Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by -1- » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:12 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:45 pm
. Your feeling, that there is an ultimate moral code that is incongruous with law, I am sorry, that idea is a bit foreign to me.
Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Let's consider a case study :

Suppose we have two legislators in two well-developed countries L1 and L2 :

Let's say that we have an Ultimate moral code , a Deontological (Kantian ethics) set of do's and don'ts, (remember, I think that ethics are deontological).

L1 and L2 (from different very developed countries, the best countries of their kind in terms of their legal constitution) :

Let's consider a set circumstances C, and a property or value V .. so that :

According to L1 : A thief that steals goods of value V under a set of circumstances C is to serve from 6 months to 1 year in prison.

According to L2 : A thief that steals goods of value V under a set of circumstances C is to serve from 1 year to 1 year and a half in prison.


Suppose that the ultimate moral code (deontologically ethical code) dictates that it is not right to deprive a person from their freedom why is this ultimate? Is it written in a big book or something? AND dictates that it is right to punish a thief who steals goods of value V under circumstances C by depriving him/her from freedom no more than 1 year.

Now, would you say that L2 is committing an act that is morally false ?

If the Deontological theory of ethics is right, then there is a specific set of do's and don'ts under such conditions, and since L1 and L2 have different decisions made regarding their laws, it follows that likely one of them is committing an immoral act. What if the deontological theory of ethics dictates that thief's hands must be chopped off? Who is to say this is or isn't a deontological truth? If off-chopping is true (which we will never get to know if it deontologically true), then both L1 and L2 are committing immorality.

So, unless all legislations in the world agree on one legal code, it is very difficult to hold an absolutist view of morality (or deontological view of morality), and think that all of the legal systems and constitutions in the world (I mean well developed legal institutions) are morally justified . I think this is not at all logical. All courts could be wrong, and miss the ultimate moral code, which you assume exists.

I do not say that it is impossible, I am just saying that it is very difficult :

Even if we do not know what ultimate morality dictates as to what the maximum moral punishment ought to be in this case, we still know that either L2 commits an immoral act, or L1 did not do a good job to serve the victims who lost their goods (which is also immoral). They could both be immoral.

So, law (in general) is not based on a strict set of moral truths. Because moral truths don't exist as far as humans know. You assume they do, but then if you want me to believe you, you have to prove that. Until then moral truths are a mirage, a phantasm, a conjecture, which does not hold water.

But there should be strict moral truths because we somehow know the limits where justice ends, and where oppression starts. That is : I know that if the thief is punished by serving 10 years in prison for stealing a chicken is oppression, and I know that serving 3 hours does injustice to that family which are deprived of their meal. So, the exact just punishment must be somewhere in between ... I do not know how much time he should serve, and I doubt any legislator knows for sure, that's why laws are not based on any ethical theory.

How should a law be devised then? a consequentialist theory that measures how much money (or value) is lost in the incident?

No, because it would still be unfair to punish two killers A and B by serving the same term , knowing that A killed by accident, and B killed intentionally.

It is difficult to decide, I know something or two about philosophy of ethics, but I have no good background in Philosophy of Law
I'm having a hard time how you arrive at these moral considerations. You insist there are absolute moral truths; there are none that mankind is aware of. Unless of course one believes in the scriptures, which are unproven conjectures. A belief does not justify considerations beyond the believer.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by -1- » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:16 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:01 pm
By the way, for the problems raised regarding law and morality, one of the outlets I can think of is legal interpretivism : that is, to consider that whatever a law dictates must be morally true. A veritably haphazard and not logical assumption; it sounds more like a forced axiom. A connection between two types of things, arbitrarily declared to be bound together.

Although it has its problems too (probably, some problems are more serious than what natural law theory may encounter).

barbarianhorde
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by barbarianhorde » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:01 am

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:42 pm
Hi,

My name is Mohamed, 30 years old, from Morocco, a full-time programmer. I subscribed to this forum because philosophy is one of my interests : what is existence? why does stuff exist? what is consciousness and how it is generated in the brain? what establishes values and ethics?...etc. These are some of the many questions that I enjoy pondering whenever I have time to think.

As for some philosophical positions I agree with :

Metaphysics :
Realism: I think there is some unknown substance that exists outside the mind, which is interpreted to what we call the Universe.
Parmenidean more than Heraclitean : I think that ultimate reality is most likely non-changing, but somehow our perception of reality looks like there is change.
Monism : I think there is one type of substance that constitutes existence, and it is matter (not to be confused with matter in physics, matter here is everything that is subject to physical laws : energy, matter, space-time, forces..etc.)

