| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2010 02:30:20 AM · #4251 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul, you can't just parrot everything you hear Scalia say during your squash games! |
These days I can only eat squash -- I can't play anymore ... :-( |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 02:36:04 AM · #4252 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These are legal questions and I'll leave it to the courts to decide. |
Yes, but here in this thread we are interested in your (legal/logical) opinion on the matter -- I refuse to believe you don't have one. |
After four thousand posts you're still clinging to that belief? How Jason of you. ;-) |
That'll be four thousand, two hundred fifty-two posts, sil vous plait ... ;-)
-- Pedants-R-Us (Es tut mir leid, no habla français!) |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 10:58:04 AM · #4253 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis responded that it is easy to understand suffering in the context of evolution. His exact quote:
"What's to explain? We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitized to pain and social behavior that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering."
I read this to be what, I guess, qualifies as an "is" statement. Suffering is. |
He did not say nervous systems are ONLY sensitized to pain or that behavior ONLY causes suffering. You seized upon suffering as if it was the ONLY result of behavioral development (evolution --> behavior --> suffering). Therein lies the source of your fallacious reasoning, even if you dispute the name of the fallacy. If you hadn't assumed exclusivity, and considered that we feel both pain and joy and our behavior causes both suffering and relief, then you could have avoided this whole exchange of digitized nonsense. That is the defining characteristic of a Naturalistic/Is-Ought/Friesian/whatever-you-want-to-call-it fallacy: "if it's natural, it must be good" (it's fallacious to assume only good) and the reversed position you've been frothing over: "if the result is bad/immoral, then it cannot be natural/evolution" (you erroneously assumed the result is only bad). Your mistake, not Louis'. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 11:48:24 AM · #4254 |
I stopped reading your post at "only" because it isn't what I'm saying. I don't care about "only" just that it does. I'm not interpreting it as "only". Louis wasn't saying it as "only". "if...ought" doesn't care about "only". So I think you are setting up a straw man.
I read the rest and it only echoes what I just said about how difficult it is to communicate in this medium. Believe it or not Shannon I am not making any of those argument you are stating!
"Suffering is." is not equivalent to "ONLY suffering is."
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 11:51:05. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 12:37:37 PM · #4255 |
Then state your argument that way and see if it still holds.
                                                          ---> causing relief (moral)
evolution ---> human behavior |
                                                          ---> causing suffering (immoral)
1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 02:52:06 PM · #4256 |
Yes. The question ultimately is, if we consider suffering to be a natural part of the universe (including human caused suffering since humans, too, are a natural part of the universe), why do we not consider actions which cause suffering to be AMORAL? (maybe you were thinking I was arguing it should be considered MORAL because it is natural?)
1) Suffering is part of the natural world.
2) Natural actions which cause suffering are amoral. (eg. hurricanes)
2) Humans are part of the natural world.
3) Human behavior is the result of a natural process.
4) Because of 2), human behavior causing suffering is amoral.
I think that is a logical procession, but I noted that Louis, a year ago, disagreed with 4. He considers such activity to be IMMORAL. This is the "ought" statement. (We ought not have human behavior causing suffering.) Everything before is an "is" statment. (It only describes the natural state of things).
How do we go from amoral processes to moral/immoral ones? Is it just semantics? or is there something important that delineates the two?
