168 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

in one case, proof may not be attainable. in another, people simply refuse to accept it. at least that is my take on it.

Examples? Without examples I simply think your "take on it" is a load of mumbo jumbo.

i apologize but i cant give you examples. i do not want to talk about abortion or the death penalty.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

I'm not asking you to talk about abortion or the death penalty!!!



!

I'm asking you to give me an example of when someone might not accept a fact as a fact when it is indeed a fact.

Or an example of when a fact is a fact despite proof not being available. Feels like you giving me the runaround here.

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I'm not asking you to talk about abortion or the death penalty!!!

!
I'm asking you to give me an example of when someone might not accept a fact as a fact when it is indeed a fact.
Or an example of when a fact is a fact despite proof not being available. Feels like you giving me the runaround here.

ok....

someone looks at a chihuahuah. they say "that is not a dog because dogs are larger than that.

a person sustains a head injury and subsequently his vision is damaged. he is no longer able to distinguish color correctly, but he is not aware that he no longer can do this. some colors simply randomly switch with other colors and he cant tell when it happens. one day he takes an object that is not his, because he has an object just like it that is a different color and he is confused by his vision issue. he subsequently gets into a heated argument with the owner of the object, and a fight ensues. he is certain he has the facts straight but it turns out he does not.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:48 .

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Christoph Gasser wrote...
To come back to the topic (since this was just an example): As a thought experiment what would the moral judgment on killing an animal for food be if we assume that you could live just as healthy as vegetarian?

if you accept that assumption then the concept becomes heavily debatable.



how do you determine the sentience of an animal that cannot intelligibly communicate with you? 

Okay lets assume something else then. Lets say you live less healthy if you don't eat meat. According to you this justifies you to kill an animal in order to live as healthy as possible.

What if someone is of the opinion that living a little bit more healthy does not justify to kill an animal. He argues that we do not know how sentient the animal is but that we should apply the percautionary principle, i.e. assume that it is sentient. Why are you right and he is wrong?

P.S. I accept that you don't talk about the death penalty etc. I just used them as examples to show that the concept is difficult to apply in real life. I didn't really expect you to answer.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:48 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

But there is proof in the chihuahua's classification as the genus canis. Anyone who argues that the chihuahua is not a dog is applying incorrect personal beliefs on top of ignorance. They're forced to accept the fact.

If abortion had such facts, there'd be no issue. Nobody is going to argue that a chihuahua is not a dog when there is blatant proof.
I meant for you to provide an example less basic and more akin to the argument you were making. For instance, an example of something being a fact when proof is not attainable...

a person sustains a head injury and subsequently his vision is damaged.
he is no longer able to distinguish color correctly, but he is not
aware that he no longer can do this. some colors simply randomly switch
with other colors and he cant tell when it happens. one day he takes an
object that is not his, because he has an object just like it that is a
different color and he is confused by his vision issue. he subsequently
gets into a heated argument with the owner of the object, and a fight
ensues. he is certain he has the facts straight but it turns out he
does not.

See this isn't a fitting example really either, since the majority of the rest of the world agrees on the facts present.  When it's a situation of an individual vs the masses, then I can understand, but on issue that's as split as the death penalty or abortion, the idea that these concepts apply is simply arrogant and/or mumbo jumbo.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:56 .

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

But there is proof in the chihuahua's classification as the genus canis. Anyone who argues that the chihuahua is not a dog is applying incorrect personal beliefs on top of ignorance. They're forced to accept the fact.

If abortion had such facts, there'd be no issue. Nobody is going to argue that a chihuahua is not a dog when there is blatant proof.
I meant for you to provide an example less basic and more akin to the argument you were making. For instance, an example of something being a fact when proof is not attainable...

a person sustains a head injury and subsequently his vision is damaged.
he is no longer able to distinguish color correctly, but he is not
aware that he no longer can do this. some colors simply randomly switch
with other colors and he cant tell when it happens. one day he takes an
object that is not his, because he has an object just like it that is a
different color and he is confused by his vision issue. he subsequently
gets into a heated argument with the owner of the object, and a fight
ensues. he is certain he has the facts straight but it turns out he
does not.

See this isn't a fitting example really either, since the majority of the rest of the world agrees on the facts present.  When it's a situation of an individual vs the masses, then I can understand, but on issue that's as split as the death penalty or abortion, the idea that these concepts apply is simply arrogant and/or mumbo jumbo.

mumbo jumbo huh? well i think those examples are perfectly appropriate. but people just refuse to accept facts for one reason or another.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Trust me here, if those examples were perfectly appropriate then there would be no controversy at all about the death penalty or abortion.

Mumbo Jumbo indeed, unless you feel like sharing, which seems unlikely. See, the loudest critics in these issues are those who honestly believe they have the facts on their side when there are often no objective facts in existence. Hence the nature, importance, and predominance of subjective notions in these kinds of decisions.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 27 octobre 2009 - 01:30 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

ok, what follows is my treatise on good & evil from the perspective of the alignment system of D&D.

i start from simply the definitions of a few words and work up from there. i dont know that it can get much more objective than this.

1. Your choice of DnD is not objective.
2. There's nothing objective about the definition of words.

[Marinade Plushie]

Deviija wrote...

I am good at being bad.

QFT. 

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

are you serious?! you want me to talk about abortion and the death penalty?

I think some crimes are heinous enough that the death penalty is just. However, it's obvious that our criminal justice system is flawed when it comes to capturing and convicting criminals. I would not trust it with a human life so anti death penalty.

The question of whether abortion is moral or not hinges on two other questions:
When do we give a living being personhood?
To what extent is a person obliged to support the life of another?

This is a difficult one, which is why most pro-choice people instead tackle an altogether different question: To what extent is the government allowed to control what someone does with their body?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 octobre 2009 - 02:13 .

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

ok, what follows is my treatise on good & evil from the perspective of the alignment system of D&D.

i start from simply the definitions of a few words and work up from there. i dont know that it can get much more objective than this.

1. Your choice of DnD is not objective.
2. There's nothing objective about the definition of words.

D&D was not the point. as i said before i posted it...

there is plenty objective about the definition of words. they are concepts. the point is not the word, but the concept being put forward. you build the idea with words. if you build it objectively, then it is objective.

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Trust me here, if those examples were perfectly appropriate then there would be no controversy at all about the death penalty or abortion.

Mumbo Jumbo indeed, unless you feel like sharing, which seems unlikely. See, the loudest critics in these issues are those who honestly believe they have the facts on their side when there are often no objective facts in existence. Hence the nature, importance, and predominance of subjective notions in these kinds of decisions.

you're really pushy about this. do you want to take it to messages? because i will not discuss this topic openlin in the forums.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

are you serious?! you want me to talk about abortion and the death penalty?

I think some crimes are heinous enough that the death penalty is just. However, it's obvious that our criminal justice system is flawed when it comes to capturing and convicting criminals. I would not trust it with a human life so anti death penalty.

The question of whether abortion is moral or not hinges on two other questions:
When do we give a living being personhood?
To what extent is a person obliged to support the life of another?

This is a difficult one, which is why most pro-choice people instead tackle an altogether different question: To what extent is the government allowed to control what someone does with their body?

to you as well, i will offer the option to take this to messages.

also, we could take it to the Off Topic Empire. there at least it wont be possible for anyone who reads the topic to chime in with flames however they wish. and less likelyhood of the mods locking it.

[grregg]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The question is in the title. I'll open this one with a definition of good and we'll see how it goes from there.

A good act is one designed to benefit others while doing the least harm necessary. Good cannot be accidental or the product of ignorance; it can only arise from an informed choice. Both benefit and harm can happen on a number of different levels, emotional, physical, or something even more abstract like ‘human dignity.’

If an action (and speech is a form of action in this definition) is not good, that does not mean it is bad.

Couple of things that were not clear to me from your definition:

1. Do only intentions matter or are effects important as well? To me, words like 'designed', 'informed choice' imply intent. What about the actual results?

2. Is there any amount of 'harm' that you would draw a line at? Is there any condition about harm outweighing the benefit? How do you measure them?

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

For example you witness a wild dog about to pounce on and kill a child. So you shoot the dog before it has the chance. The action of killing the dog was “bad.” But it was also certainly “Just” and certainly “Right.” It was “conforming to justice and morality” and thus Right.

The dog that loses its life would perceive it as bad because it would believe its action to be justified, regardless of any mental issues. Anyone with relations to the dog are likely to perceive it as bad because they are robbed of said dog's companionship. The one killing the dog may regret having to kill it but it will never seem bad to him -- at worst, necessary. The child, by virtue of being a child, will likely describe the killing of the dog as decidedly bad, failing to comprehend the consequences of the alternative. In each of these cases, bad is clearly subjective.

