168 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...



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?

identification of the aggressor without a verifiable motive. the dog reacted as an animal might. the child was innocent. this is the premise of the example. if things were different then the analysis would be different. that's the point. it always depends on the individual unique circumstances.

grregg wrote...

Always?

there is no such thing as always in value determination.

[wrexingcrew]

Guy4142 wrote...

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?

It actually is philosophy, both in content and form.  Questions about the nature and status of good are important to any number of areas of philosophical inquiry.  Now, it might not be particularly sophisticated in form, and you might think the content is over-valued relative to other philosophical questions, but this thread certainly would pass muster in entry-level undergraduate courses.  Your "pointless/unanswerable/complicated" criticisms, particularly that last, suggest you don't dislike "pseudo philosophy" - you dislike philosophy.

[Maria Caliban]

Is there a difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? It would seem to just be a judgment of quality. Ruminating on why my right butt cheek itches or why the donuts at DD’s taste better in the morning are hardly deep questions, but they still feed into the nature of things.



Calling something pseudo-philosophy is like calling it pseudo-art. I believe I understand what’s intended but I wonder if it’s an accurate idea.

[wrexingcrew]

I agree with you. Pseudo-philosophy is a label that I've found (anecdotally) to be a stand-in term for philosophy used by people who dislike philosophy, or used as a bludgeon in philosophical disagreements. I'd prefer to call something "bad philosophy" rather than "pseudo-philosophy," since it's difficult to apply a prefix roughly meaning "false" or "giving the illusion of being" in a context that even resembles philosophy. I have trouble thinking of a single example of "pseudo-philosophy" off-hand.

[the_one_54321]

i... will refrain for the sake of not going too far off topic.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...

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?

identification of the aggressor without a verifiable motive. the dog reacted as an animal might. the child was innocent. this is the premise of the example. if things were different then the analysis would be different. that's the point. it always depends on the individual unique circumstances.

Of course it had a motive. It was hungry and wanted to eat. The benefit of the dog having a full stomach versus the harm of child. Not to mention that 'innocent' is a loaded term. Was the dog 'guilty'? Less 'innocent'? What does it even mean?

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
Always?

there is no such thing as always in value determination.

Of course there is 'always'. For example a certain person just said: "it always depends on the individual unique circumstances."  That is a value determination rule that apparently is 'always' applicable,

More seriously, the classic attacks against utilitarianism generally involve the following:

1. Is there any amount of harm that cannot be balanced by a greater good? In other words (as I asked Maria) is there anything that you would not do, regardless?

2. How do you measure benefit vs. harm? As far as I know there is no objective good-o-meter or harm-o-meter.

3. Moreover, there is always doubt. Unless you posit existence of an omniscent entity, you will rarely (if ever) really know the benefits and harms that your actions create. How do you account for that?

I would also recommend reading about felicific calculus of Bentham.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...

Of course it had a motive. It was hungry and wanted to eat. The benefit of the dog having a full stomach versus the harm of child. Not to mention that 'innocent' is a loaded term. Was the dog 'guilty'? Less 'innocent'? What does it even mean?

well if you're going to reduce it to a competition for survival, then there is no right or wrong, only a winner.



but if you follow the premise of the example, the killing of the dog was just. it just could not grasp the error of it's actions. as i have said already.

grregg wrote...

Of course there is 'always'. For example a certain person just said: "it always depends on the individual unique circumstances." That is a value determination rule that apparently is 'always' applicable, {smilie}

let's not take the semantics beyond the scope of what is necessary in the discussion shall we?

grregg wrote...

More seriously, the classic attacks against utilitarianism generally involve the following:



1. Is there any amount of harm that cannot be balanced by a greater good? In other words (as I asked Maria) is there anything that you would not do, regardless?



2. How do you measure benefit vs. harm? As far as I know there is no objective good-o-meter or harm-o-meter.



3. Moreover, there is always doubt. Unless you posit existence of an omniscent entity, you will rarely (if ever) really know the benefits and harms that your actions create. How do you account for that?



I would also recommend reading about felicific calculus of Bentham. {smilie}

this all goes back to indeterminably. the reason none of this is ever effectively applied in life is because there is no way to find out just what the individual circumstances actually are. and if you cant determine that then you cant make a value determination.



it is a matter of what people know, what they dont know, and why they simply cannot determine.



having a set of indeterminable circumstances makes a value determination impossible for an instance in a practical sense, but it does not take away the theoretical possibility of value determination.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

well if you're going to reduce it to a competition for survival, then there is no right or wrong, only a winner.

but if you follow the premise of the example, the killing of the dog was just. it just could not grasp the error of it's actions. as i have said already.

Well... first, survival IS important. Otherwise why would we care about the child?

Second, I'm not reducing anything. I'm simply trying to understand how did you arrive at the conclusion that the benefit of the dog is worth less then the harm of the child. You said that it is so, I get it, but why? Please explain the reasoning in detail.

For example, you refer to the error of dog's ways? What IS the error? That the dog does not follow your rules? Why would it? Why would I?

To summarize what I understand:

1. The dog judges that its full stomach is worth more then child's harm.

2. Child presumably wants to live even if it means a hungry dog.

3. You judge that harming the dog to protect the child is 'just' which if I understood correctly means that dog's full stomach - child's death is a lesser value then child's desire to live - dead dog. Am I right?

The problem here is that it YOUR determination. The dog's calculus is likely very different here. What makes your rule take precedence? Are you God?

Modifié par grregg, 27 octobre 2009 - 04:01 .

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...
...

well then. reducing it completely to a matter of survival. the dog must eat to live. the child wishes not to be eaten. the parents of the child seek to protect it. all sides are justified in their actions. their motivations are concurrent. all are seeking survival. it is simply a matter of seeking the survival of different individuals.

however, given that the premise of the example was intended to suppose a standard situation of parent, child, and either stray dog or loose pet, the dog is wrong because it's actions are unnecessary. it has other alternatives for food, and simply cannot understand that it's actions are unjust.

the individual circumstance of the instance completely dictate the value determination. it seems i cannot say this enough times: every individual instance is unique and will have it's own unique value determination. not two instances are exactly the same. there is no rule that can be applied equally to all situations.

now before you take this on to the discussion of vegetarianism, which is the obvious next attempt at confounding the premise, look back a page or two to where we already discussed it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 04:14 .

[ronnann]

Is there any such thing as non-subjective good?

The problem with the whole Good/Evil concept is that we all have different definitions of what lies where, and thats how you make a holy war.....

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
...

well then. reducing it completely to a matter of survival. the dog must eat to live. the child wishes not to be eaten. the parents of the child seek to protect it. all sides are justified in their actions. their motivations are concurrent. all are seeking survival. it is simply a matter of seeking the survival of different individuals.

however, given that the premise of the example was intended to suppose a standard situation of parent, child, and either stray dog or loose pet, the dog is wrong because it's actions are unnecessary. it has other alternatives for food, and simply cannot understand that it's actions are unjust.

the individual circumstance of the instance completely dictate the value determination. it seems i cannot say this enough times: every individual instance is unique and will have it's own unique value determination. not two instances are exactly the same. there is no rule that can be applied equally to all situations.

now before you take this on to the discussion of vegetarianism, which is the obvious next attempt at confounding the premise, look back a page or two to where we already discussed it.

My intention was not to confound the issue. I was merely pointing out that the necessary judgment is inherently relative. It does depend on your position in the whole situation.

If we remove the food as the motivation of dog's actions, we can, I think, still assume that there is a motivation. Let's take a simplest example, the dog likes to bite children.

How does the scenario change? Not much. The dog judges that its benefit (pleasure of biting) outweighs the harm done to the child. Obviously the child, the parents and so on, disagree. That's clear.