Epistemology :

Skepticism: I think absolute knowledge is impossible.
Agnosticism: I do not know whether deities exists or not.
Empiricism: I believe that in the most cases, experience is the only source of knowledge (if there is knowledge), and rationalism is sometimes useful.

Philosophy of Value :

Deontological Ethics : I think good is intrinsically good ... there are things that we ought to do under some situations, regardless of their consequences
Stoicism : I consider myself a stoic, and I do my best to act as one (it is difficult)
Nihilism : I think ultimate reality has no meaning or purpose.
Existentialism : I think purpose and meaning emerges from our brain, right after our birth (or during pregnancy we are the purpose and meaning of our parents)

Economy : Capitalism ... Although I like the ethics of communism and socialism, I think capitalism is more successful.

Philosophy of Religion :
Atheism : I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in God or no-God.

Philosophy of Mind :
Materialism (physicalism) : I think that consciousness is produced by the physical brain.
/And if materialism is false, my second option would be Neutral Monism . ( I think idealism and dualism are probably false).

Philosophy of Law
Legal Realism : I think that laws are not based on morality or social facts, but instead laws are established based on random circumstances (history, rulers, people...etc).

I think that's enough to know something about me :)

Hi Mohammed.
Im new here so the attitude I'm about to strike doesn't really befit the situation but here goes anyhow:
Why should we care?

(This is the fault of a guy named promethean75 on ilovephilosopy who used you as an example of how great it is here)

Why is it valuable to anyone to know that you check off boxes in categories of traditional knowledge?
Who cares?

By all means have a great stoic experience, this site is perfect for that. But I happened to have dropped by and Im a disagreeable person and sometimes feel like autism is the best way forward.



PS Im very serious though.
What is "a philosophical position" really worth.
How come there are so many people with philosophical positions and the world is apparently being run by idiots?

User avatar
mohamedtaqi
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by mohamedtaqi » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:58 am

Why is it valuable to anyone to know that you check off boxes in categories of traditional knowledge?
Who cares?
Precisely the friend with the username -1- (One) obviously cares about discussing points in stoicism and philosophy of law.

And there are 7B people worldwide, roughtly 4 B use the web .. so who cares? is a question I cannot answer with "none" because I have to check them one by one. And at least if one of them cares then the answer "none" is false. Which is the case since at least one person took some time to show me that they care.

And even if none cares there is one person who cares : and I would be more than happy to discuss these subjects with myself on this forum.

Hope this helps.

User avatar
mohamedtaqi
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by mohamedtaqi » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:16 am

Why is it valuable to anyone to know that you check off boxes in categories of traditional knowledge?
Who cares?

By all means have a great stoic experience, this site is perfect for that. But I happened to have dropped by and Im a disagreeable person and sometimes feel like autism is the best way forward
Seriously I am not claiming that you don't have the right to think that none cares, but bear with me.

This category is for "self introduction" ... please introduce yourself and see if I would care?

Of course more than half would not care at all if your name is Joe and play violin.

But nevertheless one has to introduce oneself.

And by the way if you love stoicism , I do personally care

Have a nice day :)

Skepdick
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by Skepdick » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:21 am

barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:01 am
What is "a philosophical position" really worth.
How come there are so many people with philosophical positions and the world is apparently being run by idiots?
While you are around disagreeable people I'll ask a few hard questions..

How come nobody can ever figure another person's philosophical position empirically e.g by observation? Why is it that we always have to ask and be told? Why is it that "different philosophical positions" don't result in empirically distinguishable consequences, hence reducing philosophy to nothing but inconsequential narratives.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.--William James

PTH
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by PTH » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:59 am

barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:01 am
Why is it valuable to anyone to know that you check off boxes in categories of traditional knowledge?
To be fair, I though it was quite a good way of summarising a set of philosophical principles.

Now, I would be interested in traditional philosophical concerns, and that's probably a given.
barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:01 am
How come there are so many people with philosophical positions and the world is apparently being run by idiots?
That looks to me to be a useful topic for a thread, if there hasn't been a similar one already.

Because, indeed, do philosophies have any impact? I suppose Marx had an impact, and some folk may have claimed an influence from folk like Mill.

But, that said, did even those philosophers make a difference, or are their works more symptoms of currents of their times? If folk are currently getting interested in Stoicism, is that because Stoicism is something that will make us do something different - or is it just giving us some kind of fancy terminology to describe how we plan to behave, regardless?

And there's probably enough variety of philosophers to "rediscover" one to cover any attitude or belief I feel like advancing.

User avatar
mohamedtaqi
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by mohamedtaqi » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:16 am

Suppose that the ultimate moral code (deontologically ethical code) dictates that it is not right to deprive a person from their freedom why is this ultimate? Is it written in a big book or something? AND dictates that it is right to punish a thief who steals goods of value V under circumstances C by depriving him/her from freedom no more than 1 year.

Sure it gets interesting here :)

I did not say that I believe in God or scripture? and I am sure It does not influence my views : When you help someone in need, I think that is a good behaviour.

Not only consequently good, but also intrinsically good in that exact situation. AND I do not believe that there is a God or scripture that makes it good

(scriptures do not dictate morals and this is my answer on stack exchange philosophy about this :
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... 0299#60299 )

_____

So, here is my question to you just to make things clear :

Do you think that this proposition is true :

if Deontological Ethics is true then God exists?

Or put simply : if good is intrinsically good then God exists?

Do not you see any other source (other than Gods or scriptures) that makes this good intrinsically good?

Skepdick
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by Skepdick » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:55 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:45 pm
No, because it would still be unfair to punish two killers A and B by serving the same term , knowing that A killed by accident, and B killed intentionally.

It is difficult to decide, I know something or two about philosophy of ethics, but I have no good background in Philosophy of Law
FYI, your scenario is incomplete.

The Law does not punish all killers. There is a form of killing which is justifiable in law - self-defence.
This is where it's worth examining the different legal systems which nuance between the circumstances of death.

The American system has degrees of murder
Some legal systems have culpable homicide which is effectively "you broke the law unintentionally, but you must still be punished for the sake of lawfulness".

Often it all boils down to the notion of "intent", but some legal systems have various degrees of intent also.

In practice it's difficult to distinguish between 'culpable homicide' and 'dolus eventualis' except by examining prior legal precedents.

Also in practice, you can be convicted of murder based on 'dolus eventualis'. which is effectively saying "consequentialism trumps deontology". Best intentions are not an excuse for negligence Q.E.D Oscar Pistorius.

For the record, I don't believe that anybody actually believes in deontology, even though they say they do. When you are considering your "morally good actions" you are actually performing a Gedankenexperiment. You are computing consequences, even if those consequences are only 2 seconds into the future.

A good intention that results in a bad outcome is just an inaccurate prediction of cause-effect.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by -1- » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:18 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:16 am
Suppose that the ultimate moral code (deontologically ethical code) dictates that it is not right to deprive a person from their freedom why is this ultimate? Is it written in a big book or something? AND dictates that it is right to punish a thief who steals goods of value V under circumstances C by depriving him/her from freedom no more than 1 year.

Sure it gets interesting here :)

I did not say that I believe in God or scripture? and I am sure It does not influence my views : When you help someone in need, I think that is a good behaviour. Not good for the enemies of the helped one. Good deeds are always, always, relative, subjective. There is no objectively absolute good deed in the world.

Not only consequently good, but also intrinsically good in that exact situation. AND I do not believe that there is a God or scripture that makes it good Okay, consider this example: What if someone is about to kill your baby, but he breaks his leg on his way to your baby's house? You help him, you mend his leg, you give him crutches to walk with, he thanks you and then goes on walks over to your baby and kills your baby. Why is it INTRINSICALLY good to help him? Is not ABATING a crime and an immoral act immoral? this is the very logic you brought up with the example of L1 and L2.

(scriptures do not dictate morals and this is my answer on stack exchange philosophy about this :
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... 0299#60299 )

_____

So, here is my question to you just to make things clear :

Do you think that this proposition is true :

if Deontological Ethics is true then God exists? No. No, no and no. But if God exists, then Deontolgoical Ethics is true.

Or put simply : if good is intrinsically good then God exists? No. But believers beleive that if god exists then intrinsic good exists.

