Where as in 'where are they written down'?
They are not. The rules are understood and enforced by the group.
how is that? that would be make angry the dominate one and he attacks correct? again the dominate does as he pleases to the submissive and the week. hence survival instincts on the part of the weaker.
Up to a point. At some point those you treat like shit will revolt.
Correct. They indoctrinate you in the current social norms.DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:03 pm where as your parents teach you to not do a thing and do a thing in respect to a moral which can be the same method, but that's because you didn't respond to what was said correctly in teaching you. hence words in which the rules were expressed or revealed to the other that did not know the rules or have any rules.
There are many kinds of agreement. Tacit. Verbal. Contractual.
I think you may have wanted to say "repercussions" there instead of the "reproduction".
how do you know they do? did they tell you? I wasn't trying to prove they do. the proof that mankind does is all over the human race but animals no, if they did surly there'd be proof not theory.-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:29 amI think you may have wanted to say "repercussions" there instead of the "reproduction".
Anywhoo. You been inside he brain of a bird? How do you know how it feels emotionally and in culturally ingrained guilt after it cheats on her or his spouse? I think it's too large a leap in assuming that they don't have a moral code, or barring that, that they don't feel remorse or guilt.
You defined the problem yourself.
Ah. No, this makes a mistake.
Nietzsche thought this was true. He said that moral commands simple serve some aspect of the general human (specifically male) "will to power." In other words, they are just expressions of desire to control others, enforced by power not rightness or duty.well who has the power to enforce the contract, is where the deal is in this case. borrow money from a loan shark he will force the other party to fulfill his end. hence for fear of the normally unethical might still fulfill the agreement.
You're actually right. I give this argument to you. I lost.DPMartin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:35 pmhow do you know they do? did they tell you? I wasn't trying to prove they do. the proof that mankind does is all over the human race but animals no, if they did surly there'd be proof not theory.-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:29 am
Anywhoo. You been inside he brain of a bird? How do you know how it feels emotionally and in culturally ingrained guilt after it cheats on her or his spouse? I think it's too large a leap in assuming that they don't have a moral code, or barring that, that they don't feel remorse or guilt.
No, I didn't? Please refrain from inserting things into my mouth (words or otherwise) before I slap you.
3rd datapoint confirming my suspicions that you have some reading disability.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm "Problem" presupposes consequence. If we say we "ought" to do something, it's only because it's "useful for" some consequence that we are taking to be justified. Or to put it another way, problems aren't just problems: they're "problems FOR..." (outcome X, or Y, or Z). But X (or Y, or ) cannot be shown to be "the right consequence."
You've killed consequentialism, then. And you did it all by yourself. You didn't need my help at all, except to realize you'd done it.
4th (and final request) In the simplest English possible.
You have the response you need, one in which I agree to the problem you identify with "problem," and also show that consequentialisms of all kinds are deeply flawed, as you can see.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:42 am I am yet to meet a philosopher who can give me a definition of what a "problem" is without ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap, and without appealing to consequentialism in the process of defining the very meaning of a "problem".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm "Problem" presupposes consequence. If we say we "ought" to do something, it's only because it's "useful for" some consequence that we are taking to be justified. Or to put it another way, problems aren't just problems: they're "problems FOR..." (outcome X, or Y, or Z). But X (or Y, or ) cannot be shown to be "the right consequence."
4th datapoint.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:46 pm You have the response you need, one in which I agree to the problem you identify with "problem," and also show that consequentialisms of all kinds are deeply flawed, as you can see.
I've said already. A "problem" is a term that presumes a consequence. You said exactly the same thing. I only added that the "consequence-in-view" you choose, whatever it may be, is incapable of a showing of any justification.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:57 pm I've said already. A "problem" is a term that presumes a consequence.
You USED the word "problem"!!!! You PRESUMED that Consequentialism has CONSEQUENCES.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:36 pm But I can see you don't know enough about the problems inherent to Consequentialism
I am going to shove the "consistency" cactus as far up your ass as it will go.Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:55 am You strike me as a person who insists on adhering to principles. You seem as if you adhere to consistency and frown upon double standards. so I think it is in your own best interest that I shall hold you accountable to the very standards you have chosen for yourself.