How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm I am discussing morality while you are discussing murder so we cannot agree
You don't think murder is a moral concern? Fine.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm But if everyone agrees that murder is wrong then why does this not equally apply to all morally questionable actions ?
Because some moral issues are more complex than murder and so require a greater length discourse.
And maybe even multiple dialectics until settled.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm For if there was universal agreement about morality then society would actually be the best that it could possibly be ?
It is "The best it can possibly be". And it's getting better. Slowly - but it's getting better.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain
Holy fuck! That's a Stalinist over-reaction right there.

Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean we should burn it all to the ground?

For every 1 person that commits an immoral act millions do not! Why are you condemning all of humanity based on the actions of a few?
There is a name for this fallacy: hasty generalization.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
Just because its not perfect it doesnt mean we should burn it all to the ground ?
I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to say
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve

I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:32 pm I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to say
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve

I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so
Then I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this:
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain
Man has free will. Fact.
We have been making continued moral progress for thousands of years. Fact.

Given the two premises above I don't understand why you see free will as an obstacle to moral progress?

it sure sounds a lot like an "all or nothing" mindset...
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by surreptitious57 »

My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time
Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
We can however despite that work within such limitations and so become better human beings
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:40 pm My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time
And who wold decide what is morally right?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:40 pm Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
Mostly is better than never....
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
And who would decide what is morally right ?
Nobody would because there would be no free will
For everyone would think and act exactly the same
However that is not a society I would want to live in
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2964
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:56 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:20 pm
prof wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:36 pm Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.

I-Values, being derived as you have written from quantitative measurement of the amount of attention units given by an observer to the observed, also include jealousy and hate. Indeed, passionate hate would probably be one of the most potent sources of I-Value imaginable. So Hate > Functions > Opinions.
"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation. When such a sign appears in an exponent, it greatly reduces the over-all value in the outcome.

The same applies to passionate jealousy.
So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:06 pm So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.
Economists call this revealed vs stated preference. It's nothing new. It's the erudite way of saying "actions speak louder than words".

The gap in communication is that for as long as you are using real-world measurements of human behaviour you will always be making descriptive not prescriptive arguments. And yet morality is dead in the water without a prescriptive element.

Murder is wrong. Not because <descriptive argument> but because prescriptive reasons. By the authority vested in our sheer numbers - we will lock you up! Or if we are less than civilized - we might even sentence you to death.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:07 pm
Murder is wrong. Not because <descriptive argument> but because prescriptive reasons. By the authority vested in our sheer numbers - we will lock you up! Or if we are less than civilized - we might even sentence you to death.
Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone. In that sense, murder contradicts Ethics; to murder is to be unethical. And, of course, to also be immoral. Murder violates morality.

All the above is descriptive. Yet, by connotation and implication it is at once prescriptive. A situation can be both at the same time.

Problem solved.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7013
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 am
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.

It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 am
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
prof wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.
No, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
See! This is where you keep fucking up!

The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!

5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!

That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7013
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 am
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).


While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.


I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.
No, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
See! This is where you keep fucking up!

The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!

5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!

That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.
Actually "murder is wrong" is an axiom....it is assumed and as assumed it projects the course of people's lives.

So "without any axioms"....ROFL!!!!!

Alot of philosopher's talk about the evils of suicide (ie murder) as well as "murder" of other's...google it. Save the "you are for killing" argument.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Arising_uk »

Logik wrote: Self-defence is not murder. ...
I was thinking more of a slave/master relationship(shouldn't have used abusive), in that I plot to murder for my freedom and succeed in that aim.
Unless, of course - you live in a fucked up country like the UK where personhood means nothing, and self-defence is not a constitutional human right :lol: :lol: :lol:
What on earth is 'personhood'? But in the UK you can kill someone in self-defense but you will have to be prepared to justify it on the grounds of fear for one's life and there being no other alternative.
Post Reply