Do not you see any other source (other than Gods or scriptures) that makes this good intrinsically good? All good things are potentially bad things. All good thngs in practice can be proven to be a bad thing. It is all relative.
I am sorry, Mohamed, about the attack that BarbarianHorde has done on you. It is his business if he is not interested in what you say, but it is not his business to say "who cares". That was despicable by him. If he does not care, others still might. His view serves no philosophical purpose; he is just being a busy-body, talking without saying something. I hate people like that. "Who cares?" What a rube. He has no sense of reality.

And to be honest, I really enjoyed your introduction, it was very well done. I think it was interesting, thought-provoking, and an EXXCELLENT introduction into who you are.

In consequent posts you proved that your thought patterns reflect a pattern AS IF you believed in god. I noticed this is typical of the few Arab thinkers (not that I had known many) that I have come across: they are vicious believers in absolutes, in morals, in protecting the downtrodden, etc., and when they encounter opposing views they can't believe this can exist.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by HexHammer » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:02 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:36 pm
'Sun Tzu - Business Philosophy
Thank you so much for the reference, I have read Sun Tzu's Art of War (forgive my ignorance, that's the only Sun Tzu I know).
Classical philosophy is just mental masturbation on par with a dog chasing it's own tail.
In a sense, yes it is .. but I think its genuine questions will haunt humans for thousands if not millions of years to come. Philosophy is outdated yes, but people learning it are not, new humans in the next generation will go back to this outdated philosophy to explore these ideas and questions. Ever listened to an old music and found out later that it is outdated ?

Either that, or postmodernism, which I think is non-philosophical and devoid of any sense. But I will look into Sun Tzu. Thanks again.
In USA they have refined it and you should study the refined Sun Tzu.

99.99% of all classical philosophy is outdated and should be refined, tho there still are some things that are still valid, like the 'Socratic Methodology' and some few other things.

But wasting time interpreting what Plato and other philosophers meant by this and that will get you nowhere in life.

barbarianhorde
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by barbarianhorde » Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:16 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:21 am
barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:01 am
What is "a philosophical position" really worth.
How come there are so many people with philosophical positions and the world is apparently being run by idiots?
While you are around disagreeable people I'll ask a few hard questions..

How come nobody can ever figure another person's philosophical position empirically e.g by observation? Why is it that we always have to ask and be told? Why is it that "different philosophical positions" don't result in empirically distinguishable consequences, hence reducing philosophy to nothing but inconsequential narratives.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.--William James
Precisely.

Me personally I have had to develop my own philosophical logic in order to change, well really, in order to survive.
I had been an avid student of philosophy for basically my whole life, even though before I was 19 I didn't call it philosophy - but no thinker ever had the kind of impact on me that caused me to truly alter my world.

But once I discovered my own way of integrating all models and ideas Id worked with, everything changed. Not just that, everyone around me was affected.
And only since then Ive considered myself a philosopher.

And of course then I got people like "1" here who are very offended that instead of quoting some logically incomplete speculations from olden days, I actually say something that has consequences. I schooled a bunch of people on the topic of Socrates here earlier and that didn't go down well, they figure Socrates is a God, which is very ironic.

Socrates knew of himself that he was just a scoundrel. He may have been smarter than the average man and played his cards to acquire fame, but he doesn't impress me, and didn't when I read Plato in school.

So, Mohamed, do you have a question? One that you inadvertently ask yourself? I know "1" does not - but you are better than him.

Only when you fail to be impressed by the philosophical canon is there any chance you might ever understand what philosophy is. And who knows - maybe you do! Im just trying to find that out. Naturally the "scholars" here find this infuriating.

User avatar
mohamedtaqi
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by mohamedtaqi » Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:01 pm

So, Mohamed, do you have a question? One that you inadvertently ask yourself?
Actually there are questions that I ask myself that are not sufficiently addressed in mainstream philosophy, that is not to say that mainstream philosophy is useless.

Most questions I ask are metaphysical questions like : Is existence something at all? And my conclusion is that existence is nothing ... because if A is B, what is B? B is C , what is C? C is D ... ad infinitum.

And since I think probably things are finite, it follows that there is something (let's call it Z), so that Z is not anything. Z just exists, it cannot "is" anything else, it just exists.

So, what is the Universe has no answer, because there is nothing that the Universe "is" ..

This one I think is the most difficult question in my opinion .. and my answer could be wrong. Another question is : What makes my conscious this "I" and not your "I" .. it was possible for you to be born with the exact same brain and body, while you see the world as me ...as though we switched bodies.

But what makes this consciousness Me? It was possible for me to be in another brain, but what ties me exactly to this brain?

Metaphysical questions are very difficult.

barbarianhorde
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by barbarianhorde » Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:25 pm

mohamedtaqi wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:01 pm
So, Mohamed, do you have a question? One that you inadvertently ask yourself?
Actually there are questions that I ask myself that are not sufficiently addressed in mainstream philosophy, that is not to say that mainstream philosophy is useless.

Most questions I ask are metaphysical questions like : Is existence something at all? And my conclusion is that existence is nothing ... because if A is B, what is B? B is C , what is C? C is D ... ad infinitum.
But... who says A = B?
And since I think probably things are finite, it follows that there is something (let's call it Z), so that Z is not anything. Z just exists, it cannot "is" anything else, it just exists.
Why do you think probably things are finite?
And what do you mean, things are finite in their extension or there is a finite amount of things?
So, what is the Universe has no answer, because there is nothing that the Universe "is" ..
How did you arrive there? You didn't present any path to that conclusion.
This one I think is the most difficult question in my opinion .. and my answer could be wrong. Another question is : What makes my conscious this "I" and not your "I" .. it was possible for you to be born with the exact same brain and body, while you see the world as me ...as though we switched bodies.
Why was that possible?
But what makes this consciousness Me? It was possible for me to be in another brain, but what ties me exactly to this brain?
Why was that possible?
Metaphysical questions are very difficult.
But you're not asking metaphysical questions here. Asking a metaphysical question does not mean to ignore physical realities, on the contrary - metaphysical law is the very measure of strictness of observed physical law.

I have an actual metaphysical one for you.
If existence is nothing, why do you care? Is the caring that you do not something?

User avatar
mohamedtaqi
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Re: Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

Post by mohamedtaqi » Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:04 pm

I am sorry, Mohamed, about the attack that BarbarianHorde has done on you. It is his business if he is not interested in what you say, but it is not his business to say "who cares". That was despicable by him. If he does not care, others still might. His view serves no philosophical purpose; he is just being a busy-body, talking without saying something. I hate people like that. "Who cares?" What a rube. He has no sense of reality.

And to be honest, I really enjoyed your introduction, it was very well done. I think it was interesting, thought-provoking, and an EXXCELLENT introduction into who you are.

In consequent posts you proved that your thought patterns reflect a pattern AS IF you believed in god. I noticed this is typical of the few Arab thinkers (not that I had known many) that I have come across: they are vicious believers in absolutes, in morals, in protecting the downtrodden, etc., and when they encounter opposing views they can't believe this can exist.

Thank you ! Actually before writing my introduction, I wrote the title , and then I was stuck, I did not know what to say : I do not travel, I do not have day to day friends, I have autism, besides I did not want to mention anything that is not related to philosophy.

The paradox, is that if "none cares" then this whole category of self-introduction would be useless ... it would be very irrational to keep it. Why would I introduce myself if no one cares?!

It is maybe right to some extent : people like to talk about themselves more than other people are willing to listen, a guy in love would nod and pretend like he cares about what color his girlfriend likes , while in fact who cares?! she is hot !

It is interesting how people find it fuzzy to know what they do and do not care about.

I know that most people do not care about your philosophical positions ... but all I know is that most of us care about what 9/11 terrorists had in their minds (if they had minds).

Most of us only care in extreme cases, because that's what triggers our concerns.
In consequent posts you proved that your thought patterns reflect a pattern AS IF you believed in god. I noticed this is typical of the few Arab thinkers
Ah, I see .. My name and family name (Taqi means Pious) are Arabic, my family is Amazigh (aka berber ... and berbers are not technically considered Arabs here). I only started learning Arabic at age 6 . But nevertheless I was raised a Muslim (with some Jewish influence) . At age 16 I considered myself a nonreligious.

I do not believe God exists, in fact : God probably does not exist ( I can't say that with 100% certainty but I am convinced that God probably does not exist)

I am a Nihilist, I think the Universe inherently has no meaning or purpose at all, because meaning and purpose are very complex that they need a complex system (like a brain) to emerge, same goes for our perception of moral truths.

But who established these moral truths?

Probably it is not God ... these moral truths (deontological ethics) are forced upon us by necessity, not by any sentient law-giver.

