Lars

jakelafort wrote:
It is not fair or reasonable to abnegate the inner turmoil of other species based on criteria used to evaluate humans.

Jake it seems like you want to have it both ways. First…we shouldn’t compare them to humans. But then you compare them with human mental problems. I’m very confused here.

Secondly, no one is denying how close…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
@davis – can you give an example of where the Categorical Imperative is used in real life?

Not until you put those 15 questionable actions in order. I’ll tell you after you do that.

_Robert_ wrote:
Thanks Davis. I have committed just about everything on your list at least one time except for waterboarding of course. The last one was my favorite. I needed stuff for the confessional you know.

You haven’t lived until you extract unreliable information from a perhaps innocent person through torture you could claim isn’t really t…[Read more]

Objective methods don’t work.

@Robert. Indeed. One thing I very much like about deontological moral systems, is that you become the law maker. No one needs to dictate laws to you. The only challenge is how seriously you take your own moral rules. Under some versions of deontological morality, there is no better or worse crime (in theory), only b…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
robots acting with “good intentions”?

It does remind me of “Data” in Star Trek, who seems the only character that follows the rules to its most difficult rendering (often in danger to him) and his final sacrafice. The few times he breaks those rules (like rescuing the little girl on a Vulcanic planet) he does it by h…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
@davis – “hierarchies” – what I mean is, we can compare any two crimes and usually, one will be worse than another.

Great. Could you please at least list those 15 unfavorable acts from worst to least worse???

Simon Paynton wrote:
I think it is fairly straightforward to work out a hierarchy of imperatives

First of all. Please stop referring to imperatives as a set of moral laws. The CI is independent of moral laws, to put it very briefly: it is a tool used to understand, test, apply and make sense of moral laws. It is not a moral law nor a generator…[Read more]

@Reg re:CI

That’s a fairly reasonable summary. The CI is a tool in deontological ethics. Without it, your own moral laws that you devise would be fairly meaningless. But you can easily form your moral laws well before the CI comes into it. And in any case, despite it being called “categorical” and an “imperative”, it is just a tool, not an ab…[Read more]

Threshold deontology is a series of theoretical approaches to moral conflicts. It is not a theory. The Stanford article tries to discuss the many approaches to deontological ethics, but don’t confuse that with a long article of authors who are known, read, discussed or taken seriously. I cannot find a single book with an author who directly posits…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Davis if i were to make a joke then using your criteria Earle and Trump are incapable of internalizing pain.

LOL Trump cares too much about what people think of him, he never forgets an insult, he relives hurtful episodes in his mind from decades ago, he blames those for his pain who had nothing to do with it, whines “that’s n…[Read more]

Brightsky wrote:
Its a theory ( not a law) to test a persons stage of moral development. There are 6 stages By prof Lawrence Kohlberg.

I have a lot of major issues with his 6 stages, not because they don’t individually shed light on different responses to moral problems, but because he creates a ladder when one development stage proceeds the n…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
I think that Kant’s Categorical Imperative could be made useable with two steps: 1.  introduce a heirarchy of imperatives:

Simon that completely loses the point of the imperative. If some imperatives are less imperative than others (I don’t even know how that is possible) then you would suddenly have to introduce a moral no…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
If animals are suffering with the same disorders isn’t it reasonable to assume they have internalized pain?

Well that depends doesn’t it. If they are able to do even some of the things I’ve mentioned earlier like agonize over it, relive it, feel or give blame, have the ability to forgive, reflect on what lead to the pain, pr…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
If I believe adultery is always wrong and say so – is that hateful?

No it isn’t because choosing to deceive your partner is a CHOICE you can EASILY AVOID by not deceiving them. Being gay is NOT A CHOICE. This has been well demonstrated empirically. You don’t wake up one day and say…hey I’d love to be discriminated ag…[Read more]

@davis Son of God sounds just like Bride of Godzilla to me.

Or maybe Spawn of Gargamel? 😉

_Robert_ wrote:
When one uses the term “greater good”, objectivity and universality are cooked.

It’s partly the reason why I am really hesistant to take some moral systems seriously. Utilitarianism and consequence based moral systems are more about social engineering rather than the integrity and strength of of moral laws. Greater good is the fou…[Read more]

@davis Son of God sounds just like Bride of Godzilla to me.

Earle Sanborn wrote:
It’s always fascinating to me how people try their utmost to prove The Son of God either never existed or was just another prophet, etc.

Would someone please do something about this guy? He is repeatedly blabbing the same recycled shit about evolution not being scientific anymore and some religious apologetic and will NOT de…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
“what is good for society?” or in other words, a large group.

Actually, that isn’t the point of the categorical imperative. Besides the main point I’ve already mentioned (holding to your moral rules without justifying exceptions), you must act AS THOUGH others would follow that rule. That doesn’t mean that the point of it is…[Read more]