy into the basic premise of that, then I suspect all the motivation in the world isn't going to do much for them.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The first simple factual statement is all that matters. "It is bad to harm something." You ignore anything else that could possible be applied to this statement. Context does not exist. This is like a thought expiriment. By it's very nature you are allowed to say that nothing except what is included in the statement exists.

"It is bad to harm something" because you are harming it and this is detrimental to the thing. In being detrimental to the thing, it is bad.

It may be my grasp on language failing me (english isn't my first though that's fairly obvious) but isn't "harming thing is detrimental to it" essentially the same as saying "harming thing is causing harm to it" ... and as such, not exactly working as explanation or reason for anything?

I don't believe my system works, as I just pointed out in the last post. What I am propsing is impossible to apply in real life. It is only a line of thought that supposes that objective ethical valuations are indeed "possible." 

Well, i'm confused then. If you don't believe this system works and you think it's impossible to apply in practice, what makes you believe any moral choice can be theoretically always resolved into case of clear black and white? Given that --if i understand your approach correctly-- it'd involve weighting all possible factors affecting the situation, wouldn't it be a bit like declaring that it's always possible to calculate the exact value of infinity?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I understand what the_one is trying to do, but I think he requires more assumptions than he's admitting.  He wants to build a system of morality based on a set of objectively verifiable axioms.

Roughly yes. But consider where the system begins. The purpose of the word selection is to create a statement where there is no purpose in disagreement. There is no reason to disagree.

The above stated that he doesn't think harming is inherently bad because the concept requires empathy, but it actually requires nothing. He injected that value based on his own existing bias. And this is a perfect example of how all existing value systems are corrupted.

The innitial statement is mostly empty: "it is bad to harm something." You don't have any magnitude for "harm" and you have no specification on what is a "thing" and there is no inclusion of any context at all. There is no reason to reject this statement except for bias or arbitrary rejection.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:51 .

[lv12medic]

David Gaider wrote...

If one wishes to assume the player lacks proper motivation to do that, I guess that's fine. We're not going to comment on it just yet. Ultimately, however, this is still heroic fantasy-- if someone doesn't want to buy into the basic premise of that, then I suspect all the motivation in the world isn't going to do much for them.

Bethany:  Quickly brother!  Lothering is under attack.  We need to escape!

Hawke:  *yawn* Huh... just five more minutes of... *ZZZ*

Mother Hawke: Garette Middle-name Hawke get out of bed this instant!

Hawke:  I'm up, I'm up.  Sheesh, I have to do EVERYTHING around here...

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...
It may be my grasp on language failing me (english isn't my first though that's fairly obvious) but isn't "harming thing is detrimental to it" essentially the same as saying "harming thing is causing harm to it" ... and as such, not exactly working as explanation or reason for anything?

This was me providing definition for the word "harm." To harm something is to cause it detriment. To cause it detriment is bad for it. So to harm it is bad for it. Perhaps this shows that the better starting point is actually "to cause detriment to something is bad."

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, i'm confused then. If you don't believe this system works and you think it's impossible to apply in practice, what makes you believe any moral choice can be theoretically always resolved into case of clear black and white? Given that --if i understand your approach correctly-- it'd involve weighting all possible factors affecting the situation, wouldn't it be a bit like declaring that it's always possible to calculate the exact value of infinity?

The exact value of infinity does exist, it's just a little to abstract for anything outside of advanced mathematics. I spent most of a semester getting that weird one drilled into me, actually. The idea is establishing the notion of possibility or existence, and not establishing practicality. It is definitely not practical.

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The above stated that he doesn't think harming is inherently bad because the concept requires empathy, but it actually requires nothing.

That's the bit I'm not grasping. (And you were right, clearly this isn't short) Why is it bad to harm? "bad" isn't something I see as self evident, what am I missing?

[the_one_54321]

By harming you are causing detriment. This is the negative of a benefit. (all basically adding more words to the definition of "harm")

Consider that there is no reason to apply any other concept to this statement. You brought up empathy, but there is no reason to bring up empathy. You don't know anything about the "harm" or the "thing." This is how you, as Sylvius put it, construct an axiom. It is a concept that is intended to be brought to its most basic form.

Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms...