-1- wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 pm
I am sorry, I ought to have made that clearer. That utterance by me was not a part of the argument; it is, instead, outside the topic of the debate, and I am calling an apparent fact (apparent as it appears on many pages of this forum).
You mistake a sanctimonious p**** (a.k.a objective moralist) for a narcissist. Of course - it's your prerogative to hold whatever opinions of me you wish and hurl whatever pejorative or DSM diagnosis you managed to Google. Doesn't bother me one bit.
The Precautionary and No-harm/beneficence principles stand at the foundation of ethics in modern society. The intentions behind these principles can be traced in just about every society since Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi and all the Cuneiform laws. Human lives matter.
To ignore this fact requires some serious philosophical blinkers.
The precautionary principle is precisely why the Boeing 737 MAX is grounded world-wide.
-1- wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 pm
Therefore it is NOT an ad hominem; it is merely my opinion of you, and not a fact, and not a part of the argument at hand, it is instead how I perceive you judging from your going from debating reasonably, switching consistently abruptly to empty glib and invalid claims, when you are cornered and defeated.
Indeed. Because an objective moralist understands first and foremost that the outcome matters far more than the 'logic' and 'reasaon' behind it.
You strike me as one of those gullible philosophers who pursue ideals at all cost.
Such as the ideal of logical consistency.
Or the ideal of a 'valid and sound claims'.
Or the ideal of justification.
Or the ideal of the unbiased observer.
Or the ideal of sincerity and depth.
You seek some perfect ritual that can tell you what is 'right' and 'wrong' and that will tell you how to act in the world. Bad news - doesn't exist. You actually have to use brain to compute the consequences of your actions. And in complex domains you have to look way past your nose.
Or maybe you are just being contrarian for philosophy's sake - I can't tell, so I am taking you on your word.
If your well-justified, consistent, valid/sound, unbiased, sincere and deep argument leads you to act in a way that results in harm - your argument is wrong. Irrespective of how many people agreed with you.
if X is a virtue (love, compassion, empathy) and X leads to harm . X is immoral. This is consequentialism 101.
So yeah, I know what 'harm' means. I know what 'right' and 'wrong' means (approximately not precisely).
If you present me with any argument which concludes that 'murder is right' - that is a sure sign your argument is wrong.
The fundamental difference between our positions is that that you are trying to get to morality, whereas I start with morality and work my way back.
Is it confirmation bias? Fuck yeah! Survivorship bias is a desirable trait in this universe.
Rationality is Systematized Winning.
How do I define Winning? In a moralist-Darwinian/risk-management/harm-reduction framework. Everything else is instrumental.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3 ... ed-winning
If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety
If you fail to conclude that murder is wrong, it's futile to protest that your argument is appropriate!
How you define "winning" makes all the difference in the way you play the game.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA ... ationality
Yes, there are various thought experiments in which some agents start out with an advantage - but if the task is to, say, decide whether to jump off a cliff, you want to be careful not to define cliff-refraining agents as having an unfair prior advantage over cliff-jumping agents, by virtue of their unfair refusal to jump off cliffs. At this point you have covertly redefined "winning" as conformance to a particular ritual of cognition. Pay attention to the money!
You are here to win arguments. Only, if you win the "murder is right" argument - you've won nothing but a Darwin award.
That is how misguided philosophy is when arguing against objective morality.
Philosophers have been staring at the is-ought gap for centuries. How is it that none of you "wise" men figured out you can just jump across?