• Pantagruel
    3.2k
    You cannot weld the objective quality of fitness for a purpose onto morality through the mere fact that we refer to both using the term goodness. They are not equivalent. Furthermore, the quality of being "harmonious" does not serve as a good identifier. How are we supposed to understand the meaning, by analogy with music (it's primary definition and origin)? How does that work for people who are tone-deaf? I think you need to re-think what you think it is you are proving, and to what end.

    Morality is and always has been about human actions, it is the essence of morality:

    The domain of morality is the domain of duty. Duty is prescribed behaviour. (Durkheim, Moral Education).

    I'll go with Emile Durkheim lecturing at the Sorbonne any day as one of my authoritative views on the basic nature of morality:

    (Moral) authority does not reside in some external, objective fact....it consists entirely in the conception that men have of such a fact; it is a matter of opinion, and opinion is a collective thing.
  • Vaskane
    643
    Hey man, use whatever definitions you need to feel good about yourself.

    Part OneOn the Prejudices of Philosophers

    1

    The will to truth, which is still going to tempt us to many a daring exploit, that celebrated truthfulness of which all philosophers up to now have spoken with respect, what questions this will to truth has already set down before us! What strange, serious, dubious questions! There is already a long history of that - and yet it seems that this history has scarcely begun. Is it any wonder that at some point we become mistrustful, lose patience and, in our impatience, turn ourselves around, that we learn from this sphinx to ask questions for ourselves? Who is really asking us questions here? What is it in us that really wants "the truth"? In fact, we paused for a long time before the question about the origin of this will - until we finally remained completely and utterly immobile in front of an even more fundamental question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth. Why should we not prefer untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth stepped up before us - or were we the ones who stepped up before the problem? Who among us here is Oedipus? Who is the Sphinx?1 It seems to be a tryst between questions and question marks. And could one believe that we are finally the ones to whom it seems as if the problem has never been posed up to now, as if we were the first ones to see it, to fix our eyes on it, and to dare confront it? For there is a risk involved in this - perhaps there is no greater risk.

    You will fail as all the dogmatists did before you. In finding that elusive unicorn of "objective morality." You're just foolish enough to think you're the first to see this concept of yours.

    Since any utility is good... be my slave and become utilized. Be my utility. I've got no qualms objectifying you. What you don't want to be my utility? I thought utility was goodness? You don't want to be my tool? Hrm, guess utility isn't all goodness. I'll show you the "Goodness," of a slave master, I promise.

    You may not like it, but it'll be good for you God damn it!

    Harmony still equates disarray, completely organized is the opposite of complete disarray Harmony is the synthesis between the two. Like how fire and ice can make varying states of water depending on the degree of each binary element.

    "Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants" Even Nietzsche knew Harmony is betwixt two, why don't you?

    Ah, yes, your filthy dogmatism that makes you stubborn and headstrong based around the prejudice of your philosophy.
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    Here you go again not engaging in the conversation... :roll:

    Hey man, use whatever definitions you need to feel good about yourself.

    I am using the definitions that make the most historical sense when the historical notions of goodness are refined to the level of a conception.

    Part OneOn the Prejudices of Philosophers

    1

    The will to truth, which is still going to

    This is a completely irrelevant passage from Nietzsche, that doesn't address anything I said in my response nor the OP.

    You will fail as all the dogmatists did before you. In finding that elusive unicorn of "objective morality."

    Here go again asserting the Nietzschien assumption of moral anti-realism; without a shred of evidence to back it up.

    You're just foolish enough to think you're the first to see this concept of yours.

    When did I ever say that??? This is so disingenuous.

    Since any utility is good... be my slave and become utilized

    You are now importing your own view of what is good without any shred of justification for nor elaboration on it.

    Harmony still equates disarray, completely organized is the opposite of complete disarray Harmony is the synthesis between the two.

    Nope. I am using in the sense of "agreement or concord", "the quality of forming a pleasing and consistent whole", "pleasing arrangement of parts : CONGRUENCE", "internal calm: TRANQUILITY", etc. These are all colloquial definitions that fit what I am conveying.
  • Vaskane
    643
    An agreement is betwixt two things. I'm engaging the conversation, just not how you want me to. Looks like we haven't come to an agreement.
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    Which is not the same thing as finding the synthesis between complete disarray and order. The latter is one particular instance of the former, and you are treating it as if they are equivocal.
  • Vaskane
    643
    You mean the harmony between?

    Again, my assertion: use whatever definition makes you feel good about yourself.
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    I mean the peaceful congruence of all parts of a thing, when I say a thing is in 100% self-harmony. This is not equivocal to being the synthesis of two extremes.
  • Vaskane
    643
    Let's hear about what isn't good in your philosophy. Or, since I can turn literally everything into utility everything and every action is good?

    Or do we have a 0-100 point scale we can't see, some sort of RPG statistic, that increases and decreases on the goodness scale depending on our collective actions and so long as we're in the 51% utilitarian "by at large" we are goodness?

    I am using the definitions that make the most historical sense when the historical notions of goodness are refined to the level of a conception.Bob Ross

    No you're fucking not. You've had multiple people come here challenging your definitions and claims. Which has only served to highlight the self serving prejudice behind your position.

    Thing is you think God is Omnibenevolent. You're cute enough to think there is one, but even cuter than that is your God is omnibenevolent... which you've necessarily removed the capacity for omnipotence in one fell swoop. That I'm even trying to talk sense into a godhead is mostly just a waste of my time. Anything can be believed so continue believing in whatever it is that makes you feel good about yourself I guess. Sounds trolling, but wtf have all philosophers done? Believe in their own philosophy and their own prejudice.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    I mean the peaceful congruence of all parts of a thing, when I say a thing is in 100% self-harmony. This is not equivocal to being the synthesis of two extremes.Bob Ross

    Yes, that's not the least bit abstract....

    Natural systems do not exist in a state of "peaceful congruence." Natural systems if anything exist in a state of far from equilibrium meta-stability governed by non-linear dynamics.

    I don't disagree with your desire to promote and investigate the idea of "harmony," and if that is all you are claiming, ok. But you need to step back from the many expansions and reductions and focus on one thing. What comes across is an attempt to foist a common-sense, naturalized umbrella encompassing everything that you feel aligns in some way with the notion of goodness, that does not in any way do justice to the notion of morality.
  • Vaskane
    643
    Nazis, Pedophiles, Murderers, all have a certain utility about them. So long as one, is by-at-large 51points or greater it's okay that they may do some nasty nasty from time to time, they are, by-at-large good. :roll: I want to know more about where I can find these "points" to remain by-at-large good, I imagine it would be like Nietzsche said of many of the theologians and logicians after Kant's obsession with a priori "faculties," ... we will all go running off in search of "points" instead. So that we can be shielded by by-at-large goodness.

    All the young theologians of the Tubingen institution went immediately into the groves—all seeking for "faculties." And what did they not find—in that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of the German spirit, to which Romanticism, the malicious fairy, piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between "finding" and "inventing"! Above all a faculty for the "transcendental"; — Nietzsche, BGE

    I'm creating a shirt, out of this inspiration: 51% Good

    Something to that effect. :lol:
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    Let's hear about what isn't good in your philosophy. Or, since I can turn literally everything into utility everything and every action is good?

    Firstly, let’s take it one step at a time: do you agree or disagree with my response to your use of the term ‘harmony’? It is impossible for us to make any real headway, if you keep sporadically seguing into different points.

    Secondly, you have misunderstood the OP: I never argued that something is morally good if it has utility, nor that it is relative to utility. I strongly suggest you re-read the OP.

    Or do we have a 0-100 point scale we can't see, some sort of RPG statistic, that increases and decreases on the goodness scale depending on our collective actions and so long as we're in the 51% utilitarian "by at large" we are goodness?

    Firstly, you have to specify which type of goodness you are referring to. Here, I am assuming you mean moral goodness.

    Secondly, I would say that the property of moral goodness is ‘being in a state of self-harmony and self-unity’, and we attribute that property by degree of how well it sizes up thereto. E.g., something might have the property of ‘being straight’, such as a line, without actually being perfectly straight—the property doesn’t change here and it doesn’t itself have degrees but, rather, our attribution of that property to something does.

    No you're fucking not. You've had multiple people come here challenging your definitions and claims. Which has only served to highlight the self serving prejudice behind your position.

    Not a single person, as of yet, has provided much justification for this other than blanket assertions; and not much discussion has, unfortunately, been had about it. I am more than happy to discuss this further if you would like.

    Thing is you think God is Omnibenevolent. You're cute enough to think there is one, but even cuter than that is your God is omnibenevolent

    What???? Please re-read the OP: this demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the OP. I never claimed any of this: not even in the responses I have made in this thread. Not once.

    Since you brought up with completely irrelevant point, I will clarify that I am, in fact, an agnostic: so, no, I do not believe in God or gods as I suspend judgment on it.

    Anything can be believed so continue believing in whatever it is that makes you feel good about yourself I guess. Sounds trolling, but wtf have all philosophers done? Believe in their own philosophy and their own prejudice.

    This is all completely irrevelant, ad hominem attacks...and 99% of them are completely false anyways. I am not a theist, and I don’t know where you got that idea (in this thread).

    Bob
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    Natural systems do not exist in a state of "peaceful congruence." Natural systems if anything exist in a state of far from equilibrium meta-stability governed by non-linear dynamics.

    How natural systems are has nothing to do with how they should be, in the sense that how it is does not directly inform us of how it ought to be. So I don't see how this is a valid counter to my position.

    What comes across is an attempt to foist a common-sense, naturalized umbrella encompassing everything that you feel aligns in some way with the notion of goodness, that does not in any way do justice to the notion of morality.

    Just to clarify, I am not claiming that morality is just about ‘what is morally good’: this is, indeed, an invalid oversimplification. It is about assessing what should be, and thusly what actions should be conducted, relative to the standard of moral goodness. The moral goodness analysis is only one piece of the puzzle.

    So, just to clarify, I am not claiming that it does complete justice to our notions of morality and not even goodness but, rather, moral goodness.

    Hopefully that helps.

    Bob
  • Vaskane
    643
    I never even came here looking to refute your OP. I just wanted to say, more or less, that reducing goodness to these two forms is fine and dandy but certainly not the full scope of goodness. If you want to assert that goodness only comes in pragmatic or moral forms, go for it, you certainly aren't the first to ever do so, however. And yet nothing has come from it, perhaps you're different, Perhaps you're Oedipus, with the answer to some riddle about objective morality. Go for it bro, but as Nietzsche states: "Perhaps there is no greater risk..." Best of luck, and Amor Fati with all that.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Just to clarify, I am not claiming that morality is just about ‘what is morally good’: this is, indeed, an invalid oversimplification.Bob Ross

    Indeed it is not, it is the essence of morality to be prescriptive.

    However, as a final note, I will say that, if your theory is accurate, it ought to be conducive to harmony (otherwise what is the point?) In fact, it appears to have had the exact opposite effect. Which tends to testify against its validity.
  • Bob Ross
    1k


    I agree that morality has a prescriptive element to it; but 'what is good' is not prescriptive at all. I very much subscribe to the ontological is-ought gap.

    However, as a final note, I will say that, if your theory is accurate, it ought to be conducive to harmony (otherwise what is the point?) In fact, it appears to have had the exact opposite effect. Which tends to testify against its validity.

    I don't understand: could you please elaborate?
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    I don't understand: could you please elaborate?Bob Ross

    Well your theory is about conduciveness to harmony as a kind of ideal. Kant's theory about the inherent morality of duty is expressed eloquently through his categorical imperative, "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The content and meaning of the theory and its expression are synonymous.

    So how does your theory contribute and conduce to what the theory describes? As I've observed, judging by the responses in this thread, it falls far short of producing any kind of harmony. If it doesn't either reflect or contribute to what it describes, of what value is it?
  • Beverley
    70
    So, no, it isn't that nothing morally good exists; but, rather, that nothing 100% morally good exists. Perhaps we can find common ground there (;Bob Ross

    Yes, I do think that makes a lot more sense, to me anyway.

    However... and I don't like this 'however' because I feel as if I want to agree. You have stood your ground and responded to so many different comments on here, and some have been pretty tough. I wonder if I could have done that?

    But my nature is to look at things from ALL viewpoints, so that I may get a clearer idea of what I think is true. I question everything, myself included. I always have. Therefore, when I first 'found' philosophy, it fitted so much into how I seem to see things, and I tend to think that this is what philosophy is all about, reflected in the way that Socrates encouraged people to question their knowledge.

    Bearing this in mind, the first thing that I thought of when I read your response was that, if we can accept that nothing is 100 percent perfect, then I wonder if any definition can be 100 percent perfect either. Now, I get the feeling you are going to say something about an 'ideal' of something, or some definition, being 100 percent perfect. But that just seems to return us to the problem of an 'ideal' being something that may not be real.

    Okay, but here is another thought I've had: I've been trying to figure out how harmony can equal goodness, and it occurred to me that people whose lives have, through no fault of their own, unfortunately led to disharmony often seek to redress the imbalance in their lives by trying to bring harmony into other people's lives. In other words, people who have experienced 'bad' things often seek to help others who have experienced similar 'bad' things. This brings to my mind many different thoughts, but firstly, can I just ask, would you tend to respond that those people are not in harmony, and hence cannot be classed as 'good', because there is an imbalance in this situation? The imbalance is due to the fact that, by them helping others when they are at a disadvantage themselves, and not in harmony, then they are giving more than they are receiving, and hence are causing more imbalance? This seems strange to me, but it is the only way I can see to fit with your idea of harmony equaling goodness in this situation. I admit, I may be missing something, as I have not studied ethics, and I am just going by my own thoughts.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment