"Objective" means "true for everyone". As in after passing the filter, everyone gets the same thing. That's not very difficult. Example: 2+2=4. — khaled
The claim is that there is also such an "objective morality", ... — khaled
I take this to mean you agree that the source of morality is moral intuitions yes? — khaled
What happens when those intuitions conflict? — Tzeentch
Usually people fight, sadly. — khaled
The objective answer would be the one that satisfies the most intuitions. — khaled
There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. What you're doing is an example. — khaled
It's completely unjustified. It's a practical limitation. — khaled
I don't think 'the blind fury recognizes the need....' etc. I think it is like an immune response, imflammation. It wants to fight it off. Which makes senses for an organism. It is probably best, in general, that we do not change our minds easily. Sure, in any given instance - examples we can all come up with related to people we disagree with - it seems like a good thing to change. But they we would be flitting about and undermining learning based on experience. We do want plastic brains but not something like a blank hard drive that anything can writing anything on. It should take time to change the laws of the land. And bureaucracies are rage slowed down to tree-growth speeds. It's already easy enough for a Hitler to sweep through a country of brains, primed to find a simple solution their problems. We don't want it to be easier.I believe the benefit is to create a feeling of extreme tension, a blind fury within that recognises the need for a paradigm shift - to 'break the mold'. To an extreme opposition one either dismisses outright or contends with in a fury. — I like sushi
These concepts do not exist outside of the human experience, and thus are completely subjective. — Tzeentch
The question is, how would you ever know that you have stumbled upon objective morality? — Tzeentch
And second, if one, by some miracle, was able to verify that their idea of morality was objective true,does that give one a right to impose it on others? — Tzeentch
Intuition may give us some hint to what is moral and what is not, but it doesn't create morality, nor is it preferable over reason. — Tzeentch
Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals. — Tzeentch
It seems that the desire to impose one's opinions on others always leads there, yes. — Tzeentch
That is a very poor definition of something objective. If 51% of intuitions think A, and 49% of intuitions think B, is A objective? — Tzeentch
Not really. — Tzeentch
What you're doing is essentially saying "There's all these problems with my ideas, but I'll call them all irrelevant and dismiss them for practical reasons", and then be surprised when things don't work out very well. — Tzeentch
What a surprise then that the world is filled with suffering and injustice, if we allow ourselves such liberties. — Tzeentch
But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch
Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict. — Tzeentch
Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all. — Tzeentch
why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality — I like sushi
"2+2=4" is true regardless of who you are or what you think (assuming you know how to do arithmetic). — khaled
If you don't want to use objective like that then let's call it "inter-subjective". Something that is subjective yet is the same for everyone (like 2+2=4). There is an inter-subjective morality. — khaled
How would you ever know you have stumbled upon an objective anything? You don't, but some guesses are better than others. — khaled
For instance: "Gravity doesn't exist" is an attempt at an objective statement. It is easily found to be false. "Gravity exists" is a better attempt. — khaled
Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled
Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals. — Tzeentch
Why? — khaled
The system that provides as much as it can of both is objective. — khaled
If for instance, 51% of people think A is the best president and 49% think B is the best president, the best thing to do, objectively, is to have the 51% be under A and the 49% be under B. That’s clearly not feasible, but it’s the ideal solution is it not? Do you have a better solution in mind? — khaled
You're the only one seeing problems. — khaled
Ok think of the following scenario:
You must kill at least one person. If you press the red button, Jeff lives. If you press the blue button, Sarah lives. If you press neither, they both die. — khaled
So we can all have everything we want without hurting anyone else? — khaled
That's all you did here, acted like a 3 year old. — khaled
That person would have to give way. That is all the state asks. — James Riley
If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)? — khaled
So assuming you know how to play the game according to the rules that you believe it should be played by, it is true? — Tzeentch
Mathematics is not objective. — Tzeentch
If the whole world believed the same lie, it wouldn't make it true. — Tzeentch
You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not. — Tzeentch
Maybe so, but they're still only guesses, and the brightest minds have been wrong on countless occasions about things they thought were true. Horrible things have been done under the guise of ignorantly believing one has all the answers. — Tzeentch
Are all premises moral intuitions? — Tzeentch
Because moral intuitions differ of course. If I had a moral intuitions that makes me believe stoning women for adultery is fair and just (In certain parts of the world a lot of people even agree with me - must mean I have some "better guess than others"), should I just start imposing that on the people around me because I believe it is right? — Tzeentch
We don't know what gravity is, so we don't know if it exists or not. We found a way to predict how a certain phenomenon works to a degree that is accurate enough for our practical purposes. — Tzeentch
You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not. — Tzeentch
I must nothing.
My tip would be, do not get involved in situations that have only bad outcomes. — Tzeentch
Sure that is possible, unless one's desires require one to impose them on other individuals. — Tzeentch
Maybe you cannot have everything you want. — Tzeentch
But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch
If you feel the need to get personal, maybe it is time you sit on the time-out chair for a little while. — Tzeentch
Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right? — Tzeentch
The example features two fools. — Tzeentch
The fact that one of the fools wisens up, does not cure the other of their foolishness. — Tzeentch
Wise Men Speak Because They Have Something To Say; Fools Because They Have To Say Something. — Plato
I'm really interested in your answer to this before we move on:
If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)? — khaled
I see a performative contradiction between what you say and the fact that you're still replying. — khaled
I post on this forum to test my ideas, not to convince strangers. Whether people like those ideas or find them convincing is of no interest - only their arguments are. — Tzeentch
Now can something be "intersubjectively true"? — khaled
Do you believe that we have no right to impose because of a lack of objectivity? — khaled
That still leaves you with the problem of what to do when not imposing is not an option. That's the fundamental problem with your philosophy. You believe in every situation there is the "aggressor" or "imposer" and the victim. You believe one can choose "Don't impose" at every turn. What you don't recognize is sometimes inaction IS imposing, like with the buttons example. — khaled
Imposition is unavoidable. — khaled
So what do we do about this? [...] You're acting right now. If the brightest minds have been wrong before what chance do you or me have of being right? How do you know you're not imposing unknowingly? Perhaps you are. — khaled
Another performative contradiction. — khaled
... , then go on to say that we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure. — khaled
Are all premises moral intuitions? — Tzeentch
No, where did you get that? — khaled
Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled
First off, quote where I said that agreement of a large group is what makes a better guess. Or stop putting words in my mouth. Again, if you want to argue against made up arguments, do so alone.
But no, clearly you shouldn't. Because large agreement doesn't make something right. It's a factor, not the end all be all. — khaled
How about "things fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path" vs "things don't fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path". Is one a better guess than the other? — khaled
Stop being tedious. — khaled
Even if true, there would still be many more problems in your philosophy than mine, ... — khaled
What gives you the authority to decide what's a problem and what isn't? — khaled
Say you got kidnapped in your sleep and forced in that situation. Now what? — khaled
So what is to be done by your system? — khaled
Maybe you cannot have everything you want. — Tzeentch
What was this about then:
But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch — khaled
(looking back I took this to mean that you think no practical limitations exist at all, maybe that's not what you meant in which case ignore this) — khaled
What's personal about it? I'm stating a fact. Asking "why why why" tends to stop at a young age as children realize it's a pointless exercise.
If you're getting aggravated maybe you should heed your own words: — khaled
My view is that you have no right to impose, period. — Tzeentch
Sorry for buttin' in but how far are you willing to go with that maxim? — TheMadFool
I guess I'm getting mixed up between regulation and coercion. — TheMadFool
Read my whole posts, James. :sad: — Tzeentch
That will be my last extension of grace. — Tzeentch
I'm not sure how compelling you will find it , but the point was to isolate what happens in the physical from your perception and argue these claims of imposing seem to translate as measures of either ego or willingness toward dogmatism. In one case I'm blocking the sidewalk and in the other I'm blocking the sidewalk. However, I am only imposing upon you in one case. So, I submit the definition is problematic.↪Cheshire If you have a point to make, make it. — Tzeentch
I'm not sure how compelling you will find it , but the point was to isolate what happens in the physical from your perception... — Cheshire
In one case I'm blocking the sidewalk and in the other I'm blocking the sidewalk. However, I am only imposing upon you in one case. — Cheshire
I agree with you on all points. It's just that I was thrown off by the fact that both tyrannies (oppression) and democracies (liberty) operate using laws. You pointed out though that in the case of the former, it's not justified while in the latter it is. — TheMadFool
Did I point that out? — Tzeentch
I don't think impositions made by the rulers or electorates of democracies are justified. — Tzeentch
Is regulation just an euphemism for imposition? — TheMadFool
I stated that in both instances there was an imposition.
In the other instance where there was no desire to block the sidewalk, there was no imposition, because there was no desire to impose anything. Desire plays a key role, which I think I've highlighted. — Tzeentch
One cannot seperate these things, even if one wanted to. One never experiences the external world directly - everything goes through the mind. — Tzeentch
Is a civil tone of conversation too much to ask? — Tzeentch
I post on this forum to test my ideas, — Tzeentch
Non-interference is not an imposition. — Tzeentch
Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled
It's what your arguments seem to boil down to every time you try to explain what constitutes a "better guess" — Tzeentch
But what constitutes a better guess, then? — Tzeentch
Try to escape? — Tzeentch
Don't impose. — Tzeentch
Debatable. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't take shortcuts and apply principles consistently. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.