The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:29 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:44 am
You are complaining about yourself, i.e. your responses are most empty of content; most of the time it is merely brushing off the arguments of others.
For your own intellectual sanity sake, you must provide well justified arguments to counter why my points are wrong.
You would have to make valid agrued points rather than just empty assertions.
You bandy words as if they are unproblematic.
Take "normal" for example. Your entire opinion rests on the meaning of that word, yet you seem to think it is meaningful.
At least you are countering something here.

What is the problem with my use of 'normal', note;
...
So what is the problem with my use of the term 'normal'.
An intelligent person would not find your definition, pasted in, as a valuable contribution.
It is tautological and question begging

No sane person, free from any mental disorder would want to kill oneself; no normal person would want to kill oneself.
I have told you that is false.



I am 100% confident whatever counters with your supporting views and references you throw at me, I will be able to explain it away and that my claim is rational 99% of the time.
LOL
Put your system to this question.
Is it moral to hunt foxes?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:53 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:06 am Thus when any human is killed by whatever means, that is against the moral standard.
Empty assertion.
Where does the Samurai Bushido fit into your moral scheme?
As I had stated,
ALL humans are "programmed" with the following;
1. a program to kill living things for food
2. a program to ensure 1 is not directed at oneself and other living humans.

But human beings being not perfect, the above programs can be defective to a range of degrees.
At the extremes [99/100] there are the psychopaths who will kill without hesitation and those who are highly suicidal where there is nothing that can stop them killing themselves. At the other end, there is is the extreme of minimal defect of say 1-10/100.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.


Those who volunteer to be legal soldiers, executors, will likely have a 30/100 defectiveness.

Thus the above defects ranging from 99/100 to 10/100 would be regarded as falling short of the moral standard of ZERO/100 defect of program 2.

There is nothing we can do to correct those with defects at >30/100 to be pacifists at present or the next two or so generations.
But that we are able to justify the moral fact as a moral standard that will drive humanity to seek improvements progressively to bring the defects within the majority down to below 30/100 towards say 10/100 without the understanding it is impossible to achieve 0/100 defectiveness.
This gradual improvement is very possible in the future [next 50, 75, 100 years] given the increasing trend in knowledge and technology.

The extreme pacifists will have a 1/100 defect in the program inhibiting killing of humans.

Note you are so ignorant of the additional information I had used to counter your question. There are more to it.
You are just talking bollocks. You love to tell people they are ignorant. But all I did was ask a question. A question which you completely failed to address.
Making up stats of the top of your stupid head.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:31 pm Sure. So it was an ontological stance, but you don't have any ontological stances.
Yeah. I am not committed to it. I am not committed to any ontology.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:31 pm Then I wouldn't say it's an ontological stance, it's just a possibility.
They are all possible. Impossibilities doesn't exist.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:31 pm Then the question becomes why we'd believe one possibility over another, or why we'd feel there's no basis for picking one over the other.
There is a basis. Epistemic utility.

I said that.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:31 pm The "transcendental 'I'" idea?
Transcendental where? I haven't "transcended" anything. I am still here. It's just where I draw the line at this moment.

I could draw it differently tomorrow. I like those limbs ....
I could extend it to the limits of my knowledge. The observable universe.

Lines.... They serve purposes.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:38 pm Transcendental where? I haven't "transcended" anything. I am still here. It's just where I draw the line at this moment.
I was just trying to guess what you might be talking about (again, charitably), since it seemed like you were positing an "observer 'I'" that's different than what's having feelings, experiences, etc.

There's historically an idea of a so-called "transcendental 'I'" that could be what you're alluding to (hence why I asked for clarification)
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:45 pm I was just trying to guess what you might be talking about (again, charitably), since it seemed like you were positing an "observer 'I'" that's different than what's having feelings, experiences, etc.

There's historically an idea of a so-called "transcendental 'I'" that could be what you're alluding to (hence why I asked for clarification)
Transcendence comes with too much other baggage/connotation.

I mean nothing more than "the observer of emotions, feelings and experiences".

Is a useful perspective for a scientist.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by VVilliam »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:45 pm I was just trying to guess what you might be talking about (again, charitably), since it seemed like you were positing an "observer 'I'" that's different than what's having feelings, experiences, etc.

There's historically an idea of a so-called "transcendental 'I'" that could be what you're alluding to (hence why I asked for clarification)
Transcendence comes with too much other baggage/connotation.
I think about death in the same way - a transcendence of sorts in which people more often than not go into with too much other baggage/connotation... IF indeed there is 'afterlife' - who knows how ones baggage might affect the outcome then experienced..


I mean nothing more than "the observer of emotions, feelings and experiences". Is a useful perspective for a scientist.
Yes. I would think someone who has spent a lifetime probing into the mysteries of the physical universe they were involved within, would most likely continue doing so, should they experience some alternate reality after they move on from this one.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:00 am The ultimate consideration of scientific truths as objective is its peers review and consensus by the majority of the specific scientists.
You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
That 'water is H20' is an objective truth had been peer reviewed within the Chemistry FSK and so far no one has disputed that scientific fact.

Not sure how your point is relevant to my point.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:29 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:54 am
You would have to make valid agrued points rather than just empty assertions.
You bandy words as if they are unproblematic.
Take "normal" for example. Your entire opinion rests on the meaning of that word, yet you seem to think it is meaningful.
At least you are countering something here.

What is the problem with my use of 'normal', note;
...
So what is the problem with my use of the term 'normal'.
An intelligent person would not find your definition, pasted in, as a valuable contribution.
It is tautological and question begging

No sane person, free from any mental disorder would want to kill oneself; no normal person would want to kill oneself.
I have told you that is false.

I am 100% confident whatever counters with your supporting views and references you throw at me, I will be able to explain it away and that my claim is rational 99% of the time.
LOL
Put your system to this question.
Is it moral to hunt foxes?
Brushing off as usual.

Morality-proper is confined to humans only and to those things [living or otherwise] that humanity has a vested interests in for their well-being.
Foxes are not human beings therefore has no moral consideration except where the killing of foxes will effect the well-being of humans.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:53 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:08 pm
Empty assertion.
Where does the Samurai Bushido fit into your moral scheme?
As I had stated,
ALL humans are "programmed" with the following;
1. a program to kill living things for food
2. a program to ensure 1 is not directed at oneself and other living humans.

But human beings being not perfect, the above programs can be defective to a range of degrees.
At the extremes [99/100] there are the psychopaths who will kill without hesitation and those who are highly suicidal where there is nothing that can stop them killing themselves. At the other end, there is is the extreme of minimal defect of say 1-10/100.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.


Those who volunteer to be legal soldiers, executors, will likely have a 30/100 defectiveness.

Thus the above defects ranging from 99/100 to 10/100 would be regarded as falling short of the moral standard of ZERO/100 defect of program 2.

There is nothing we can do to correct those with defects at >30/100 to be pacifists at present or the next two or so generations.
But that we are able to justify the moral fact as a moral standard that will drive humanity to seek improvements progressively to bring the defects within the majority down to below 30/100 towards say 10/100 without the understanding it is impossible to achieve 0/100 defectiveness.
This gradual improvement is very possible in the future [next 50, 75, 100 years] given the increasing trend in knowledge and technology.

The extreme pacifists will have a 1/100 defect in the program inhibiting killing of humans.

Note you are so ignorant of the additional information I had used to counter your question. There are more to it.
You are just talking bollocks. You love to tell people they are ignorant. But all I did was ask a question. A question which you completely failed to address.
Making up stats of the top of your stupid head.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
You are so ignorant and blinded when I have already answered your question plus with supporting; i.e.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 moral defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Note the my supporting explanations to the above.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:48 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:00 am The ultimate consideration of scientific truths as objective is its peers review and consensus by the majority of the specific scientists.
You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
That 'water is H20' is an objective truth had been peer reviewed within the Chemistry FSK and so far no one has disputed that scientific fact.

Not sure how your point is relevant to my point.
To have peer review, to have peers, where this isn't something you're imagining/fantasizing, you have to be able to observe peers and their peer review. That means that it has to be possible to observe something that's not yourself.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:57 am Morality-proper is confined to humans only and to those things [living or otherwise] that humanity has a vested interests in for their well-being.
Foxes are not human beings therefore has no moral consideration except where the killing of foxes will effect the well-being of humans.
So what is your answer?
What about killing dophins, polar bears, and baby seals.
Surely your all emcompassing moral system has SOMETHING to say about this?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:00 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:53 am
As I had stated,
ALL humans are "programmed" with the following;
1. a program to kill living things for food
2. a program to ensure 1 is not directed at oneself and other living humans.

