168 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

Maria Caliban wrote...

soteria wrote...

If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

I don't know if I agree that the world only exists through my senses. For instance, my thoughts and feelings aren't senses but they appear to exist, and that appearance isn't based on any of the traditional senses. I suppose you might be referring to my sense of self.

If you want to put it that way, yes, I mean your sense of self.  Literally, the world would not wink out of existence if I were to lose all of my senses.  In a way, though, everything outside of myself would cease to exist.

Anyways, you asked if it were useful. It’s certainly more useful than the alternative when it comes to ethics. If there’s no objective reality than nothing could be said to exist. A universe in which nothing exists, but somehow that non-existence has convinced itself that it exists in an interesting idea, but it’s not a useful frame to build an ethical standard on.

We could also have a reality where only one thing exists and while the rest of reality is its subjective and untrue. In this case, we might say that all of reality is not good as it’s based on a lie, or we might say that all of reality is good because it entertains/amuses the one thing that exists.

Interesting, but not useful to us.

I think I muddied the water with my continued misuse of terms, as PsychoBlonde pointed out for us.  My point, though, which I suppose you can see in the discussion about relative viewpoints with no objective measuring stick, is that even if absolute truth exists, is it useful to say so with only relative measurements?  *Maybe* we can hope to reach some sort of agreement as to an approximation of truth, but if we have no way of determining what absolute truth *is*, is it useful to claim it exists?

For the record, I keep on saying "if."  It's an interesting discussion, but I don't want anyone to think I (necessarily) share the underlying viewpoint.

[Varenus Luckmann]

flem1 wrote...

Wrong!

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.

Damn you! I got into this thread ONLY to post that, and you've snatched it at the third post. Damn you!

[Nighteye2]

soteria wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

soteria wrote...
If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

Well, there exists such a thing as triangulation. Basically, the average of many subjective views is supposed to be closer to the objective than any single subjective view can be expected to be.

Consider the analogy with numerical guesses: some people guess too low, other people guess too high, and the average of all guesses is fairly accurate.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle.  Is that correct?  I don't want to set up a straw man.

The answer is likely to be in the middle, or whatever other place matches the closest with the most observations.

For your analogy of numerical guesses... make of this what you will, but I remember a time in school when we had to guess how many skittles were in a jar.  The number I put down was, I believe, two or three times higher than the next lowest guess.  Even my guess was low.  The average of all the numerical guesses would have been way off.

Did people know what other people guessed before making their own guess? That always skews the results. If the first person to guess guesses too low, and announces that guess aloud, everyone else will - instead of guessing normally - take that first guess as reference point and consider whether it'll be more or less. If the first guess was too low, that approach is likely to lead to guesses that are also too low. And the more people guess too low, the more likely that those following will guess too low, too.
The example I gave only works when people guess without knowing what anyone else guessed.

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...
(...)

in other words: just because we will never arrive at the perfect answer does not mean that we should not bother seeking it.

But we should be humble enough to acknowledge that the answer is imperfect. That is the only problem I have with your argument anyway.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 28 octobre 2009 - 12:28 .

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

the_one_54321 wrote...



dahn-var puts it very well. that is the result of moral subjectivity.

Why, thank you the_one. And yes, I was aiming for a textbook example of subjectivity.

vyvexthorne wrote...

I think there's a basic concept
of good.. but it still mostly relies on what type of society you were
raised in and what you learned and experienced growing up.

I think so too. Although, I am good just by my nature. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

[soteria]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle.  Is that correct?  I don't want to set up a straw man.

The answer is likely to be in the middle, or whatever other place matches the closest with the most observations.

So truth (vis a vis morality) may either be somewhere between two opposing views, or it may be simply the most common view?  How do we decide which it is, and on whose authority?

For your analogy of numerical guesses... make of this what you will, but I remember a time in school when we had to guess how many skittles were in a jar.  The number I put down was, I believe, two or three times higher than the next lowest guess.  Even my guess was low.  The average of all the numerical guesses would have been way off.

