Counters to the Following Arguments?

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And here's a summary.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

And here's why your claims are false and your argument unsound.

A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective. There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe. (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.) That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
I have to say you are VERY stupid [lack intelligence and cognitive powers] in this case because you deliberately or your skull is SO thick you cannot recognize what I have repeated a 'million' times, in addition you are unable to reproduce my argument precisely.

Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.

Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
Oh, ffs. Here's your argument, with the crucial improvement to #2.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is not-evil. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

Now, how about actually addressing my refutation?

Just mantra-mumbling that 'every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK' DOES NOT WORK.

And this is because a 'taxonomy' and 'definition' of evil and disbenefit is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Do you understand that? Just say if you don't, because I'll explain it really slowly and carefully, so that you can understand it.

Definitions, descriptions and taxonomies don't come in advance, as unarguable 'givens'. How ever you define or describe evil and disbenefit, they can be defined or described differently. So there's no moral objectivity here. Your argument DOES NOT establish the existence of moral facts.
Noises as usual based on ignorance and selective attention.
As usual you missed my point, i.e. note the bolded,
  • [Each and] Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
    E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
The point is you have a bastardized view of objectivity as inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers where anything not conforming to their views are condemned as in their subjective opinions as nonsense and meaningless. Such views had been destroyed by Sellars and Quine, it is embarrassing you are still clinging to them.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.
There exists a substance called "Genuine American Cheese" which lies halfway between plastic and actual cheese. That's why they have to include the word genuine in its name.

A system of morality that is too feeble to define 'good' falls into a similar category, and that is why the desperate inclusion of "-proper" in its name causes such mirth.

An accurate name for the cheese would be "inferior cheese substitute"
An accurate name for morality-proper would follow a similar pattern.
Nah, you are that ignorant.
I have already explained 'morality-proper' which is aligned with human nature need to be differentiated from pseudo-moral systems like deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, relative morality, etc.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:08 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am 1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.
Yeah, that "good" should be "what produces a net benefit for the individual and society" isn't objective (and indeed that's the case for all terminology--there are no objectively determined words, meanings, definitions, etc.), and what counts as a net benefit versus a net "disbenefit" isn't objective. In other words, for the latter, there are no objective states that in any way amount to preferred, valued, recommended, etc. states, and that isn't a point about language, it's a point about what sorts of things there are in the world and where those sorts of things are located.
As I had mentioned above, you and Peter are adopting a bastardized version of what is objectivity and objective reality which cannot be proven to be real.

Note
Whilst it is possible to define 'good' objective as qualified within a credible FSK, I had not preferred to focus on the term 'good' itself but rather define good as 'non-evil'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:04 am
First to me 'what is mind' is part of the living brain, i.e. no living brain = no mind at all.

This moral fact as an 'ougthness' is represented by its physical mechanism within the brain and mind of a living person.
As such this moral fact cannot be extramental, cannot be outside the mind nor exists without a living brain.

In another sense, it could be extramental of an individual's mind, i.e. it exists physically and objective in the brains of other humans which are external to an individual's mind.
This is what Peter and I are saying. So you're agreeing with us.

We characterize the above facts as "subjective."

So you mean to tell me that you're going through all of this over a simple disagreement about which word to use for the same facts?
You agree with 'subjective' facts?

I classify the above as "objective" which is the same as scientific facts are objective, i.e. independent of individuals' minds, beliefs and opinions on an intersubjective basis, i.e. as conditioned upon a credible FSK.

I don't think Peter agreed with your view of what is objective i.e. your personal view of an objective world. You can trash it out with him.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:44 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am
I have to say you are VERY stupid [lack intelligence and cognitive powers] in this case because you deliberately or your skull is SO thick you cannot recognize what I have repeated a 'million' times, in addition you are unable to reproduce my argument precisely.

Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.

Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
Oh, ffs. Here's your argument, with the crucial improvement to #2.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is not-evil. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

Now, how about actually addressing my refutation?

Just mantra-mumbling that 'every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK' DOES NOT WORK.

And this is because a 'taxonomy' and 'definition' of evil and disbenefit is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Do you understand that? Just say if you don't, because I'll explain it really slowly and carefully, so that you can understand it.

Definitions, descriptions and taxonomies don't come in advance, as unarguable 'givens'. How ever you define or describe evil and disbenefit, they can be defined or described differently. So there's no moral objectivity here. Your argument DOES NOT establish the existence of moral facts.
Noises as usual based on ignorance and selective attention.
As usual you missed my point, i.e. note the bolded,
  • [Each and] Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
    E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
The point is you have a bastardized view of objectivity as inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers where anything not conforming to their views are condemned as in their subjective opinions as nonsense and meaningless. Such views had been destroyed by Sellars and Quine, it is embarrassing you are still clinging to them.
Now, how about addressing my refutation of your argument, instead of just repeating your mantra?

And as for the 'net-disbenefit' of genocide - the European invaders of north America and Tasmania thought it to the net benefit of mankind to wipe out the indiginous populations. And the Nazis thought the same about the Jews. Your fictional 'morality-proper', based on 'not-evil' and 'net-benefit' - and supposedly independent from opinion - has no traction in the real world, where moral rightness and wrongness are nothing but argued and fought-over opinions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:06 am
Noises as usual based on ignorance and selective attention.
As usual you missed my point, i.e. note the bolded,
  • [Each and] Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
    E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
The point is you have a bastardized view of objectivity as inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers where anything not conforming to their views are condemned as in their subjective opinions as nonsense and meaningless. Such views had been destroyed by Sellars and Quine, it is embarrassing you are still clinging to them.
Now, how about addressing my refutation of your argument, instead of just repeating your mantra?
As I had stated you have misrepresented my argument.
Rephrase your argument more clearly and I will address it.
Not my maxim is 'never running away from any counter to my argument.' If I missed it, it is due to miscommunications.
And as for the 'net-disbenefit' of genocide - the European invaders of north America and Tasmania thought it to the net benefit of mankind to wipe out the indiginous populations. And the Nazis thought the same about the Jews. Your fictional 'morality-proper', based on 'not-evil' and 'net-benefit' - and supposedly independent from opinion - has no traction in the real world, where moral rightness and wrongness are nothing but argued and fought-over opinions.
If some murderer were to kill you and your whole family and benefited from the loots he stole and was never caught, you regard that as net-benefit?
Your thinking is very perverted!
Perhaps you are a closeted malignant psychopath whose empathy function is not active at all.

Note I stated,
"genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined."
Read it again to understand why genocide is net-negative to the individuals who died, their relatives, associates and humanity.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:58 am
I classify the above as "objective" which is the same as scientific facts are objective, i.e. independent of individuals' minds, beliefs and opinions
You just said "cannot be extramental." If something cannot be extramental it can't be independent of individuals' minds.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:47 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.
There exists a substance called "Genuine American Cheese" which lies halfway between plastic and actual cheese. That's why they have to include the word genuine in its name.

A system of morality that is too feeble to define 'good' falls into a similar category, and that is why the desperate inclusion of "-proper" in its name causes such mirth.

An accurate name for the cheese would be "inferior cheese substitute"
An accurate name for morality-proper would follow a similar pattern.
Nah, you are that ignorant.
I have already explained 'morality-proper' which is aligned with human nature need to be differentiated from pseudo-moral systems like deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, relative morality, etc.
Don't forget the other great failings of all your mere mortal predecessors. They forgot to assign fake numbers to everything to give the myth of false precision to their opinions.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:38 am ...
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
...
2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is [ ] a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
...
In English, morality IS about judgments and decisions.

In English, what you wrongly call morality, is actually called instinct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:58 am
I classify the above as "objective" which is the same as scientific facts are objective, i.e. independent of individuals' minds, beliefs and opinions
You just said "cannot be extramental." If something cannot be extramental it can't be independent of individuals' minds.
Nah, once a claim of reality [together with the experience of reality] is verified and justified via a FSK is independent of the individual's beliefs and opinion but it is not independent of the collective's mental.

I have stated many times. A scientific fact once accepted by a human constructed scientific FSK is independent of the the individual scientists beliefs and opinion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:47 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:53 am
There exists a substance called "Genuine American Cheese" which lies halfway between plastic and actual cheese. That's why they have to include the word genuine in its name.

A system of morality that is too feeble to define 'good' falls into a similar category, and that is why the desperate inclusion of "-proper" in its name causes such mirth.

An accurate name for the cheese would be "inferior cheese substitute"
An accurate name for morality-proper would follow a similar pattern.
Nah, you are that ignorant.
I have already explained 'morality-proper' which is aligned with human nature need to be differentiated from pseudo-moral systems like deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, relative morality, etc.
Don't forget the other great failings of all your mere mortal predecessors. They forgot to assign fake numbers to everything to give the myth of false precision to their opinions.
As I stated above, you are really ignorant, i.e. lack the breath and depth on the subject of morality and ethics. Here is from the extensive knowledge re morality that I had covered,
Hedonic calculus
In Chapter IV, Bentham [1748 -1832 ] introduces a method of calculating the value of pleasures and pains, which has come to be known as the hedonic calculus.
Bentham says that the value of a pleasure or pain, considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty and propinquity/remoteness.
In addition, it is necessary to consider "the tendency of any act by which it is produced" and, therefore, to take account of the act's fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind and its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the extent, or the number of people affected by the action.
From the above, you will note even in the 1700-1800s they are already attempting to quantify the qualitative within morality and ethics.

While I don't agree with Bentham's morality, I am with his earnest intentions to put numbers to moral elements.

The general principle is progress cannot be made without quantifying the qualitative to the best of one's ability and keeping to improve the process of valuation.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:19 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:58 am
I classify the above as "objective" which is the same as scientific facts are objective, i.e. independent of individuals' minds, beliefs and opinions
You just said "cannot be extramental." If something cannot be extramental it can't be independent of individuals' minds.
Nah, once a claim of reality [together with the experience of reality] is verified and justified via a FSK is independent of the individual's beliefs and opinion but it is not independent of the collective's mental.

I have stated many times. A scientific fact once accepted by a human constructed scientific FSK is independent of the the individual scientists beliefs and opinion.
You're the only one making an individual/ "collective" distinction. You'd have to explain why such a distinction matters, especially so that you're not simply forwarding an argumentum ad populum.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:31 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:47 am
Nah, you are that ignorant.
I have already explained 'morality-proper' which is aligned with human nature need to be differentiated from pseudo-moral systems like deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, relative morality, etc.
Don't forget the other great failings of all your mere mortal predecessors. They forgot to assign fake numbers to everything to give the myth of false precision to their opinions.
As I stated above, you are really ignorant, i.e. lack the breath and depth on the subject of morality and ethics. Here is from the extensive knowledge re morality that I had covered,
Hedonic calculus
In Chapter IV, Bentham [1748 -1832 ] introduces a method of calculating the value of pleasures and pains, which has come to be known as the hedonic calculus.
Bentham says that the value of a pleasure or pain, considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty and propinquity/remoteness.
In addition, it is necessary to consider "the tendency of any act by which it is produced" and, therefore, to take account of the act's fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind and its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the extent, or the number of people affected by the action.
From the above, you will note even in the 1700-1800s they are already attempting to quantify the qualitative within morality and ethics.

While I don't agree with Bentham's morality, I am with his earnest intentions to put numbers to moral elements.

The general principle is progress cannot be made without quantifying the qualitative to the best of one's ability and keeping to improve the process of valuation.
And bullshit is made by making up numbers and then pretending they weren't made up, because they must be true if you can't think of a better way to get better numbers.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:29 pm And bullshit is made by making up numbers and then pretending they weren't made up, because they must be true if you can't think of a better way to get better numbers.
What, like Physics claiming the speed of light is 299 792 458 meters / second, and then re-defining the "meter" and the "second" so that the speed of light actually remains constant?

Obviously! Every fucking system of knowledge protects its axiom against falsification.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:31 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:18 pm
Don't forget the other great failings of all your mere mortal predecessors. They forgot to assign fake numbers to everything to give the myth of false precision to their opinions.
As I stated above, you are really ignorant, i.e. lack the breath and depth on the subject of morality and ethics. Here is from the extensive knowledge re morality that I had covered,
Hedonic calculus
In Chapter IV, Bentham [1748 -1832 ] introduces a method of calculating the value of pleasures and pains, which has come to be known as the hedonic calculus.
Bentham says that the value of a pleasure or pain, considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty and propinquity/remoteness.
In addition, it is necessary to consider "the tendency of any act by which it is produced" and, therefore, to take account of the act's fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind and its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the extent, or the number of people affected by the action.
From the above, you will note even in the 1700-1800s they are already attempting to quantify the qualitative within morality and ethics.

While I don't agree with Bentham's morality, I am with his earnest intentions to put numbers to moral elements.

The general principle is progress cannot be made without quantifying the qualitative to the best of one's ability and keeping to improve the process of valuation.
And bullshit is made by making up numbers and then pretending they weren't made up, because they must be true if you can't think of a better way to get better numbers.
Repeat:
The general principle is progress cannot be made effectively without quantifying the qualitative to the best of one's ability and keeping to improve the process of valuation.

In the above case all such quantifications has to be made up. The consideration is how careful they are made up and controlled for improvements with an iterative feedback mechanism.
Post Reply