Davis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,656 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40066

    Davis
    Moderator

    ever-greater fitness and adaptation

    That is a misconception. As everything else is also adapting, creatures must adapt as well. It is not “ever greater” but adapting to the circumstances of the moment. Organisms may emerge with greater complexity in some cases but not always and that is not the same as greater fitness and adaption. Greater intelligence has also emerged for one species of one branch in the animal kingdom but again, not the same thing.

    #40037

    Davis
    Moderator

    Moral principles are ideal forms or concepts.

    Sigh

    #40023

    Davis
    Moderator

    I don’t take Plato’s forms seriously, so no…they are not facts as far as I am concerned and I see them of little (if any) philosophical use besides understanding the history of Western thought. However, for Plato…the forms were real, if not the ONLY real thing where even we humans were just imitations of forms. They were NOT some vague shadowy conceptual entity. Per the theory, forms are as close as you can get to facts because they are the only things that are real.

    #40016

    Davis
    Moderator

    Plato’s forms aren’t facts and don’t exist.

    Sounds like someone skimmed the wikipedia article.

    #39945

    Davis
    Moderator

    In the UK there are some cases of ex-Isis brides who want to be repatriated from Kurdish camps back to the UK.  The UK government doesn’t want to know.  It’s not helping them, but is not harming them either.

    Not being stripped of citizenship is a basic human right in most countries. The UK government conveniently ignores such a right to gain the anti-muslim vote. Everyone suffers when a government can take away your citizenship when they feel like it. Bring them home, charge them and jail them. Definitely bring home their children who are innocent citizens who should not be endangered in unhealthy camps.

    #39944

    Davis
    Moderator

    If an ethical absolute is respecting people’s dignity and human rights, it would be hard to do in some circumstances, such as if you come across a child murderer.

    I read this three times and cannot make sense out of it. I don’t believe you have a grasp of what ethical absolutes are.

    People are willing to risk injury, or cost, to themselves, to uphold this principle because it makes a better world for everyone.

    That isn’t what Unseen was getting at.

    Respecting someone’s human rights involves not harming them unnecessarily.

    Nor do you seem to understand what human rights are. Yes, a few human rights protect you from unfair treatment by the government but for other cases of grievous unnecessary harm, laws protect you…not human rights. For minor harm, no law nor right will protect you from that. Saying to someone they look ugly is not illegal nor a breach of human rights. Be careful with overly broad statements.

    It also involves helping them, or benefiting them, to the greatest extent available: minimally, taking care of their basic needs.

    That is not human rights but the machinations of some Western welfare states.

     

    • This reply was modified 5 days, 23 hours ago by  Davis.
    #39939

    Davis
    Moderator

    The only over arching ethical rule I think exists is simply to survive at any cost

    That isn’t an ethical rule. That is an evolutionary instinct. And clearly not strong enough considering how many people commit suicide and how many people do things they know will lead to an early death (smoking, drinking) and engage in reckless and violent behaviour (war, crime). And as a moral rule, it is hardly universal but is mostly a Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept (at least to do so any cost). This fairly toxic idea has led to, even today say in the UK, MPs voting against even the most extremely narrow laws allowing assisted suicide despite 80% of the population strongly supporting the law. Note that the few Western countries around the world permitting assisted suicide are highly secular ones. Almost ALL resistance (in the: at any cost)  is religious based using excuses like “if we allow this families will try to force their elderly relations to get rid of themselves” despite zero evidence this happens and the extreme restrictions of the proposed law (meaning this is just an excuse to perpetuate church based nonsense). Outside of Judeo-Christian-Islamic cultures, you don’t find too many cultures that look at suicide (at least in the most extreme cases) as an absolute moral wrong. There is much less taboo in animist and some Eastern cultures.

    The only moral law I know of which tends to be found in almost all (though not every single) moral systems is: “don’t pointlessly hurt others”. Even this is not absolute, as the values of some hedonist pushers would allow this.

    • This reply was modified 6 days, 11 hours ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 6 days, 11 hours ago by  Davis.
    #39880

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon, something can not be of use to you if you put little to no effort into really understanding them. Why should people take your own moral/ethical concepts seriously when you won’t put an effort into getting at least a basic grasp on the standard language and concepts?

    Secondly, you are using terms in your own way  which is extremely confusing to everyone else. If you cannot take the time to get acquainted with these terms, then invent your own. Not learning about what terms actually refer to and adopting them yourself in your own different way will not lead to anything useful.

    Thirdly, from what I can gather, you are really just reinventing the wheel with your moral system, only ending up with problems all your predecessors have encountered only have attempted to resolve better than you have. That is…your stubbornness to acquaint yourself with even a survey of the last 2500 years of moral systems, has led you to very badly reinventing the wheel.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Davis.
    #39872

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon, I think you need to acquaint yourself a little more thoroughly with the more well discussed moral systems. You keep saying things that are strange explanations of terms used in moral systems:

    • A duty is ideal performance that we owe to others and ourselves
    • There are no absolute moral principles, although there are absolute, abstract features of morality, like duty.
    • Does all of ethics boil down to The Good, singular?  That would be the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to all concerned.

    And this statement leads me to believe that you need to work a little more on even basic terms:

    I think it’s possible to construct an ethical system on what humans find normative

    #39871

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen, I was clearly referring to absolute moral systems with a pronounced unquestionable set of received rules like the bible or what a dictator says. I do not know if you are referring to duty re: virtue ethics, deontological ethics or some other system. If it is one of the earlier two, they are NOT absolute moral systems and are not necessarily garbage.

    #39845

    Davis
    Moderator

    Original sin is a grotesque concept, just as “family dishonour”, guilt by association/family, tribal retribution etc are toxic ideas outside of a primitive setting (and is arguably even toxic within one).

    That isn’t to say humans are not flawed. We are gargantuously flawed. We need things we have an extremely difficult time offering one another, we suffer from things we frequently do to one another, we have a terrible time overcoming evolutionary baggage and we constantly, no…endlessly do things against our best interests hurting ourselves and others. Yes. We are absurdly flawed. Religion via original sin or the less pernicious “life is suffering” or fatalist/nihilist approaches or the lesser well known chaos/unexplainable animist religions, explain human flaws in confusing and toxic ways, and their answer to them are usually terrible. Abrahamic ones: appologize for being who you are, submit to absurd rules and believe stupid shit. Bhuddism/Hinduism, embrace a folk-psychology to dealing with human problems. Animist: whatever happens via natures is what was meant to happen and blah blah. All of this doesn’t explain how and why we are flawed, what humans need, how we have overcome some of these problems (especially via enlightenment and humanist ideas) and extremely recent and effective solutions such as social-programs, extreme tollerance and freedoms and rights, education, greater awareness of psychology and sociology and economic development.

    Sin, and original sin…I would argue, are the most obscene way to deal with human flaws, morality and the human condition. It is an absolute fucking menace to human progress.

    #39844

    Davis
    Moderator

    Re: Absolutes:

    You should distinguish between the absolute re: the full integrity of a moral system vs absolute rules within a moral system. That is: a moral system is a fairly weak and ineffective one if it isn’t based on an all encompassing set of ideas which covers everything based on a finite set of rules/laws/concepts. For example utilitarianism doesn’t mean much if it only applies to the people you choose, for only some cases for whatever people you deem appropriate. Equally, deontological ethics don’t work if it is simply a: do it when it is convenient and not when it gets messy. I believe that Unseen was referring to the first (the absolute integrity of a moral system) which does not imply absolute universal moral rules.

    As per absolute universal moral rules, some moral systems have them, some don’t and some are more complicated. Ones that really don’t are utilitarianism, situational and consequential. Ones that absolutely do are received systems (what a book commands or a religion says or dictator pronounces) or legal systems. It gets messier with virtue ethics and deontological systems in particular where one formulates rules, those rules in themselves aren’t absolute in a universal nature, but subjectively as applied in a universal manner (which is not really absolute but I’ve probably lost some of you by now). I would argue, as Reg is…that any system that deals with pure absolute moral rules is awful, useless, toxic, dangerous, harmful and garbage.

    2.

    #39781

    Davis
    Moderator

    LOL Jake, he doesn’t even realise that we are NOT anti-capitalists but are simply not ignorant of the dangerous elements of capitalism and have a sliver of empathy for the victims of it. To think that any economic or political system doesn’t have issues that are harmful to some and to not want to deal with the human harm is to treat that system/ideology like the devout treat a religion and to show, at the very least, a weak form of sociopathy.

    So yeah, Enco, to not recognise the human fall out of a system/ideology is to be religious towards it. You are literally no different than religious zealots…only you seem to rail against religious zealots…so there is some hilarious hypocrisy/irony there.

    Your general lack of giving a shit about people suffering, often from no fault of their own? I don’t know if that is real or a front. It’s hard to tell if it is a sociopathic trait or just the narrative of an ideologue.

    Funniest of all…is you calling out Christians for assuming atheists “hate God” when they critique it…and yet are annoyed that we seemingly “hate capitalism” when we simply critique a few (and only a few) elements of it. Do you not know what an intellectual mirror is? You point the criticisms that you aim at others…at yourself once in a while to see if your own ideas stand up to scrutiny. Show some bravery and try it on yourself.

    #39772

    Davis
    Moderator

    If everyone started with the same genetics, the same incentives, the same capital, the same education, an equal amount of barriers (or lack of barriers) and the market behaved in a truly rational way and the extreme role of luck was diminished in come way (and consumers weren’t so easily duped into doing things against their interest)…then yes…the free market would be something worth admiring.

    Until then it should be seen for what it is: the most dependable engine of development and growth. This is extremely valuable, but it is also extremely destructive if the toxic elements of the free market aren’t accounted for. Some jurisdictions, most notably the United States, have created some fantasy narrative that the only way forward is to encourage this engine, ignore the fall out and pretend that the real life consequences and suffering of that fall out are because of something else [immigrants, bad-life-decisions, laziness, lack-of-embracing-the-market, etc] and that what is actually required  like strategic regulation (anti-pollution laws and labour protections), strategic restrictions ( powerful anti-monopoly laws) and support for the fall out (social programs and re-employment campaigns) is evil communism.

    I swear these days it’s almost like you could convince someone that accepting a free lunch with no strings attached is against their interests.

    #39705

    Davis
    Moderator

    Here is a map that shows the level of poverty by state. States more likely to support “small government, few social programs, little sympathy for those in a difficult situation, underfunded mental health systems” (basically the Republican party), the more likely there is to be high poverty levels. Of course, the story is always more complex (there are a couple glaring exceptions there), but one need only look at this map to see a general (though obviously not perfect) that many states can both give a shit about those in need and help them and be very prosperous. Seems to be they go hand in hand. Note you will find that in Europe the relationship between the two is far far stronger.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Davis.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,656 total)