Did people know what other people guessed before making their own guess? That always skews the results. If the first person to guess guesses too low, and announces that guess aloud, everyone else will - instead of guessing normally - take that first guess as reference point and consider whether it'll be more or less. If the first guess was too low, that approach is likely to lead to guesses that are also too low. And the more people guess too low, the more likely that those following will guess too low, too.
The example I gave only works when people guess without knowing what anyone else guessed.

It's interesting you ask.  If all we wanted was what everyone's impression of the number of skittles in the jar, untainted by their peers' thoughts, you are correct, everyone would have to be making their guess without knowing what other people think.  To answer your question, I, at least, knew what people had been guessing, and still made a guess that was far outside what everyone else had said.  Were their observations skewed by knowing what other people before them thought?  Perhaps.  In the application of this example, which is more accurate to the real world--

Everyone independently deciding for themselves what is good and evil, and reporting their decision anonymously without knowing what other people think.

or

Everyone seeing what other people think, both historically and in the present, forming their own thoughts, and reporting their decision with no hope of anonymity.

You said it yourself, in the second case, the results we get are skewed.  Maybe some of the other people would have come closer to the correct number of skittles if they hadn't seen everyone else's guesses, but that's actually an accurate representation of how we have to decide right and wrong in real life.  We *do* know what other peoples' guesses are, and yes, that *does* skew the results.  Additionally, anyone trying to use the set of data to form a conclusion in the skittles example would have probably thrown my guess out as a statistical outlier

At this point, I'm not liking this attempt at approximating an absolute.  Not only do we have a "subjective lens" individually, but also our thoughts and conclusions will be skewed by knowing what other people think and have thought.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

perpetuate the species.
diversity of species leads to higher chance of perpetuation.
mutual perpetuation is mutually beneficial.
in some cases members of one species must kill members of other species.
this promotes diversity, ergo mutually beneficial.
however, the elimination of a species leads to less diversity, ergo not mutually benficial.
therefore avoid injurious behavior if possible.

(...)

Wow, that is really interesting. Many moral systems start with rights of the individual, starting with rights of species' is unusual.

But let me see if I understand correctly...

1. "perpetuate the species" - if I understand your point correctly, you're saying that every species has a right to perpetuate, am I right? Or is it only ****** sapiens? If you mean every species, is there a hierarchy? Or are all species equal in that respect?

2. "diversity of species leads to higher chance of perpetuation" - all right, I'll accept that.

3. "mutual perpetuation is mutually beneficial" - here you have to explain, "mutual" being between species? what about intra-species relations?

4. "in some cases members of one species must kill members of other species" - we are likely to disagree about these cases, but for now I get it

5. "this promotes diversity, ergo mutually beneficial" - hmm... you lost me here; how does killing promote diversity? I would say that if a species consists of N individuals, it clearly can have more diversity than a species consisting of N-1 individuals. What am I missing here?

6. "however, the elimination of a species leads to less diversity, ergo not mutually benficial" - I think goes to the inter-species diversity vs. intra-species diversity. I accept that a more diverse species has a better chance of perpetuating, but I do not see how diversity of another species helps the first one. Elaborate please...

7. "therefore avoid injurious behavior if possible" - a non sequitur as far as I can see; "killing promotes diversity" + "elimination harms diversity" = "avoid injurious behavior"... erm... how? Even If I accept the previous statements (and I don't unless you clarify) I don't see how it follows.

Overall, if I understand correctly, you argument is that "species have a right to perpetuate", "non injurious behavior (if possible) promotes perpetuation" therefore everyone should avoid "injurious behavior". In other words, "avoid injurious behavior (if possible)" is good, because it is a good perpetuation strategy.

The problem is that I do not agree here. Just look at our biosphere. It is created by species drive to perpetuate, has enormous diversity and yet it was created by evolution which, in my eyes, if the antithesis of "avoiding injurious behavior". Evolution is based on competition and selection both of them being inherently injurious. Look at our own species, currently we are on top of the pile here and humans do not seem to avoid neither intra-species nor inter-species harm.

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
(...)

in other words: just because we will never arrive at the perfect answer does not mean that we should not bother seeking it.

But we should be humble enough to acknowledge that the answer is imperfect. That is the only problem I have with your argument anyway.

i've acknowledged that a number of times, actually....

ive said more than once that it cant be practically applied to any kind of governance.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 octobre 2009 - 02:28 .

[Nighteye2]

soteria wrote...

If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle.  Is that correct?  I don't want to set up a straw man.

The answer is likely to be in the middle, or whatever other place matches the closest with the most observations.

So truth (vis a vis morality) may either be somewhere between two opposing views, or it may be simply the most common view?  How do we decide which it is, and on whose authority?

You just seek out the view with the least contradictions.

For your analogy of numerical guesses... make of this what you will, but I remember a time in school when we had to guess how many skittles were in a jar.  The number I put down was, I believe, two or three times higher than the next lowest guess.  Even my guess was low.  The average of all the numerical guesses would have been way off.

Did people know what other people guessed before making their own guess? That always skews the results. If the first person to guess guesses too low, and announces that guess aloud, everyone else will - instead of guessing normally - take that first guess as reference point and consider whether it'll be more or less. If the first guess was too low, that approach is likely to lead to guesses that are also too low. And the more people guess too low, the more likely that those following will guess too low, too.
The example I gave only works when people guess without knowing what anyone else guessed.

It's interesting you ask.  If all we wanted was what everyone's impression of the number of skittles in the jar, untainted by their peers' thoughts, you are correct, everyone would have to be making their guess without knowing what other people think.  To answer your question, I, at least, knew what people had been guessing, and still made a guess that was far outside what everyone else had said.  Were their observations skewed by knowing what other people before them thought?  Perhaps.  In the application of this example, which is more accurate to the real world--

Everyone independently deciding for themselves what is good and evil, and reporting their decision anonymously without knowing what other people think.

or

Everyone seeing what other people think, both historically and in the present, forming their own thoughts, and reporting their decision with no hope of anonymity.

You said it yourself, in the second case, the results we get are skewed.  Maybe some of the other people would have come closer to the correct number of skittles if they hadn't seen everyone else's guesses, but that's actually an accurate representation of how we have to decide right and wrong in real life.  We *do* know what other peoples' guesses are, and yes, that *does* skew the results.  Additionally, anyone trying to use the set of data to form a conclusion in the skittles example would have probably thrown my guess out as a statistical outlier

At this point, I'm not liking this attempt at approximating an absolute.  Not only do we have a "subjective lens" individually, but also our thoughts and conclusions will be skewed by knowing what other people think and have thought.

Yes, there are a lot of obstacles to objectivity. Yet there is also science and the ability to do experiments. You can have people go through the same experience and ask them the same questions about good and evil and then that would take away a lot of variance, as well as that effect of influencing each other for that specific situation.

If you have tested enough situations, you can test for the correlation between elements of those situations and how many people consider the situation good or evil. That may lead to finding elements that can be described as absolutely good or evil - and those elements together compose all experiences.

See, that is another problem to be dealt with: you seek black and white while we live in a world filled with shades of gray.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...

1. "perpetuate the species" - if I understand your point correctly, you're saying that every species has a right to perpetuate, am I right? Or is it only ****** sapiens? If you mean every species, is there a hierarchy? Or are all species equal in that respect?

it is not a right, it is a goal. and it has no reference. every species on the planet wishes to perpetuate.

grregg wrote...

2. "diversity of species leads to higher chance of perpetuation" - all right, I'll accept that.

ah good. that could have turned into a whole topic unto itself.

grregg wrote...

3. "mutual perpetuation is mutually beneficial" - here you have to explain, "mutual" being between species? what about intra-species relations?

interaction and threat leads to adaptation. adaptation leads to change. change creates diversity. intra-species interaction will therefore promote inter-species diversity and intra-species diversity. thus, promoting perpetuation of all species s beneficial to all species. mutual perpetuation is mutually beneficial. of course, there are likely to be individual exceptions.

grregg wrote...

4. "in some cases members of one species must kill members of other species" - we are likely to disagree about these cases, but for now I get it.

thanks for that as well. it could have turned into a whole different argument if you're not willing to accept the base concept.

grregg wrote...

5. "this promotes diversity, ergo mutually beneficial" - hmm... you lost me here; how does killing promote diversity? I would say that if a species consists of N individuals, it clearly can have more diversity than a species consisting of N-1 individuals. What am I missing here?

this goes back to threats promoting adaptation etc etc. it's the very same line of thought.

grregg wrote...

6. "however, the elimination of a species leads to less diversity, ergo not mutually benficial" - I think goes to the inter-species diversity vs. intra-species diversity. I accept that a more diverse species has a better chance of perpetuating, but I do not see how diversity of another species helps the first one. Elaborate please...

the elimination of an entire species leads to less intra-species interaction. this leads to less adaptation which leas to less change which leads to less diversity. species need other species in order to stimulate change.

grregg wrote...

7. "therefore avoid injurious behavior if possible" - a non sequitur as far as I can see; "killing promotes diversity" + "elimination harms diversity" = "avoid injurious behavior"... erm... how? Even If I accept the previous statements (and I don't unless you clarify) I don't see how it follows.

injurious behavior is not completely avoidable, and some injurious behavior is strictly beneficial. it leads to diversity. however, too much, or unnecessary injurious behavior leads to the elimination of potential competition or threats, and leads to a loss in the stimulation of diversity.



in specific, injurious behavior used unnecessarily can end the perpetuation of one species, which damages all species. therefore, when injurious behavior is unnecessary it should be avoided.



injurious behavior can also lead to personal injury or your own death. the unnecessary use of injurious behavior can lead to a steep decline in the species if not kept in check, which will naturally not perpetuate the species. again, when injurious behavior is unnecessary it should be avoided.



adherence to this rule can be seen rather easily in the natural world. animals will not fight if they can avoid it.

grregg wrote...

Overall, if I understand correctly, you argument is that "species have a right to perpetuate", "non injurious behavior (if possible) promotes perpetuation" therefore everyone should avoid "injurious behavior". In other words, "avoid injurious behavior (if possible)" is good, because it is a good perpetuation strategy.



The problem is that I do not agree here. Just look at our biosphere. It is created by species drive to perpetuate, has enormous diversity and yet it was created by evolution which, in my eyes, if the antithesis of "avoiding injurious behavior". Evolution is based on competition and selection both of them being inherently injurious. Look at our own species, currently we are on top of the pile here and humans do not seem to avoid neither intra-species nor inter-species harm.

first, it has nothing to do with rights. ive gone even baser than that. second, you're actually agreeing with my process. just read above to see how.

[soteria]

You just seek out the view with the least contradictions.

This system would appear to put a higher value on indefinite value statements than specific ones. After all, many people (everyone?) might agree with a statement like, "It is wrong to do harm to another human without justification," but would never agree on what constitutes justification. The devil is in the details, so to speak.

Yes, there are a lot of obstacles to objectivity. Yet there is also science and the ability to do experiments. You can have people go through the same experience and ask them the same questions about good and evil and then that would take away a lot of variance, as well as that effect of influencing each other for that specific situation.

If you have tested enough situations, you can test for the correlation between elements of those situations and how many people consider the situation good or evil. That may lead to finding elements that can be described as absolutely good or evil - and those elements together compose all experiences.

Yes, but in your experiment we can never take away the past experiences of the test subjects. They will still know, more or less, what society thinks is right and wrong, and that will affect their decisions.

Unfortunately, as far as I know we have no such experiment. We just have polls and surveys that relate a situation and ask you what you think, which isn't quite the same. You claim, though, that this experiment can lead to knowledge of what is, absolutely, good or evil. What are your criteria for the results of such an experiment that would produce such absolute knowledge?

See, that is another problem to be dealt with: you seek black and white while we live in a world filled with shades of gray.

I'm not sure what the problem is, and who is supposed to deal with it. Are you talking about me personally? Some things are black and white. Others aren't. I see apples as more green--some people would picture an apple as red, but I've always preferred the green ones myself. Juicy, crunchy, and tart. And who pays for the meal on a date? I see that issue as colored in shades of red and orange.

Modifié par soteria, 28 octobre 2009 - 05:03 .

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...

And who pays for the meal on a date?

whoever the girl wants to pay for it. if you dont do it that way, she'll be insulted. ;D

[Nighteye2]

soteria wrote...

You just seek out the view with the least contradictions.

This system would appear to put a higher value on indefinite value statements than specific ones. After all, many people (everyone?) might agree with a statement like, "It is wrong to do harm to another human without justification," but would never agree on what constitutes justification. The devil is in the details, so to speak.

Yes, there are a lot of obstacles to objectivity. Yet there is also science and the ability to do experiments. You can have people go through the same experience and ask them the same questions about good and evil and then that would take away a lot of variance, as well as that effect of influencing each other for that specific situation.

If you have tested enough situations, you can test for the correlation between elements of those situations and how many people consider the situation good or evil. That may lead to finding elements that can be described as absolutely good or evil - and those elements together compose all experiences.

Yes, but in your experiment we can never take away the past experiences of the test subjects. They will still know, more or less, what society thinks is right and wrong, and that will affect their decisions.

Unfortunately, as far as I know we have no such experiment. We just have polls and surveys that relate a situation and ask you what you think, which isn't quite the same. You claim, though, that this experiment can lead to knowledge of what is, absolutely, good or evil. What are your criteria for the results of such an experiment that would produce such absolute knowledge?

See, that is another problem to be dealt with: you seek black and white while we live in a world filled with shades of gray.

I'm not sure what the problem is, and who is supposed to deal with it. Are you talking about me personally? Some things are black and white. Others aren't. I see apples as more green--some people would picture an apple as red, but I've always preferred the green ones myself. Juicy, crunchy, and tart. And who pays for the meal on a date? I see that issue as colored in shades of red and orange.

Well, I see only 2 ways that absolute good or evil can be found - in generalities, without going into detail, or in elements - which never appear in isolation. It's kind of like quantum theory - we have all these laws of physics, yet at the extremely small scale everything appears to be random.

I'm not sure how to best structure such experiments - there should be plenty of possibilities worth trying, though.

[the_one_54321]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Well, I see only 2 ways that absolute good or evil can be found - in generalities, without going into detail, or in elements - which never appear in isolation. It's kind of like quantum theory - we have all these laws of physics, yet at the extremely small scale everything appears to be random.



I'm not sure how to best structure such experiments - there should be plenty of possibilities worth trying, though.

i agree completely. which is precisely why i broke the analysis down into such base concepts.

[Ninjaphrog]

What is good? well lets see...



Sex

Peanut Butter

Sex

Video Games

Sex

Potato Chips

Sex

Off topic forums

Sex

Subway Sandwitches(Vegi Delight)

Sex

Burger King(Whopper w/ Garden Burger)

Sex

South Park

Sex

Family Guy

Sex

Star Trek

Sex

Simpsons

Sex

Law & Order

Sex

Lord of the Rings

Sex

Harry Potter

Sex

Halloween

Sex

Christmas

Sex

Cherry Pie with Cool Whip

Sex

and......

Blowjobs

[the_one_54321]

Ninjaphrog wrote...
...

that was not very good...

[Ninjaphrog]

Nah, I kinda forgot to read the OP and went with just the topic name



My bad

[soteria]

Well, I see only 2 ways that absolute good or evil can be found - in generalities, without going into detail, or in elements - which never appear in isolation. It's kind of like quantum theory - we have all these laws of physics, yet at the extremely small scale everything appears to be random.



I'm not sure how to best structure such experiments - there should be plenty of possibilities worth trying, though.

I would have added a third way--appealing to a higher authority--but that probably doesn't appeal to you any more than what amounts to a glorified survey appeals to me. I've talked about this enough--feel free to carry on without me.