How is that possible? I will show you while replying to your other comments :

Not good for the enemies of the helped one. Good deeds are always, always, relative, subjective. There is no objectively absolute good deed in the world.
I am not talking about something that is Good (absolutely good), no ... I am a relativist too. Deontology does not mean absolutism, there is a difference between these terms.

Deontological ethics is concerned with what is "good"? (under and such and such circumstances), It is not good for you if I helped an enemy who would cause you harm.

- Is it wrong if I helped him? without knowing that he would cause you harm?
- On the other hand, if it is wrong ... what makes it wrong?

Deontological ethics answers to these questions like this :

- It is not wrong, because my intent was to help someone in need.
- If it is wrong, nothing makes it wrong, even its consequences do not make it wrong... it is intrinsically wrong in that exact circumstances.

It does not mean that it is absolutely wrong or right .. because circumstances change.

Deontology is only about : "What makes it wrong?" / "Why is it wrong?"

And the answer to these questions in deontological ethics is : it is intrinsically wrong... the fact that I helped that guy who will harm you is intrinsically right in that situation where I do not know that he would harm you.

That is - This act : "Helping that guy in that exact situation while I do not know what he will do" , is ABSOLUTELY intrinsically right . Consequences do not make it wrong.

But hold on, doesn't this absolutely contradict what I said that I am a relativist too?

No,

Because the act is the whole conditional :

"If a guy that will cause harm is in that situation AND you do not know about what he will do THEN you ought to help him"

This is akin to a hypothetical imperative (according to Kant's deontology), and it is absolutely true (the whole conditional, not just the help him part).

But I am a relativist when you ask me : "is it right to help Bob ?" ... I need the conditional.

The biconditional here would look like this : "You ought to help Bob IF AND ONLY IF he does not do / will not do anything wrong that you know of"

(A if and only if B)

, and it is absolutely true.

I would ask : Give me the whole story and circumstances?

And the answer for example : Help him steal a car" ...

Well, the conditional (which is always intrinsically absolutely true) does not permit this .. because not-B therefore not-A.

But the biconditional is always a deontological truth, a moral value that always holds

What makes that moral truth a moral truth? Let's say that after me helping Bob fix his tire, he thanked me and drove away, then he hit and killed a child.

Again, here : I do not know that Bob will hit a child (he does not know his future either) ... does that make my helping him wrong? Deontological ethics do not care about consequences .. all that matters is my intent when I helped him, because what I did is subject to a conditional that is absolutely true (no human or consequence made it true), and it exists whether we exist or not.

Confusing eh? I know ... I already said that nothing has purpose or meaning, and then now I say that there are deontological truths that are always true. How to reconcile these views?

They do not need reconciliation , of course there is no meaning or purpose in the Universe (it is just matter, energy, natural laws...etc).

To give you an analogy : The Universe does not care about mathematics and numbers, equations...etc. It just works.

But nevertheless mathematical concepts are enforced upon us (you can not make 1+1=3 ) , it just is ... because that's how the Universe works.

Now, back to ethics : deontological truths (those conditionals I already talked about) can be described as a set of matrices of does and don'ts that are in terms of conditionals (do this if this, don't do this if that...etc), so that these values are the best thing that can result in increasing the fitness of individual brains / society / human communities / civilization in the Universe...

Tell me what you want, there exist values that are the best thing that maximizes the good of social communities and minimizes the harms , and these are conditionals, not direct statements, and the best we can do is to approximate them (the way we approximate the value of Pi)

For example : L1 and L2 , one of them has to be closer than the other to the optimal value that the thief deserves (no more, no less)

I tell you there is a value because it cannot be 5 years for a stealing a chicken, it cannot 1 day .. it has to be somewhere in between (like 15 days,...etc). I know that chopping a thief's hands off is immoral because this is too far away from the range of punishments that I know he deserves. I do not know what he deserves with a good precision, But there being a true and real moral value constrains the possible punishments that I can apply without causing much injustice ... but still I can miss by 1 - 2 or even 3 months, or 1 - 2 years), but the best that law can do is approximate these moral values ... Chopping a thief's hands is far fetched and doesn't even approach (even slightly) the nature of this crime.

But the more you approach that true value (that does not result in injustice ) , so that the more people approach that value for that exact same condition and circumstances, it results results in the maximum chances for society to survive.

And those values are not something we create, they are intrinsically true, Otherwise we would not see injustice when it happens.

I hope you see the picture , it is difficult to convey it ... it is a mix of deontological kantian ethics and evolution.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest