Unseen

@Unseen wrote some stuff similar to stuff he has written already.

Can you name one scientific principle we today generally regard as true that has always been held to be so, and not just by individuals but by entire societies? Not gravity.  Not genetics.  Not evolution. Not the big bang theory.

Could it be that universality is not a criteria f…[Read more]

@regthefronkeyfarmer – I agree, a concept doesn’t have to match up with reality.

@unseen – I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

@jakelafort – there are two classes of ethical principles: interpersonal, and cultural.  The interpersonal were the original ones from small groups before culture and religion, which is why they are shared by…[Read more]

@unseen – “ethical notions (probably a better word than “concepts”)”

– you’ve moved from “concepts” to “notions” for no good reason.

“how can you defend the notion that ethical notions can be anything other than artifactual (tied to a culture, society, or social group…or even an individual person)?”

– there are ethical notions shared by every…[Read more]

@unseen – “Those ethical concepts are artifactual, not built into reality.”

– they’re scientific concepts.  Do you not agree with the concept of concepts?  Do you think that they’re not a thing?  How do you account for mathematics?

@unseen – “The only fact involved is an unshareable state of mind, known only to you, not a state of affairs in the external world.”

– yes, but there is the fact of the act itself, together with the ethical concepts against which it is measured.

@unseen – “Where do you imagine you get the values that give you those opinions and attitudes?”

– personal thriving (balanced with the thriving of others).

– cultural norms (those “twisting gardens of rules”).

The legitimate question does remain, asked by religious people, and @unseen, “who is the authority on right and wrong?”

Related questions are, what should I do, and why should I do it?  which results in “be nice to others”, and “why should I be nice to others?”  The answer to the second one has to be positivity: positive consequences internally a…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
…to answer @unseen‘s question, it can’t exist separately from the animal kingdom except in an abstract sense, as a description of certain kinds of behaviour.

Yeah, but what you describe as Evil today might not have been Evil 5o0 years back and might not be 500 years in the future. Evil is not some timeless descriptor, you…[Read more]

“we cannot make broad conclusions about evil”

– I’m just picking one kind and exploring it.  As you point out, hurting people for fun is not a sustainable strategy for thriving.

“That is human nature.”

– it seems to be in the nature of animals who live in social groups: a social phenomenon.  At the same time, to answer @unseen‘s question, it c…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
@unseen – if you define something such that it cannot exist, then the reason it doesn’t exist is its definition. That’s not an interesting or useful reason for saying something doesn’t exist. It’s a trivial tautology to point out that X logically impossible thing is logically impossible.

That’s stupid. So the reasons u…[Read more]

@unseen – if you define something such that it cannot exist, then the reason it doesn’t exist is its definition.  That’s not an interesting or useful reason for saying something doesn’t exist.  It’s a trivial tautology to point out that X logically impossible thing is logically impossible.

@unseen – “To a devout Hindu, for example, a beef pot roast is a travesty against Heaven.”

– some definitions are local and cultural, and some are universal and objective, such as spite.

“It would exist even … if LIFE had never evolved!”

– surely it’s impossible to have an attribute of life which exists even without life.

Simon Paynton wrote:
@unseen – “isn’t Evil a sort of thing just like God that people invented? Not real, but just something we think (or hope) is real, just as we think goodness is real?” – I don’t understand why you would take this position, unless you have defined evil out of existence. Clearly it exists, we see it every day, unlike God.

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
@unseen – what’s your definition of Evil-with-a-capital-E?

Real things may HAVE a definition but don’t NEED one. Zebras are real independent of definition. Just ask a lion. LOL

A definition would be hard, but it would have to involve being something both real and eternal and independent of human whims. It would exist even…[Read more]

@unseen – what’s your definition of Evil-with-a-capital-E?

Simon Paynton wrote:
@unseen – “isn’t Evil a sort of thing just like God that people invented? Not real, but just something we think (or hope) is real, just as we think goodness is real?” – I don’t understand why you would take this position, unless you have defined evil out of existence. Clearly it exists, we see it every day, unlike God. I can…

[Read more]

@unseen – “isn’t Evil a sort of thing just like God that people invented? Not real, but just something we think (or hope) is real, just as we think goodness is real?”

– I don’t understand why you would take this position, unless you have defined evil out of existence.  Clearly it exists, we see it every day, unlike God.

I can see that there ar…[Read more]

@unseen – I think “good” and “evil” are real and not constructs.  Hitler’s Germany was an evil place where people did evil things.  Evil reigned for a number of years.  Isis are evil, and where Isis reign, evil reigns.

@jakelafort – “The sophisitication of cooperation is quite remarkable not only intra-species but among different species.”

– it…[Read more]

Bellen wrote:
@unseen

Most people who want guns will cite self-protection as a reason for wanting firearms. Howeverl I think even gun proponents would agree that the most useful firearm for self protection, in most circumstances, is not a rifle, shotgun, or assault-style weapon (like the AR-15), but rather a simple handgun.

It really depends on…

[Read more]

@unseen There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to regulating gun ownership in the USA – it’s quite strong here in Vermont.  The question I have, is what is the constitutional position on “well regulated”?  I have seen people quote “second amendment” rather abundantly recently, but not actually quote the valid sentence.  I had imagined that “well r…[Read more]