What is bad about killing the dog? The taking of a life? If so, for this example to make sense, the act of taking a life must apply equally to any and all living creatures, arguably even plants as well (and if not, why?). The mosquito needs not fear extinction; is killing a single, annoying mosquito about to poison you bad for anyone but the mosquito? If not, how does it being bad for the mosquito itself make killing it objectively bad? It might be a disease carrier, after all. If the dog is suffering from a mental or physical illness that triggered the initial attack, is letting it endure said illness less bad than putting it out of what to us seems like misery?

If the words could be defined objectively, their definitions should have listed acts that accurately examplify them. Then we wouldn't even need law, because there would be no case to be made for or against any one act.

[Skaargoroth]

In my opinion: Something 'Good' is the opposite of something 'Bad'. But doing the right thing is not always righteous and virtuous while doing the wrong thing isn't necessary a bad thing. If a man dies for what he believes is right, many people will idolize that man long after his passing while those who have killed him would see him as a murder. Still, those who idolize the man will turn their heads and shun those who doesn't honor him. Seeing good people as good and bad people bad is often (not always) being seen as a world in black and white.

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...
....

the dog is wrong. through a lack of understanding of it's own actions it cannot perceive why it was just to defend the child.

the owners are wrong. they are also likely to be held responsible for letting a dangerous dog run loose.

the child is wrong. through a lack of understanding of the nature of the situation, it takes pity on the dog that would have killed it. nothing wrong with pity, but it has no effect on what is just or unjust.

taking a life is objectively bad because it harms the thing being killed. it is injurious in nature. this was already explained in the post itself. it's really not that difficult at all a concept to grasp. you just need to separate "bad" from "unjust."

the reason this does not apply in law is again because of the issue of proof. people dont just admit to what they do. we have to try to find out what really happened.

in the issue of the drafting of law, the simple fact of the matter is that there so many people out there who simply refuse to look at situations objectively that we can never have objective law drafted. another issue with law is that there is no rule that will ever apply to all situations. every single instance is completely unique and needs to be examined in it's uniqueness. this is simply too impractical to be able to be utilized in the enforcement of law.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 01:53 .

[the_one_54321]

something also good to look at here is the nature of words themselves.



the word and it's definition are not what is important. it is the concept being put forward. it is not about how we define bad. it is about the concept contained within the definition itself. "harmful or injurious in effect." that's what we are talking about. "harmful or injurious in effect," and then so that we dont have to say that whole thing every time we wish to use the concept we have a single word that encompasses that concept: bad. something is bad when it is harmful or injurious in effect.



this was not about choosing a definition for the word bad. this was about taking a concept which we wish to use in discussion and then to attach a specific label to it so that it is easy to use. in this way we create the logical building blocks used to later formulate theory.

[soteria]

Snoteye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i disagree. i think good and bad are objective terms. the bad person who believes himself to be good does not have a different view point, he is just wrong.

In your point of view, yes. I can list a handful of things I believe to be inherently wrong and bad with Western society that are nevertheless considered both good and right in Western society. The fact that I disagree with them does not make them objectively not-good.

From way earlier in the thread. 

True, if you have no higher moral authority to refer to.  If man is the highest moral authority, I'm not sure how anyone could say absolutely who is right and wrong.

Oh, and in response to the OP, I would say good is to love your neighbor as yourself.  I would add, of course, to love the Lord your God with all your heart etc.

Modifié par soteria, 27 octobre 2009 - 02:18 .

[Guy4142]

This thread might just be everything i hate. Pseudo Philosphy. It's also pointless and the question is unanswerable, do you have any idea how complicated this question is? The only answer i could possible give would be the many defintions of good. The question needs to be simplified for anyone to give a logical answer.



having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified; "good news from the hospital"; "a good report card"; "when ...

full: having the normally expected amount; "gives full measure"; "gives good measure"; "a good mile from here"

morally admirable

estimable: deserving of esteem and respect; "all respectable companies give guarantees"; "ruined the family's good name"

beneficial: promoting or enhancing well-being; "an arms limitation agreement beneficial to all countries"; "the beneficial effects of a temperate climate"; "the experience was good for her"

agreeable or pleasing; "we all had a good time"; "good manners"

of moral excellence; "a genuinely good person"; "a just cause"; "an upright and respectable man"

adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude; "adept in handicrafts"; "an adept juggler"; "an expert job"; "a good mechanic"; "a practiced marksman"; "a proficient engineer"; "a lesser-known but no less skillful composer"; "the effect was achieved by skillful retouching"

thorough; "had a good workout"; "gave the house a good cleaning"

dear: with or in a close or intimate relationship; "a good friend"; "my sisters and brothers are near and dear"

dependable: financially sound; "a good investment"; "a secure investment"

most suitable or right for a particular purpose; "a good time to plant tomatoes"; "the right time to act"; "the time is ripe for great sociological changes"

resulting favorably; "it's a good thing that I wasn't there"; "it is good that you stayed"; "it is well that no one saw you"; "all's well that ends well"

effective: exerting force or influence; "the law is effective immediately"; "a warranty good for two years"; "the law is already in effect (or in force)"

capable of pleasing; "good looks"

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

1. Your choice of DnD is not objective.
2. There's nothing objective about the definition of words.

D&D was not the point. as i said before i posted it...

It doesn't matter. If you claim to have an objective system, then you can't start at an arbitrary point. You need to give us evidence that DnD alignment is a worthwhile structure to base real world morality on.

there is plenty objective about the definition of words. they are concepts. the point is not the word, but the concept being put forward. you build the idea with words. if you build it objectively, then it is objective.

Not at all. If I say 'What is good?' the definition of the word good in the dictionary tells us what some people consider to be good, and it gives no evidence that this is the correct meaning of goodness. Besides, you cherry picked your definition and gave no argument as to why the definition you picked was better than any of the others. According to this site there are 58 different meanings for the word good. Yet you only presented us with one.

Again, if you want to claim objectivity then you need to be able to communicate what evidence you have for ignoring all the other definitions.

[the_one_54321]

Guy4142 wrote...

The question needs to be simplified for anyone to give a logical answer.

i take exception to that. many may not agree with me, but my answer certainly was logical.

[Maria Caliban]

Guy4142 wrote...

This thread might just be everything i hate. Pseudo Philosphy.

Yet you've joined in with your own pseudo-philosophy. You might be hypocritical here.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...
It doesn't matter. If you claim to have an objective system, then you can't start at an arbitrary point. You need to give us evidence that DnD alignment is a worthwhile structure to base real world morality on.

it's not even based on D&D. D&D was just what i happened to be talking about in that writing. that was an excerpt from something i was writing on D&D. the point is the treatise on constructing a concept for good and evil.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Again, if you want to claim objectivity then you need to be able to communicate what evidence you have for ignoring all the other definitions.

read this:

the_one_54321 wrote...

something also good to look at here is the nature of words themselves.

the word and it's definition are not what is important. it is the concept being put forward. it is not about how we define bad. it is about the concept contained within the definition itself. "harmful or injurious in effect." that's what we are talking about. "harmful or injurious in effect," and then so that we dont have to say that whole thing every time we wish to use the concept we have a single word that encompasses that concept: bad. something is bad when it is harmful or injurious in effect.

this was not about choosing a definition for the word bad. this was about taking a concept which we wish to use in discussion and then to attach a specific label to it so that it is easy to use. in this way we create the logical building blocks used to later formulate theory.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 02:47 .

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

the dog is wrong. through a lack of understanding of it's own actions it cannot perceive why it was just to defend the child.

the owners are wrong. they are also likely to be held responsible for letting a dangerous dog run loose.

the child is wrong. through a lack of understanding of the nature of the situation, it takes pity on the dog that would have killed it. nothing wrong with pity, but it has no effect on what is just or unjust.

taking a life is objectively bad because it harms the thing being killed. it is injurious in nature. this was already explained in the post itself. it's really not that difficult at all a concept to grasp. you just need to separate "bad" from "unjust."

(...)

then of course we have a question why you killing the dog is "better" then the dog killing the child. Is child's harm "worse" then dog's harm? Why?
If yes, how much worse? Would you kill two dogs for one child? Infinite amount of dogs?

What does it tell us about hunting? Is hunting wrong? Always? Or does the pleasure that people derive from hunting override the harm it causes?

In short, the whole harm vs. benefit thing sounds to me like you and Maria just rediscovered utilitarianism. Say hello to my friend John Stuart Mill.

Modifié par grregg, 27 octobre 2009 - 02:49 .