Davis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,711 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40788

    Davis
    Moderator

    But moral behaviour

    What is moral behaviour?

    …as behaviour

    Huh? Let me read that again.

    But moral behaviour, as behaviour

    Huh?

    #40767

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon, the more you talk about this, the less I believe you have a basic grasp of it. I don’t know what motivates you to make conclusions on things you have a vague “skimmed” knowledge of, but it is odd to say the least. Intentions leads to actions leads to co sequences is nothing profound. Of course this is the case. Different people make different kinds of moral judgements in different situations and co sequences can take a leading or minimal role depending on various factors. Things like a legal system and bioethics for example are far less based on consequences (though co sequences may land you under scrutiny, they weigh much less on the moral judgement). You have such an unsophisticated and seemingly black and white view on things you seem to fail to realise the answer to most of your questions are: this is a shit-ton more complicated than I originally thought and that simple answers are absurd.

    #40755

    Davis
    Moderator

    No, we analyze such situations in terms of the intent, not their success or failure, when it comes to an ethical analysis.

    Indeed. It is absurd to base a moral judgement on chance. If a surgery is successful 90% of the time, then is it the case that in 9 operations the doctor made the right decision to operate and the 1 time the patient didn’t survive the doctor did not make the right decision? And even then, when you are dealing with experimental surgery where the rate of success is unknown, then you have little guidance to the chances of a desirable outcome and yet, in theory, for some moral systems, it is praiseworthy to pioneer a risky operation for the benefit of research and possible future success. It is likely to be beneficial, but in the end, it may turn out such an operation was a failure both in the experimental stage and it never leading to any useful surgical procedure in the future.

    Regardless of this, different moral systems deal with consequences so differently it ranges from being 0% relevant to something like 90% relevant. Again Simon, familiarising yourself with the basics of ethics and the basic moral systems would truly help you navigate all this.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Davis.
    #40754

    Davis
    Moderator

    Intentions could be said to be putting the conditions in place for actions

    Let me remove your weasel words:

    Intentions are putting conditions in place for actions.

    I am completely stumped on what this means. Could you please clarify Simon?

    #40752

    Davis
    Moderator

    If you are talking about consequences then you do not seem to understand deontological ethics. In any case, you didn’t answer my question, you just answered with a statement that is really a question (“but surely”). Even if consequences were relevant (which they aren’t regarding deontological ethics), saying actions are as important as consequences doesn’t tell me at all how it would even be possible to combine utilitarian and deontological moral systems. How would that work?

    By what method, in such a system, would you make moral judgements? Run me through this please. I am extremely curious how this could conceivably work.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Davis.
    #40738

    Davis
    Moderator

    Utilitarianism and deontological ethics cannot be bridged or merged or compromised. They are two totally different systems. Taking away the absolutism of deontological ethics would make it an entirely new system, as with taking away the flexibility of utilitarianism. It would not be utilitarianism anymore, but something new. It is very difficult to imagine how one could possibly create a coherent let alone effective moral system by combining the two.

    #40729

    Davis
    Moderator

    Yes, I agree (In general I find it difficult to disagree with anything you have written over the years and I do like to argue with people :-))

    Indeed we are very lucky to have you here Autumn

    #40711

    Davis
    Moderator

    Is it dismissing someone, or describing them?  It depends how you see it.

    Simon, if you want to walk down the road of relativism then do so at your own peril.

    #40698

    Davis
    Moderator

    The link here makes sense. He’s notable within atheist circles for a reason. I don’t assume links signal an endorsement or categorical agreement with the linked content.

    This is well said. Reg, you don’t have to worry so much about how we will react when you post someone who is ambiguous on the social justice scale (or all over the place or bi-polar such as Dawkins). I don’t think I’ve ever read one of your links and thought “ugh…why would Reg post something by that person, from that source or that content”. I would say, only an article that clearly endorses something outrageous or harmful without any obvious “irony”, “critique” or “humour” quality to it. Which of course I’ve never seen.

    I still admire the four horsemen, Peter Boghossian and Nicolas Taleb or at least what they have accomplished in the intellectual and humanist sphere, even though some of them can say or post ridiculously stupid and harmful shit sometimes.

    In fact I was only recently discussing the issue of fallen artistic heroes such as Wagner (anti-semitism), Roald Dahl (various bigoted comments). Rowling (transphobia and her belief that most of her fans agree with her transphobia) and so on. I still immensely enjoy their work and don’t for a second support the idea of throwing away their additions to wordily insight, creativity and artistic enjoyment.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by  Davis.
    #40680

    Davis
    Moderator

    The activation energy for spontaneous combustion  can be relatively small particularly if an accelerant is present. This is why combusting paper doesn’t hold a candle to levitation.

    It’s only been a couple weeks so there will certainly be more candidates in the future but I would put this down as the most quotable WTF comment on atheistzone for 2022!

    #40643

    Davis
    Moderator

    I cannot stand this “thriving” bullshit anymore Simon. You cannot reduce human behaviour and the essence of everything into one or two concepts. It is reductionism at its most absurd. I simply refuse to participate in this silliness anymore.

    #40642

    Davis
    Moderator

    I can think of many things that could falsify the theory of evolution:

    • Discovering several species which were clearly engineered by some intelligence other than ourselves (where the DNA of species before humans were capable of manipulating them showed clear signs of tampering by rational forces)
    • A new species emerging so rapidly it could not possibly have done so by natural selection
    • Finding out most of our fossil evidence was undeniably fabricated and that our theory of DNA was woefully inadequate to explain evolution
    • God showing up and logically explaining how we were wrong
    • Any number of discoveries which blatantly and inexplicably conflict with the theory of evolution

    In any case, comparing a tentative moral theory in its infancy with a robust and extremely well demonstrated scientific theory is ridiculous Simon.

    #40632

    Davis
    Moderator

    Actually an article that Reg once posted led me to looking far more into it and agriculture is not the only way to gain surpluses. There have been societies which have developed surpluses through nomadism (some steppe cultures), herding (some mountain cultures), fishing (some Pacific cultures) and even foraging (some North American indigenous cultures). While agriculture certainly sped up the pace of cultural development, it seems the key to humans creating grotesque power structures, injustice and general horror…is abundance, of which agriculture is just one example.

    As for evolution…as Reg also pointed out…evolution is ongoing. We have only seen a relatively small number of generations since humans departed from the conditions from which we emerged (rather small groups of humans, not competing much with one another with lots of space and plenty of concerns to preoccupy themselves with)…that is still enough generations to have some impact.

    I still maintain that the traits which enable human injustice when humans form societies…are simply by-products of our evolution, and not traits which directly helped us adapt in the environment in which we emerged.

    What changes in a few fortunate civilizations (at least for some people in them) is an awareness of all this, the drive (for whatever reason) to overcome it and at least some success at doing this.

    #40621

    Davis
    Moderator

    Of course it is a cop-out. Mass human cruelty is an evolutionary by-product. Nazi Germany is just an excessive example of what was going on for millennia anyways. Once humans started having a surplus of anything, they built unjust and unspeakably cruel systems. More altruistic and caring societies are exceptions that define the rule. Western democracies are not examples of evolutionary morality but partially the result of the enlightenment which was to escape human nature and remould ourselves into something based on self-awareness of our nature and deciding our own values and goals. It is a counter-reaction to evolutionary morality. Philosophers have been aware of human nature for centuries and have based moral systems on it. It is true that the better we understand how our morality evolved, the better we can develop moral systems, but to base our systems on human nature, rather than to simply have an understanding of human nature in mind while reshaping it, seems regressive.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  Davis.
    #40617

    Davis
    Moderator

    All I can do at this point is roll my eyes and sigh and laugh. Good luck with that Simon…I guess.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,711 total)