But human beings being not perfect, the above programs can be defective to a range of degrees.
At the extremes [99/100] there are the psychopaths who will kill without hesitation and those who are highly suicidal where there is nothing that can stop them killing themselves. At the other end, there is is the extreme of minimal defect of say 1-10/100.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.


Those who volunteer to be legal soldiers, executors, will likely have a 30/100 defectiveness.

Thus the above defects ranging from 99/100 to 10/100 would be regarded as falling short of the moral standard of ZERO/100 defect of program 2.

There is nothing we can do to correct those with defects at >30/100 to be pacifists at present or the next two or so generations.
But that we are able to justify the moral fact as a moral standard that will drive humanity to seek improvements progressively to bring the defects within the majority down to below 30/100 towards say 10/100 without the understanding it is impossible to achieve 0/100 defectiveness.
This gradual improvement is very possible in the future [next 50, 75, 100 years] given the increasing trend in knowledge and technology.

The extreme pacifists will have a 1/100 defect in the program inhibiting killing of humans.

Note you are so ignorant of the additional information I had used to counter your question. There are more to it.
You are just talking bollocks. You love to tell people they are ignorant. But all I did was ask a question. A question which you completely failed to address.
Making up stats of the top of your stupid head.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
You are so ignorant and blinded when I have already answered your question plus with supporting; i.e.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 moral defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Note the my supporting explanations to the above.
This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:46 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:48 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 pm
You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
That 'water is H20' is an objective truth had been peer reviewed within the Chemistry FSK and so far no one has disputed that scientific fact.

Not sure how your point is relevant to my point.
To have peer review, to have peers, where this isn't something you're imagining/fantasizing, you have to be able to observe peers and their peer review. That means that it has to be possible to observe something that's not yourself.
I still do not get your point from my perspective.

My point is;
What is peers-review is, whatever is claimed to be a theory is tested in accordance to the scientific method and reviewed by the qualified peers within the respective FSK.
If there is consensus then the theory is accepted as true as qualified to the specific FSK.

Note for example the main theories in QM were not accepted by Einstein et. al. but there was sufficient acceptance by a majority that QM is now officially recognized as a true representation of reality and generate loads of utilities for mankind.

The layman will then trust the reliability of the theory based on the credibility of the FSK and that those theories trusted can be repeatedly useful to them.

Thus I don't see how my point as above is related to your question above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:57 am Morality-proper is confined to humans only and to those things [living or otherwise] that humanity has a vested interests in for their well-being.
Foxes are not human beings therefore has no moral consideration except where the killing of foxes will effect the well-being of humans.
So what is your answer?
What about killing dophins, polar bears, and baby seals.
Surely your all emcompassing moral system has SOMETHING to say about this?
As I had stated the killing of living non-humans is outside the scope of morality-proper.

True there are people who are against killing dolphins, polar bears, baby seals but that is not morality proper at all. This is merely a social issue. It is up to each opposing party to justify and convince others of their views by providing alternatives etc.

What if say, there are 100 Eskimos who for various reason has to depend on fishes in their surrounding seas. For various reasons the fish stock are also depleting and top of that the seals are also relying on those fishes the Eskimos hunt. If the baby seals are not killed, they will eat all the fishes and the Eskimos [humans] will starve to death.
Thus it is a social issue with the solution that only a % of baby are killed so that the Eskimos will have enough fish to survive.

Morality-proper has to be confined to humans only.
If not, someday, people will insist even killing living germs and microbes is immoral.
Note the extreme and stupidity of the Jains who cover their mouth and sweep in front of them before they walk just in case they killed insects and other living things.

As you can see, your views are too shallow and narrow.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:00 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:36 pm
You are just talking bollocks. You love to tell people they are ignorant. But all I did was ask a question. A question which you completely failed to address.
Making up stats of the top of your stupid head.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
You are so ignorant and blinded when I have already answered your question plus with supporting; i.e.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 moral defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Note the my supporting explanations to the above.
This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.
Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.
Post Reply