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 14:55:27. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 03:39:58 PM · #4257 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why do we not consider actions which cause suffering to be AMORAL? |
Because morality is a human construct. We assign certain actions to be good or bad. Nature couldn't care less. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:02:52 PM · #4258 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why do we not consider actions which cause suffering to be AMORAL? |
Because morality is a human construct. We assign certain actions to be good or bad. Nature couldn't care less. |
Exactly. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:08:40 PM · #4259 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do we go from amoral processes to moral/immoral ones? Is it just semantics? or is there something important that delineates the two? |
That's where free will comes into the picture, pretty much. That's why it's important, in ethical discussions, to make a distinction between "ability to choose" and "free will". But every time I try to talk about this I get hammered on, so the heck with it :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:28:31 PM · #4260 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do we go from amoral processes to moral/immoral ones? Is it just semantics? or is there something important that delineates the two? |
That's where free will comes into the picture, pretty much. That's why it's important, in ethical discussions, to make a distinction between "ability to choose" and "free will". But every time I try to talk about this I get hammered on, so the heck with it :-)
R. |
The distinction isn't obvious to me, so I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. And I promise I won't hammer on you. Unless I disagree, of course. :-) |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:32:06 PM · #4261 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if we consider suffering to be a natural part of the universe (including human caused suffering since humans, too, are a natural part of the universe), why do we not consider actions which cause suffering to be AMORAL? |
If suffering is natural, why do we consider suffering immoral rather than neutral? Because there is no connection between the two. Assigning morality only on the basis of whether something is natural or not is The Fallacy Formerly Known as Naturalistic.
You can play this game with other things, too: knives enable people to kill --> killing is immoral --> so why don't we consider knives immoral? The statement is illogical unless you accept the erroneous implication that knives ONLY kill people. You could, however, do this if the result is always bad: child abuse causes suffering (only) --> suffering is immoral --> child abuse is immoral.
If you actually include the part you claim not to be excluding, your "logic" falls apart:
1) Suffering and relief are both part of the natural world, therefore merely being natural is not an indicator of whether something is moral.
2) Natural actions which cause suffering are amoral.
2) Humans are part of the natural world.
3) Human behavior is the result of a natural process, which has nothing to do with whether or not it's moral per the above.
4) Because of 1), being natural has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of human behavior.
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 18:16:06. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:37:30 PM · #4262 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do we go from amoral processes to moral/immoral ones? Is it just semantics? or is there something important that delineates the two? |
That's where free will comes into the picture, pretty much. That's why it's important, in ethical discussions, to make a distinction between "ability to choose" and "free will". But every time I try to talk about this I get hammered on, so the heck with it :-)
R. |
The distinction isn't obvious to me, so I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. And I promise I won't hammer on you. Unless I disagree, of course. :-) |
In any moral/ethical discussion, the concept of "free will" is tied into the uber-concept "morality". Broadly speaking, "morality" requires an evolved consciousness to exist. It makes no point to discuss the actions/behaviors of, say, termites in moral terms. So while it can be shown that a termite is not *entirely* programmed, so to speak, that it is capable of making choices between alternatives, morality is not a factor in the choice and so, in this instance, the ability to choose is not tantamount to having "free will".
Fire away :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 06:27:09 PM · #4263 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why do we not consider actions which cause suffering to be AMORAL? |
Because morality is a human construct. We assign certain actions to be good or bad. Nature couldn't care less. |
Exactly. |
Exactly as in you agree morality is just a human construct? That is morality doesn't exist without humans and not God? |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 08:16:46 PM · #4264 |
You are getting there Shannon. In your parlance, why is human behavior not akin to a "knife"?
Bear gets it. Bear gets it good.
Richard gets it too. I could reply to you two ways (not sure which is the better argument). :)
1) "construct" implies arbitrary and artificial. We could just as easy construct a morality where acts leading to suffering are considered good. So is Louis just being arbitrary when he declares "(human) acts leading to suffering ought not happen"?
2) "human construct" would fall under "natural process" since humans are part of nature. The constructs come from out mental processes which are products of evolutionary pressure which is a natural process. At what point in the process does it suddenly not qualify under #2 of my outline? EDIT: I suppose a construct more points out the acts causing suffering rather than causing suffering itself. So perhaps #1 is the better argument. (Just thinking out loud here.)
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 20:17:48. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 09:29:30 PM · #4265 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are getting there Shannon. In your parlance, why is human behavior not akin to a "knife"?
Bear gets it. Bear gets it good.
Richard gets it too. I could reply to you two ways (not sure which is the better argument). :)
1) "construct" implies arbitrary and artificial. We could just as easy construct a morality where acts leading to suffering are considered good. So is Louis just being arbitrary when he declares "(human) acts leading to suffering ought not happen"?
2) "human construct" would fall under "natural process" since humans are part of nature. The constructs come from out mental processes which are products of evolutionary pressure which is a natural process. At what point in the process does it suddenly not qualify under #2 of my outline? EDIT: I suppose a construct more points out the acts causing suffering rather than causing suffering itself. So perhaps #1 is the better argument. (Just thinking out loud here.) |
I'd say number one if you remove the word "arbitrary". People assign moral values because there's an expected benefit in doing so. It's immoral to murder because it harms both the individual and society. Now if that harm wasn't present there wouldn't be a need to assign a moral value to murder. Similarly, as a society we accept the killing of others from another society when we are at war because of the perception that it doesn't hurt us, only them whom we don't care about. If we did (as a society) we would find that action to be immoral as well and ban all wars for good. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 10:05:48 PM · #4266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why is human behavior not akin to a "knife"? |
Knives don't lead to using human behavior to kill people.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"human construct" would fall under "natural process" since humans are part of nature. The constructs come from out mental processes which are products of evolutionary pressure which is a natural process. At what point in the process does it suddenly not qualify under #2 of my outline? |
At no point does being natural have anything to do with whether something is moral. Whether or not we find something humorous is a similar human construct resulting from the natural process of humorless evolution:
1) Laughter is enjoyable.
2) Actions that lead to laughter are humorous.
3) Evolution, among other things, leads to laughter.
evolution --> human behavior --> laughter
Evolution leads to human behavior which leads to laughter. Where exactly is the line on the continuum that we can say "to the right is "humorous" and to the left is "natural process"? Nowhere. At no point does being natural have anything to do with whether we find it humorous. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 12:21:50 AM · #4267 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
1) Laughter is enjoyable.
2) Actions that lead to laughter are humorous.
3) Evolution, among other things, leads to laughter.
evolution --> human behavior --> laughter
Evolution leads to human behavior which leads to laughter. Where exactly is the line on the continuum that we can say "to the right is "humorous" and to the left is "natural process"? Nowhere. At no point does being natural have anything to do with whether we find it humorous. |
You are arguing my point for me now. I agree that it is difficult to draw a line anywhere in specific, yet, at some point some behavior (a clown throwing a pie in another clown's face) is declared to be "humorous". This get's at Hume's objection that it is, as Richard put it, "construct". I add "artificial" (which is probably implied by the term) and "arbitrary" because we could imagine the possibility that the mere term "humorous" could have been employed to describe things that made people cry. It's merely a word and could have been originally used in any construct. I could create a construct where the term "flagramaph" describes human behavior that causes things to turn red. Crushing up dried carmine beetles and using the powder to make a red cloth is "flagramaph". Using periwinkle to dye the cloth is "not flagramaph".
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 00:23:10. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 12:47:12 AM · #4268 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then state your argument that way and see if it still holds.
                                                          ---> causing relief (moral)
evolution ---> human behavior |
                                                          ---> causing suffering (immoral)
1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering. |
What about when a parent disciplines their child? When you discipline a child they usually suffer either physically or emotionally. Is it immoral for a parent to discipline their child in such a way that causes suffering? |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:05:35 AM · #4269 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
At no point does being natural have anything to do with whether we find it humorous. |
I agree that it is difficult to draw a line anywhere in specific, yet, at some point some behavior (a clown throwing a pie in another clown's face) is declared to be "humorous". |
It's not difficult, it's inane. There IS no line from natural to humorous. It is not a progression. There is no continuum. One has nothing to do with the other. Something is humorous or moral because a person declares it to be so, period. It's just an opinion. You might as well trying drawing a point on a line between "red" and "delicious." There is no correlation. Everything that's red is not delicious, and everyone does not agree upon what IS delicious (you can substitute "moral" or "humorous" for "delicious"). You seem to be completely incapable of understanding the fallacy of your argument. Keep reading the above until it sinks in.
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 01:16:26. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:15:08 AM · #4270 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is it immoral for a parent to discipline their child in such a way that causes suffering? |
Yes... and it would be even more immoral for a parent to NOT discipline their child if failing to do so led to even greater suffering. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:38:26 AM · #4271 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is it immoral for a parent to discipline their child in such a way that causes suffering? |
Yes... and it would be even more immoral for a parent to NOT discipline their child if failing to do so led to even greater suffering. |
So, it's okay to allow a person to suffer now if it means that person will be saved from even greater suffering down the road? And by okay I mean that it's less immoral. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:22:29 AM · #4272 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, it's okay to allow a person to suffer now if it means that person will be saved from even greater suffering down the road? |
Sure... IF the threat is real. A vaccination is painful, but less painful than the disease. Killing witches to prevent bubonic plague does not qualify because the threat is fictional (even if some people choose to believe it). |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:45:28 AM · #4273 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You might as well trying drawing a point on a line between "red" and "delicious." There is no correlation. Everything that's red is not delicious, and everyone does not agree upon what IS delicious (you can substitute "moral" or "humorous" for "delicious"). You seem to be completely incapable of understanding the fallacy of your argument. Keep reading the above until it sinks in. |
And you're a master at spinning a web of words that *seems* to refute the issue at hand but actually only either ignores or obfuscates it.
In this particular case, the "issue" begins with the fact that nature is amoral. Nature doesn't operate from any base of "good" vs "bad", "caring" vs "indifference", nature just *is*. Any attempt to claim or illustrate otherwise basically falls under the category of "pathetic fallacy".
I think we have all, on both sides of the issue, agreed that this is the case.
Now, there's something else that we have all, or nearly all, agreed on; that "morality" exists, that there are classes of things/actions that can properly be termed "moral" or "immoral". And, for the sake of argument, Jason's accepting the concept that moral/immoral are "human constructs".
Given that humans are a part of nature, that human evolution itself is a natural (i.e. amoral) event, he's trying to get you (and others) to explore, or zero in on, the idea of where what we do/think/say, *as humans*, stops being natural (i.e. amoral) and begins to carry moral baggage the rest of the way.
It's an important question, it's a difficult question to answer, and all your obfuscation regarding the lack of a continuum between unrelated concepts doesn't change that. In fact, it's more than a little insulting.
R. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 11:46:54 AM · #4274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, it's okay to allow a person to suffer now if it means that person will be saved from even greater suffering down the road? |
Sure... IF the threat is real. A vaccination is painful, but less painful than the disease. Killing witches to prevent bubonic plague does not qualify because the threat is fictional (even if some people choose to believe it). |
So your saying it's a game of weighing risks. It's less immoral to get vaccinated and suffer through a brief moment of pain than to take the risk of getting sick, even though there is no way to know that you would have actually contracted the disease.
So there actually doesn't need to be a real threat, but a perceived threat. So it is less immoral to cause suffering to save person from a perceived threat of greater suffering. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 12:00:38 PM · #4275 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In this particular case, the "issue" begins with the fact that nature is amoral. Nature doesn't operate from any base of "good" vs "bad", "caring" vs "indifference", nature just *is*. Any attempt to claim or illustrate otherwise basically falls under the category of "pathetic fallacy." |
Correct. Being natural has nothing to do with whether something is considered moral. Jason's argument *must* assume that "natural" is the defining characteristic of "amoral" for him to ask when being natural stops being amoral. There is no such correlation. A wristwatch is artificial, and still amoral.
"Moore coined the term "naturalistic fallacy" to describe arguments of this form. The fallacy is committed whenever a statement to the effect that some object has a simple indefinable property is misunderstood as a definition that gives the meaning of the simple indefinable property."
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Given that humans are a part of nature, that human evolution itself is a natural (i.e. amoral) event, he's trying to get you (and others) to explore, or zero in on, the idea of where what we do/think/say, *as humans*, stops being natural (i.e. amoral) and begins to carry moral baggage the rest of the way. |
Human evolution is natural, which has nothing to do with whether something is moral, and at no point does that change. See "pathetic fallacy" above. |
|
