Why does man, need a agreement?

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: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:16 pm
Are you suggesting that "performative consistencies" are...problematic? How do you justify that claim?
I don't have to justify it sunshine! Consistency (absence of contradictions) is YOUR principle, is it not?
I am only holding YOU accountable to the principles that YOU have chosen for YOURSELF.

I am helping you honor your sacred cows. I am helping you better worship your God.

For me? Inconsistency is NOT a problem ;)

I told you what I mean by a problem. is-ought discrepancy!

Discrepancy between what is and what should be.
Discrepancy between that which I desire and that which I currently have.

I don't have icecream.
I want to have icecream.
I should have icecream.

Problem!

I don't have to justify my "claim" because I don't have to justify my desires. To you or anybody.

I am a rational egoist. The only principle I hold dear is that I promise to do that which is in my best interest.

Coincidentally, it turns out that, stable, moral/ethical and cooperative societies built on consequentialism/utilitarianism are in my best interest.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:16 pm
Are you suggesting that "performative consistencies" are...problematic? How do you justify that claim?
I am only holding YOU accountable to the principles that YOU have chosen for YOURSELF.
So you're arguing that I "owe" myself to perform consistently: and if that's so, it can only be because living with performative consistencies is, in some sense you'll have to explain to me, "bad," in your view.

But that is, of course, a performative contradiction if you insist upon it, since you write,
For me? Inconsistency is NOT a problem ;) I don't have to justify my "claim" because I don't have to justify my desires. To you or anybody. I am a rational egoist.
A "rational egoist" is like a "new antique." It's beyond an oxymoron; it's a full contradiction in terms.

It's impossible for there to be anything "rational" about being an "egoist" because egoism does not pursue, seek or imagine possible any rational justification, just as you have said above. You can only (by your own account) be a desire-based, irrational egoist.
Coincidentally, it turns out that, stable, moral/ethical and cooperative societies built on consequentialism/utilitarianism are in my best interest.
Interesting thought. Name one of those. Which "society" are you thinking of?

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
So you're arguing that I "owe" myself to perform consistently: and if that's so, it can only be because living with performative consistencies is, in some sense you'll have to explain to me, "bad," in your view.
No. I am not "arguing" anything. I am pointing out a fact: you are duplicit and you end up lying to yourself!

Do with this information as you please.

I don't like people who lie to themselves, because I infer that if you can't be honest with yourself then you have absolutely no reason to be honest with me. (N.B The opposite is not true. I have many reasons to be honest with myself while I lie to you. One of them being - you lie to yourself, so why can't I do the same?).

You are so deep into the sophist framework of thought that you forgot how to be a human.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
A "rational egoist" is like a "new antique." It's beyond an oxymoron; it's a full contradiction in terms.
1. SO what? I literally just told you that I don't see inconsistencies as a problem. YOU DO. Non-contradiction is your religion, not mine. Don't hold me accountable to your God.
2. It's not actually a contradiction. You just misunderstand my meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
It's impossible for there to be anything "rational" about being an "egoist" because egoism does not pursue, seek or imagine possible any rational justification, just as you have said above.
You seem to conflate with "logical" with "rational". I can't fathom why you would do such a thing.
When you draw a distinction between logic and rationality then it is possible.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
You can only (by your own account) be a desire-based, irrational egoist.
By my account, you are putting words in my mouth, when I have asked you 3 times to stop doing that. You are interpreting MY words in YOUR understanding. That's a guaranteed strategy for miscommunication.

There is nothing irrational about desire. Least you can convince me that wanting to remain alive and live a good life, while wanting the same for all humans is "irrational".
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
Interesting thought. Name one of those. Which "society" are you thinking of?
The one I am in right now.

Rationality is systematized winning: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3 ... ed-winning

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:57 pm
I've said already. A "problem" is a term that presumes a consequence.
There is much irony in this statement.

All that we ever use logic/mathematics for is to compute the CONSEQUENCES of some premises.

Precarious place you've left yourself in. If you think "presuming consequences" is a 'problem' well then... outside of a consequentialist framework you have absolutely no USE for logic/consistency.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:08 pm
you are duplicit and you end up lying to yourself!
Not at all.

But are you insisting that "being duplicit" and "'lying to myself," if I were to do it, would be "wrong" and "problematic"? Because unless you are, you aren't asserting anything about that.

But you have exactly got the situation reversed. I have ontological reasons to seek rationality and consistency; and you, by your own admission, have none but your own "desires." In your world, I bear no obligation ("ought") to fulfill your "desires" for you. So how do you manage to obtain the ontological right to present any accusation? Your ontology allows for no objective "oughtness" to exist at all.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
You can only (by your own account) be a desire-based, irrational egoist.
By my account, you are putting words in my mouth, when I have asked you 3 times to stop doing that.
Then your "account" is wrong. The phrase,"By your account" simply means "If I believe what you have yourself affirmed." It puts no words in your mouth: it simply extends the inherent logic of your alleged position, to see if it makes any rational sense.

However, I don't at all believe what you have affirmed in that regard. I think it absurd and contradictory. I simply show you where it takes you, if you try to be consistent with it. If you choose not to be consistent with it, that presents no difficulty for me...only for you, if you think "consistency," (upon which you yourself have premised your accusation) is a "good" thing, or an "ought" for everyone. But you have no ontological basis for that claim, because you've denied that such things ontologically can exist.
There is nothing irrational about desire.
There is nothing inherent to a "desire" that makes it also "rational." It is manifestly possible to "desire" things entirely arbitrarily and without reference to any rationality. Any rationality offered after-the-fact is then merely a ruse: it's the raw fact of the existence of the "desire" that is the determinant, not the reasoning that may or may not follow it.

There's all the difference in the world between living by reason and merely "rationalizing" after the fact. You're manifestly plugging for the latter, not the former.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
Interesting thought. Name one of those. Which "society" are you thinking of?
The one I am in right now.
Which is what society? I would like the chance to examine your claim that this is a utilitarian society.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
But are you insisting that "being duplicit" and "'lying to myself," if I were to do it, would be "wrong" and "problematic"?
You are insisting that I am insisting something which I am NOT insisting.

I am stating a fact: You are duplicit and lie to yourself.

I am not making any value judgments about it. Certainly not saying that it's "wrong" or "problematic".
You are putting those words in my mouth.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
Because unless you are, you aren't asserting anything about that.
The assertions that follow are nothing but inferences. PERSONAL CHOICES about the way I SHOULD treat you.

I respect myself enough to refuse to lie to myself.
If you are happy to lie to yourself, then I conclude that it's OK for me to lie to you also.
It is OK for me to treat you the way you treat yourself - I simply follow your lead.

You lie to yourself. I lie to you. CONSISTENCY :)

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
I have ontological reasons to seek rationality and consistency;
There! That's a self-deception!

What kind of ontological reasons could you possibly have in a universe we have found no ontology?
In a universe without origin/beginning or any logical foundation whatsoever?

To say you have "ontological reasons" is to say you have an ontology.
Grounding. Facts. Truth. Do you?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
and you, by your own admission, have none but your own "desires."
Correct. Moral desires. Not ontological ones.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
In your world, I bear no obligation ("ought") to fulfill your "desires" for you.
Naturally. Unless my desires and your desires coincide.

My desire is to live a good life and to ensure that we create a society which allows as many people as possible to live good lives too.

Is this not your desire?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
So how do you manage to obtain the ontological right to present any accusation? Your ontology allows for no objective "oughtness" to exist at all.
Ontowhat? All ontology is bullshit.

See! More self-deception ;)

My non-ontology allows for good approximation on BEHAVIOUR.
What the Universe DOES.
NOT what the Universe IS.

It is BECAUSE logic is incomplete and/or inconsistent is why you can't define yourself ontologically.
But you can understand yourself behaviouristically.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
By my account, you are putting words in my mouth, when I have asked you 3 times to stop doing that.
Then your "account" is wrong.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
See. You just can't help yourself putting words in my mouth.

WHY is it "wrong"? What makes it "wrong"?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
The phrase,"By your account" simply means "If I believe what you have yourself affirmed." It puts no words in your mouth: it simply extends the inherent logic of your alleged position, to see if it makes any rational sense.
You continue to conflate rationality with logic.
You continue to claim you understand my position.
You continue to apply abductive reasoning to disastrous results.

See. Lying to yourself :)

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
However, I don't at all believe what you have affirmed in that regard.
And thus he calls me a liar. Because what other explanation does he have? A man who constantly lies to himself accuses others of the same.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
I think it absurd and contradictory. I simply show you where it takes you, if you try to be consistent with it.
And he continues to hold me accountable to his God - non-contradiction and consistency.

When I have plainly and clearly stated to him that I do not care for either of those VALUES.

Those are YOUR values. Not mine. You keep mistaking YOUR values for MY values.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
If you choose not to be consistent with it, that presents no difficulty for me...only for you, if you think "consistency," (upon which you yourself have premised your accusation) is a "good" thing, or an "ought" for everyone. But you have no ontological basis for that claim, because you've denied that such things ontologically can exist.
But I am going to say it again. I have made absolutely NO claim that consistency is a "good" thing. What I did say is:

Inconsistency is NOT a problem. That DOES NOT MEAN that consistency is good?

Again. You are interpreting everything I say through your rose-coloured glasses.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
There's all the difference in the world between living by reason and merely "rationalizing" after the fact. You're manifestly plugging for the latter, not the former.
If the is-ought gap cannot be crossed, then all arguments are rationalizations.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:49 pm
Which is what society? I would like the chance to examine your claim that this is a utilitarian society.
Which is the SOCIETY I LIVE IN NOW. Look at it. examine it. I don't need to put labels on that which is before your very eyes!

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:57 pm
I am stating a fact: You are duplicit and lie to yourself.
Not so.

But if it were, you would have no argument against it.
What kind of ontological reasons could you possibly have in a universe we have found no ontology?
That's an absurd statement. "Ontology" refers only to whatever you believe to "really exist." https://philosophyterms.com/ontology/. And since everybody has that, everybody has an ontology. It's just that some may be wrong.
In a universe without origin/beginning or any logical foundation whatsoever?
Logical impossibility. You'd have to believe in an infinite regress of causes, which is logically impossible.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:30 pm
and you, by your own admission, have none but your own "desires."
Correct. Moral desires. Not ontological ones.
Nothing makes desire "moral." In your world, "morality" simply doesn't have any meaning, because an egoist does not need to consider anyone else...He can if he "desires" to, but not if he does not. There is only amorality there.
My desire is to live a good life and to ensure that we create a society which allows as many people as possible to live good lives too.
You can desire anything you wish. But you could, as an egoist, just as easily and amorally choose to exploit people. No credit to you if you don't, then...because morality has no relevance in that world.
Is this not your desire?
Indeed. But it's not only my "desire," and my desiring is not the thing that makes it moral.
All ontology is bullshit.
This means "I believe nothing exists." Is that what you believe?

Then why are you writing?

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
That's an absurd statement. "Ontology" refers only to whatever you believe to "really exist." https://philosophyterms.com/ontology/. And since everybody has that, everybody has an ontology. It's just that some may be wrong.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am a model-dependent realist, which is functionally similar to an anti-realist or a Platonist.
I don't know what exists. All we have is perpetually incomplete and always falsifiable models of reality.

The only thing I know exists for sure is pain and death. Consequences!
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
Logical impossibility. You'd have to believe in an infinite regress of causes, which is logically impossible.
Nitpicking: ALL FOUNDATIONALISM is a logical impossibility.

Uncaused cause? Yeah right!
Big bang/singularity as an uncaused expansion? YEAH RIGHT!

The lie you are telling yourself is that logic has any answers. It doesn't
It's just a description of how your mind works.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
Nothing makes desire "moral." In your world, "morality" simply doesn't have any meaning, because an egoist does not need to consider anyone else...He can if he "desires" to, but not if he does not. There is only amorality there.
What utter nonsense! What kind of egoist would I be if I didn't consider everyone?

It is in my BEST INTEREST to consider everyone.
The more people whose needs/desires are met - the better world I live in!
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
But you could, as an egoist, just as easily and amorally choose to exploit people.
That is not in my best interest.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
Indeed. But it's not only my "desire," and my desiring is not the thing that makes it moral.
Dude. Haven't you been paying attention to Mr Hume? We cannot traverse the is-ought gap.

I am not even trying to! I am just pursuing my desires. Which HAPPEN to be very utilitarian in nature.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm
This means "I believe nothing exists." Is that what you believe?

Then why are you writing?
Strawman. It means "I don't know what exists".

I just know what I want. Love, happiness, good life all those things that are difficult to "ontologize".

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm

The guy who denies reason
Gives reasons why he does.

The guy who says everything is mere language games
Conveys it in language.

They guy who says, "Its all relative,"
Thinks that statement is objectively true.

The guy who recognizes no problems
Says, "Your view is a problem."

The guy who says, "I have no ontology"
Talks to people he doesn't think exist.

And the guy who doesn't believe in "oughts"
States, "I just know what's right."

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
The guy who denies reason
Gives reasons why he does.
Confirmation bias.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
The guy who says everything is mere language games
Conveys it in language.
I didn't say everything is language games. I said YOU are playing language games.
I only play language games IF you play language games.

If you have any axioms, and you pretend like you care about "consistency".
I will butt-fuck you with your own ideals.

Logic is language. If you think you can solve morality with logic - you are playing a language game.

I know I can't - so I don't even try.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
They guy who says, "Its all relative,"
Thinks that statement is objectively true.
What nonsense. The guy who says that denounces all silly notions of "objectivity".
In fact. He denounces the silly notion of "truth".

You are talking to a social consructivist, Pyrrhonic skeptic, Protagorean relativist and a scientific nihilist.
And an objective moralist.

Your brain probably can't parse all that.

How did I get there? Decision theory. Choice! I jumped over the is-ought gap.

You could argue that decision theory IS logic, but it sure isn't the kind of logic you are practicing.
Decision theory IS computer science though. And I know a little bit about that....
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
The guy who recognizes no problems
Says, "Your view is a problem."
Look. I told you that your inability to define the word "problem" is a problem.
The only framework in which I know how to define a "problem" is a moralistic one.

Sooo. You know. Your turn. Define "problem" without appealing to human values.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
The guy who says, "I have no ontology"
Talks to people he doesn't think exist.
Missing the forrest for the trees.
You don't need to exist for me to CHOOSE not to kill you.

Even if I were a Solipsist (which I am not) - I have every reason to be moral to you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 pm
And the guy who doesn't believe in "oughts"
States, "I just know what's right."
People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

I didn't say I don't believe in "oughts" I merely pointed out that if YOU subscribe to logic and philosophy then you BELIEVE that the is-ought gap can't be crossed.

So I vehemently INSIST that you stay on the "right" side of the gap! OK?

When you USE value-laden language. I will insist that you stop doing that.
In fact - as of right now. I INSIST that you stop using adjectives. All adjectives are value-laden and I very much insist that you remain objective and logical about everything you say.

If you cross the gap that you are NOT ALLOWED to cross. I am going to whack you over the knuckles.

Because you have principles! Logic. And most importantly - Consistency!
You can't fucking violate your own principles when it suits you. A contingent principle is an oxymoron!

So I say it again. I will butt-fuck you with your very own principles.

Because you are a principled man and I am not.

I am a moral man without principles. And that's not an oxymoron.

I just have no idea how to DEFINE "right" and "wrong". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

I have no idea how to define "harm". But I fucking know what harm is!

How do I justify all of that which I say? Pragmatically.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:58 pm
When you USE value-laden language. I will insist that you stop doing that.
I'm entitled to use it. I believe in objective values, grounded in objective truth. For me, it's quite consistent.

But in a merely material universe, there are no ethical "oughts." Hume, remember?

No problem for me, because I believe Hume's ontology was plain wrong. I have an ontology that justifies an ethics.

But what will you do? Live without any moral justifications, I guess. You may end up "good" or "bad" as conventional morality measures such things: but you won't actually be able to believe in any of that. You have no ontology able to ground it.
How do I justify all of that which I say? Pragmatically.
"Pragmatically" is no more informative than the answer "Because." It's a total non-answer, a mere dodge.

Additionally, it's just another form of arbitrary consequentialism. It has no justification, no grounds, and no "oughtness" to it.

uwot
Posts: 4399
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by uwot » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
You may end up "good" or "bad" as conventional morality measures such things: but you won't actually be able to believe in any of that. You have no ontology able to ground it.
Yeah but Mr Can, your ontology includes a "Supreme Being", for which there is no evidence, but according to you will torture forever anyone who doesn't agree with you.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
I'm entitled to use it. I believe in objective values, grounded in objective truth. For me, it's quite consistent.
But in a merely material universe, there are no ethical "oughts." Hume, remember?
Entitled? ENTITLED? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are entitled NOTHING! Not even a Universe that makes sense.

We ARE in a material and consequential universe. That may or may not be subject to laws or logic, but one thing is certain - individual death and collective extinction.
The only way over the is-ought gap without ending up with dualism/duplicit self-deception is to ignore it.

CHOICE.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
No problem for me, because I believe Hume's ontology was plain wrong. I have an ontology that justifies an ethics.
So you have an ontology that ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You have an ontology that ignores the arrow of time?
You have an ontology which ignores that we live in a universe of cause-and-consequence?
You have an ontology that ignores that the "IS" is now and the "OUGHT" is future, so the is-ought gap is just an analogy for the arrow of time?

I am listening. I am already betting against you here - if you have a non-materialist ontology all I am hearing is "dualism or worse".
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
But what will you do? Live without any moral justifications, I guess. You may end up "good" or "bad" as conventional morality measures such things: but you won't actually be able to believe in any of that. You have no ontology able to ground it.
You have invented one in order to ground it ;)

But look at the claim you are making.

A grounded morality is better than an ungrounded morality.

In what framework would you address the truth-value of such a claim ?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
"Pragmatically" is no more informative than the answer "Because." It's a total non-answer, a mere dodge.

Additionally, it's just another form of arbitrary consequentialism. It has no justification, no grounds, and no "oughtness" to it.
A made up foundation is no less a dodge than a no-foundation. It's has made up justifications. Made up grounds and made up oughtness.
Also, surely you need to justify your justification? And you also need to justify your justification's justification? Infinite regress is everywhere...

So allow me to point out. My morality is functionally identical to yours. It does the same thing.

And I am also going to make a claim: an ungrounded (consequentialist) morality is better than a grounded one. Because it's cheaper - I have had to spend no time/energy making op oughts, frounds and justifications.

In what framework am I asserting this claim of mine? Economics.
Principle of least effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort

Work smart, not hard ;)

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:05 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:36 pm
You are entitled NOTHING! Not even a Universe that makes sense.
Everyone is entitled to reality. In fact, one is entitled to nothing less, and nothing other. One certainly has no entitlement to delusions...nor, for that matter, to mere "desires."
We ARE in a material and consequential universe.
Infinite regress problem.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
No problem for me, because I believe Hume's ontology was plain wrong. I have an ontology that justifies an ethics.
So you have an ontology that ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You have an ontology that ignores the arrow of time?
You have an ontology which ignores that we live in a universe of cause-and-consequence?
No. I have affirmed all of the above. They are, in fact, quite helpful to my case. I would have no incentive not to.
You have an ontology that ignores that the "IS" is now and the "OUGHT" is future, so the is-ought gap is just an analogy for the arrow of time?
You've got that wrong. "Ought," as Hume well understood, is a value. "Is" is a statement of fact. It is not because they are not time-contemporaneous that there is a division between them; they are of different orders completely. That was Hume's point.

His critique is a rebuke to secular moralism definitely, and to Aristotelian Natural Law theory, perhaps. It has no consequence if there is a God. Then values are not justified and established from reading mere natural "facts" at all. They're transcendentally justified.

So Hume would need a demonstration that transcendent authority for ethics was impossible. And he offered no such thing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
But what will you do? Live without any moral justifications, I guess. You may end up "good" or "bad" as conventional morality measures such things: but you won't actually be able to believe in any of that. You have no ontology able to ground it.
You have invented one in order to ground it ;)
That's a pure assumption on your side. And it might seem momentarily convenient to you to imagine it's true. But the long-term consequences of your belief, if you have the courage to be true to them the way Nietzsche laid them out, will not prove so happy.

Fortunately, they are mere assumptions.
But look at the claim you are making.

A grounded morality is better than an ungrounded morality.
In all ways. Yes.
In what framework would you address the truth-value of such a claim ?

In an ontological framework that includes objective morality because of an objective creation by the objectively real God.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
"Pragmatically" is no more informative than the answer "Because." It's a total non-answer, a mere dodge.

Additionally, it's just another form of arbitrary consequentialism. It has no justification, no grounds, and no "oughtness" to it.
A made up foundation is no less a dodge than a no-foundation.

That also is not an answer for you. For even were it right, it still leaves you with nothing to ground any moral or ethical account of your own. It's as if you were to say, "I'm going to become rich by burning everyone else's money." You wouldn't. You'd just make everyone equally poor.
It's has made up justifications. Made up grounds and made up oughtness.
If it's not true. But you haven't shown that.
Also, surely you need to justify your justification? And you also need to justify your justification's justification? Infinite regress is everywhere...
Justification, like the cause-consequence cascade, ends at the First Cause decisively.
So allow me to point out. My morality is functionally identical to yours. It does the same thing.
You have no grounded morality. You're stuck with a merely arbitrary one. And I would only be your equal if your ontology were correct. But that's just the question: is it? And how do you prove it is?

For you believe in a past-infinite causal universe. You know for certain this is logically impossible. And yet, you accuse me of wishful thinking? One can't imagine anything more wishful than believing in a past-infinite causal universe, actually.
And I am also going to make a claim: an ungrounded (consequentialist) morality is better than a grounded one. Because it's cheaper - I have had to spend no time/energy making op oughts, frounds and justifications.
It's not a "morality." It's the state of amorality. That's all you're left with.

Pick anything...say, "mass murder." If a jihadi or a neo-Nazi were tempted to do it, but he were to say to you, "If you can really show me a good reason why it's wrong, I won't," then by what pattern of reasoning could you show he was wrong?

Just so, whatever putatively "ethical" beliefs you have are merely arbitrary fancies on your part. You can't justify even one of them from your own account of what is real. (i.e. your ontology)

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:05 pm
Everyone is entitled to reality. In fact, one is entitled to nothing less, and nothing other. One certainly has no entitlement to delusions...nor, for that matter, to mere "desires."
Infinite regress problem.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You have deluded yourself into believing in an ontological God!
Where did God come from? Mr I-solved-infinite-regress.

You have gone to truly great lengths to lie to yourself! Like I said - I have very little respect for people who do that.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
You've got that wrong. "Ought," as Hume well understood, is a value. "Is" is a statement of fact. It is not because they are not time-contemporaneous that there is a division between them; they are of different orders completely. That was Hume's point.
I see no functional difference between a value, a "desire about future state" and an "ought".

I value solidarity -> I desire more solidarity tomorrow than we have today.
I value human well being -> I want less child mortality tomorrow than we gave today.

Is just optimization. That which is valued maximizes through the system.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
In an ontological framework that includes objective morality because of an objective creation by the objectively real God.
I can't stop laughing yet. Has your God communicated his value system to you yet and how?

That is - IF he existed I am sure he knows what is right and wrong. Has God relayed this information to you and how?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
That also is not an answer for you. For even were it right, it still leaves you with nothing to ground any moral or ethical account of your own.
Why must I ground it in anything? Murder is wrong. I know that without an imaginary God telling me that it's wrong.

Why is a moral code grounded in a God-delusion better than a moral code that is grounded in real-world consequentialism?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
It's as if you were to say, "I'm going to become rich by burning everyone else's money." You wouldn't. You'd just make everyone equally poor.
Idiotic analogy. A rational egoist can determine for himself that burning everybody else's money is against his best interest.

Other people's prosperity is to my selfish benefit.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
If it's not true. But you haven't shown that.
I don't need to falsify your God.
You need to convince me that he has communicated his values to you.
Because your God certainly doesn't speak to me and as I can tell he has no reason to care for humans (in particular) given that he has allowed 99.999 of all species to go extinct already.

Your God is a dick, to be honest. A spectator at best.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
Justification, like the cause-consequence cascade, ends at the First Cause decisively.
Indeed. But I don't know what caused God.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
You have no grounded morality. You're stuck with a merely arbitrary one. And I would only be your equal if your ontology were correct. But that's just the question: is it? And how do you prove it is?
As much as you are stuck with an arbitrary God.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
For you believe in a past-infinite causal universe.
No I don't. I have explicitly said I don't care where we come from, and we are the only ones in control of where we are going.

Well, the universe is in control, but it's taking us to the slaughter house. If we don't want to go to the slaughter house - we are the only ones who get to decide that.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
You know for certain this is logically impossible. And yet, you accuse me of wishful thinking? One can't imagine anything more wishful than believing in a past-infinite causal universe, actually.
Because I am not a slave to the religion of logic? Logic is my instrument. Logic is one of your Gods.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
It's not a "morality." It's the state of amorality. That's all you're left with.
Language game. It's functionally identical.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
Pick anything...say, "mass murder." If a jihadi or a neo-Nazi were tempted to do it, but he were to say to you, "If you can really show me a good reason why it's wrong, I won't," then by what pattern of reasoning could you show he was wrong?
Holy crap you are so naive. Are you fucking with me? You can't be this stupid?

If a mass murderer were to say that they suspect they MIGHT still have a functional conscience. They are looking for a reason NOT to do what they are about to do. They are looking to be convinced! And you are going to preach about God to them? You fucking condescending asshole!

You aren't going to offer compassion? Love? Understanding? Emotional support? Try to connect with them on a human level? You are going to preach?!?!?

So what are you going to do at that point? Convince him that your God exists? How?
What happens if he rejects your God? You haven't been able to convince me, why do you think you can convince somebody who is emotionally unstable and on the brink of mass murder?

What is your plan when they decide they are going through with it?

My plan is to turn off their lights. Two to the chest - one to the head.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. --James Matis

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests