Unseen

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Like I said, moral systems aren’t true or false. They are helpful or they are not.

“Helpful” implies “true” or “realistic”.

Once again, the dictates of a moral system are advice, not facts, so the result isn’t a truth. There is no constraint on them necessitating they be realistic. Sometimes, there are thi…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Simon’s system explains things (to his mind) so well that there are no problems that cause him to lose sleep at night. He couldn’t think of even one. That is very suspicious.

You’re right, I misunderstood your question. You were talking about actual real-life moral questions; I was talking about moral philo…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Out of interest, how would utilitarianism, or Kantianism, resolve moral dilemmas in ways that are not crude, simplistic, and unrealistic?

It doesn’t matter, since I admit that because they are real and not reductionist theories, they DO have problems. At best, they offer guidance, though how to apply that guidance can be…[Read more]

@ Reg

Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, though it is taught as if it is, because a university doesn’t know how else to build a course around it and assign credits. This isn’t to say that there’s no worth in studying “the giants.” Still, one can conceivably do valuable philosophy in total ignorance of them. In fact, a fresh start could yield…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
People may propose anything they like, but that doesn’t make it true.  It helps philosophical theories if they are true.

Moral systems aren’t true or false. They help us make difficult moral decisions or they don’t.

Both Kant’s universalisation, and Mill’s utilitarianism, are riddled with problems and incons…

[Read more]

unapologetic wrote:

the January 6 conspirators, the Manhattan Project, and The Beatles.

What? How can you lump The Beatles in with the other two? Just what are you implying about The Beatles?’

That their compatibility fell apart later on in their career and sometimes were at each other’s throats.

Simon Paynton wrote:
In the case of moral dilemmas, they’re difficult choices by definition.  The arguments for and against are evenly matched, and possibly high-stakes, on both sides.  So no moral system can resolve them satisfactorily.  The moral system I espouse, recognises that you have to go over each side of the argument, and then make the…

[Read more]

@ Simon

In more than one philosophical discussion here I’ve staked this ground: A solution to a philosophical problem that only philosophers can understand isn’t a solution.

Philosophy isn’t like the traditional sciences where we can largely take an expert’s word that evolution is the best explanation for how the creatures of today got here, or…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
I can recognise nagging problems, I just haven’t mentioned any.

Gee, I wonder why(?). OK, give us some examples of issues in your theory yet to be explained.

I can’t think of any. I’m sure there are some.

Not even one? That’s because there are none. And that ain’t good.

I wrote: Value theory isn’t about standar…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
It’s the other way round – telling us where morality comes from tells us how we make moral choices.

Morality doesn’t “come from” a statistical or behavioral analysis. Behaving the way my group or clan or tribe expects or wants me to isn’t morality. What’s “moral” about it?

I can recognise nagging problems, I just hav…

[Read more]

@ Simon

Let me put this bluntly: Telling us how we make moral choices doesn’t tell us where morality  comes from.

In order to do philosophy, you have to have a system of knowledge and information to use as data.

That’s simply absurd unless you mean something as puerile as “you need to have eyes, ears, and a sense of smell operating.” To do…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
It’s possible to follow moral rules while doing immoral things.

Then what’s the use of having such a system.

Once the Romans had decided to achieve their goals at the expense of others – you still wouldn’t expect them all to turn into thieves and liars towards each other, and start fighting like rats in a sack.

And yet, that…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
If the goal is a morally bad goal – think, Putin’s Russia – then some of those ideal behaviours will also be morally bad.

Rome did a lot to civilize the world and it do so by subjugating peoples, often brutally. Were the Roman emperors acting morally?

Of course he’ll use it for whatever he likes, Big Macs, bad attorneys who embarrass themselves in court, his OnlyFans account, whatever.

Simon Paynton wrote:
I’ve been studying evolutionary ethics for about 13 years.  I’ve found that morality is both simpler and more complicated than people think.

Morality is the self-regulation within a cooperative unit or group.  So, I govern myself; you govern me; I govern you; we govern each other and ourselves on behalf of the group, in the d…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
As a kid i always heard Yiddish is just low German. But i did read a long scholarly article about Yiddish and its influences are diverse.

We’re a long way from the original topic but…what is Yiddish?

Well, one facile answer to where the word comes from is that it’s a corruption of the German word for “jewish” which is “jüdisch” (approximately pronounced “yoodish”). Many English slang words have been taken from Yiddish, especially ones starting with the “sh” sound (schlep,…[Read more]

Give Davis a break. I don’t think he’s a native English speaker (are you, Davis?).

There are several definitions of “scrounge” but the relevant one is to gather or round up or collect something, and one of the antisemitic tropes is that Jews are obsessed with money to the point of engaging in cheating, fraud, or usery to get money.

Jews and…[Read more]