But what makes one point of view take precedence? Why is parents' view more valid then dog's? There's a number of possible answers, I just want to know what's yours.

Edit: In short, I'm trying to drill down to the assumptions that you're making. Until you state them, we'll go in circles.

Modifié par grregg, 27 octobre 2009 - 05:10 .

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...

But what makes one point of view take precedence? Why is parents' view more valid then dog's? There's a number of possible answers, I just want to know what's yours.

it's not about what my answers are. it's about whatever the situation happens to be.



you've already added credence to my point by implying that the situation can be analyzed if all the assumptions of the example are known. it is just like that in any instance. if all the contributing circumstances are know then the instance can be analyzed and a value determination made.



it doesnt serve any purpose for me to rattle off a list of assumptions, as the example is in itself unimportant. it's importance lies in leading you to the implication you have just made. value determinations can be made if all circumstance of an instance are determinable.

[Maria Caliban]

grregg wrote...

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?

It's a definition based on intent. A good act can have bad consequences. A bad act can have good consequences.

For me, in order for something to be good we have to choose it. An accidental ‘good’ is just a happy accident. We can’t choose the consequences of out actions, only what we intend to be the consequence.

2. Is there any amount of 'harm' that you would draw a line at?

There are all types of harm that I would draw the line at, but I have never claimed to be a perfectly good person.

Is there any condition about harm outweighing the benefit? How do you measure them?

I would decide this on a case-by-case model. Harm is difficult to measure, and a large amount of subjective judgment comes in. Yanking out a tooth because it’s become infected is easy enough to judge. Killing someone because they’ve become a danger to those around them and society as a whole is not easy to judge.

I think it’s important to add that I’m a firm believer in human limitations. I believe there is an objective standard of good, but that’s based on imperfect knowledge and speculation. I don’t think that any human or group of humans would be able to understand and communicate what that objective good is. BUT, we can try.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
But what makes one point of view take precedence? Why is parents' view more valid then dog's? There's a number of possible answers, I just want to know what's yours.

it's not about what my answers are. it's about whatever the situation happens to be.

you've already added credence to my point by implying that the situation can be analyzed if all the assumptions of the example are known. it is just like that in any instance. if all the contributing circumstances are know then the instance can be analyzed and a value determination made.

it doesnt serve any purpose for me to rattle off a list of assumptions, as the example is in itself unimportant. it's importance lies in leading you to the implication you have just made. value determinations can be made if all circumstance of an instance are determinable.

No, it's not about the situation... And I think listing your assumptions would be an extremely useful exercise.

My point essentially is:

1. Yes, any situation can be analyzed.

2. Assumptions involved can be listed.

3. It is likely that if you analyze a controversial situation, you will find out that assumptions of people on opposite sides of the controversy are different.

4. Since their assumptions are different, they arrive at different value determination.

5. Is any of the opposing determinations inherently (absolutely) better, more valid, etc than the other?

If it is, please state why. Again, there's a number of possible answers here, starting with "God says so".

If it isn't, then we re-discovered relativism.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...



5. Is any of the opposing determinations inherently (absolutely) better, more valid, etc than the other?



If it is, please state why. Again, there's a number of possible answers here, starting with "God says so".

either side can be right or wrong based on the accuracy of their analysis. we've already been over being wrong or being right. it's not that one is more valuable than the other, it has to do with what the circumstances are.



go back and read my initial post listing the dissection of word concepts. one is correct because it adheres to the objective construction of the concepts of right and wrong. or it is independent of that distinction due to a concurrence with the analysis of the other party, as was the case when both parties thought process was "i want to survive."



no one makes the decision. there is no decision to be made.



you start with the concept of "injurious in nature or intent," and you build up the value determination from there.

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

let's not take the semantics beyond the scope of what is necessary in the discussion shall we?

This is all about semantics!

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

let's not take the semantics beyond the scope of what is necessary in the discussion shall we?

This is all about semantics!

yes! but so long as it's kept in context! 

[grregg]

Maria Caliban wrote...

(...)

It's a definition based on intent. A good act can have bad consequences. A bad act can have good consequences.

For me, in order for something to be good we have to choose it. An accidental ‘good’ is just a happy accident. We can’t choose the consequences of out actions, only what we intend to be the consequence.

Intent-based rules generally lead to paradoxes. If I am experimenting with, say nuclear fusion in order to solve the world's energy problem and I inadvertently cause an explosion that wipes the humanity out, was that a good action?

Maria Caliban wrote...

(...)

There are all types of harm that I would draw the line at, but I have never claimed to be a perfectly good person.

Let's rephrase. Is there a type of harm that a perfectly good person would draw a line at? In other words, is there a harm that cannot be outweighed by benefit?

Maria Caliban wrote...

(...)

I would decide this on a case-by-case model. Harm is difficult to measure, and a large amount of subjective judgment comes in. Yanking out a tooth because it’s become infected is easy enough to judge. Killing someone because they’ve become a danger to those around them and society as a whole is not easy to judge.

I think it’s important to add that I’m a firm believer in human limitations. I believe there is an objective standard of good, but that’s based on imperfect knowledge and speculation. I don’t think that any human or group of humans would be able to understand and communicate what that objective good is. BUT, we can try.

I think that's the core of the problem. You're trying to arrive at an objective standard, but you involve measurements/judgment calls that (in my opinion) are inherently subjective.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...

5. Is any of the opposing determinations inherently (absolutely) better, more valid, etc than the other?

If it is, please state why. Again, there's a number of possible answers here, starting with "God says so".

either side can be right or wrong based on the accuracy of their analysis. we've already been over being wrong or being right. it's not that one is more valuable than the other, it has to do with what the circumstances are.

go back and read my initial post listing the dissection of word concepts. one is correct because it adheres to the objective construction of the concepts of right and wrong. or it is independent of that distinction due to a concurrence with the analysis of the other party, as was the case when both parties thought process was "i want to survive."

no one makes the decision. there is no decision to be made.

you start with the concept of "injurious in nature or intent," and you build up the value determination from there.

I think that's a perfect illustration.
I, for one, do not agree with your axioms. Hence they're not objective.

As a result, my analysis of a controversial situation is likely to be different from yours. Is mine incorrect because I did not follow YOUR rules? Why?

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...
I think that's a perfect illustration.
I, for one, do not agree with your axioms. Hence they're not objective.

As a result, my analysis of a controversial situation is likely to be different from yours. Is mine incorrect because I did not follow YOUR rules? Why?

why do you not agree with them? do you have a reason, or are you just doing this for the sake of your argument?

"injurious in nature or intent" is something that is to be avoided if possible. there is no reason to disagree with this. just because some people refuse to accept a concept does not negate the application of that concept. a dissenting voice does not negate objectivity simply by existing.

i dont mean to be rude, but supposing that there is no such thing as objective justice simply because any person can say they disagree for any rason is... well it's ridiculous.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 05:56 .

[soteria]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
I think that's a perfect illustration.
I, for one, do not agree with your axioms. Hence they're not objective.

As a result, my analysis of a controversial situation is likely to be different from yours. Is mine incorrect because I did not follow YOUR rules? Why?

why do you not agree with them? do you have a reason, or are you just doing this for the sake of your argument?

"injurious in nature or intent" is something that is to be avoided if possible. there is no reason to disagree with this. just because some people refuse to accept a concept does not negate the application of that concept. a dissenting voice does not negate objectivity simply by existing.

i dont mean to be rude, but supposing that there is no such thing as objective justice simply because any person can say they disagree for any rason is... well it's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous; it just comes from a different presupposition than at least the one I hold.  It assumes that man is the highest moral authority on earth.  No offense, but I've noticed you tend to do this--come from a set of presuppositions of your own, and tacitly assume those presuppositions are either indisputable or everyone agrees with them.

Presuppositions aren't bad, but it's important to understand them in an intelligent debate.  But then, intelligent debates on the internet would seem to be mythical events.  After all, if you consider the present discussion, we have several underlying and conflicting worldviews in this thread.  People from every side are attempting to state their position fairly logically, but the result is frustration at the other people who "...just don't get it.  It's so obvious!"

Modifié par soteria, 27 octobre 2009 - 06:17 .

[Christoph Gasser]

@ the_one_54321

I see two main questions you have to answer in order to uphold your claim of objectivity. I mentioned them in my very first reply to you and grregg has put them as well.

1. If two individuals come up with a different set of axioms to address the same question, how do you determine objectively which axioms to use?

2. If two individuals using the same axioms arrive at different conclusions (--> points back at vegetarian discussion) how do you decide who is right?

Unless you are answering these questions the discussion will just go in circles.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 27 octobre 2009 - 06:43 .

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

why do you not agree with them? do you have a reason, or are you just doing this for the sake of your argument?

"injurious in nature or intent" is something that is to be avoided if possible. there is no reason to disagree with this. just because some people refuse to accept a concept does not negate the application of that concept. a dissenting voice does not negate objectivity simply by existing.

i dont mean to be rude, but supposing that there is no such thing as objective justice simply because any person can say they disagree for any rason is... well it's ridiculous.

Why is "injurious in nature or intent" to be avoided? That's your axiom. Are you sure it is a universal axiom? How?

There could a religion based moral system that puts "Follow the word of God" first. Nothing there about avoiding harm to others. There could be a moral system based on "Take care of your family/tribe/nation above all else".

Please understand that there ARE systems that are not based on what YOU consider obvious rules.

Not to mention that people are very likely to disagree on what's "injurious". And they absolutely WILL disagree on "if possible".

So the system you propose is not bad, but it is a system that is (in my opinion) inherently relative.

[Maria Caliban]

grregg wrote...


Intent-based rules generally lead to paradoxes. If I am experimenting with, say nuclear fusion in order to solve the world's energy problem and I inadvertently cause an explosion that wipes the humanity out, was that a good action?

Are paradoxes bad?

It was a good action with a bad consequence. I can’t hold people morally responsible for unforeseen consequences. Now, if you know the danger you’re putting the entire human race into and you continue experimenting, then we have a problem.

grregg


Let's rephrase. Is there a type of harm that a perfectly good person would draw a line at? In other words, is there a harm that cannot be outweighed by benefit?

How would I know? I’m not perfectly good.

grregg

I think that's the core of the problem. You're trying to arrive at an objective standard, but you involve measurements/judgment calls that (in my opinion) are inherently subjective.

How is that a problem? I’d suggest that the majority of human existence is trying to understand an objective world through a subjective lens.

I like philosophy, but there’s a desire built into a great deal of philosophical discussion for absolutes, for flawlessness, for lack of contradiction that is very human, but not very helpful.

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

1. If two individuals come up with a different set of axioms to address the same question, how do you determine objectively which axioms to use?

mutual survival and perpetuation of species is the the base axiom.



this is what life is. this is what our existence is. at least it is insofar as we are able to concretely prove it.



the base axiom sustains the second which is that actions which are "injurious in nature or intend" are to be avoided.



of course people can disagree with this. people can disagree that 1+1=2 as well. i'm sure you can see the point contained in that statement.

Christoph Gasser wrote...

2. If two individuals using the same axioms arrive at different conclusions (--> points back at vegetarian discussion) how do you decide who is right?

it depends. it always depends. one of them is wrong. is there any way to tell which one of them is wrong? there almost always isnt a way. because there almost always isnt a way to uncover every single aspect of an individual instance.