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 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:19 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:59 am

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.
  • In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
    -wiki
Note the ad populum fallacy is related to beliefs, i.e. if many believe it to be so.

However when I stated whatever is claimed from within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK it is not based on the beliefs of many individuals.
What is produced from a moral fsk are justified true moral facts which are verified and justified empirically and philosophical within the rigorous requirements of the FSK.

It is not like a survey of individual beliefs e.g. God exists which is believed by >80% of humans. The difference is the belief 'God exists' is not verified and justified empirically and philosophical within the rigorous requirements of a credible FSK.
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: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:23 am However when I stated whatever is claimed from within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK it is not based on the beliefs of many individuals.
Aside from the fact that this has jackshit to do with what I asked you, there's no knowledge without beliefs.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:14 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:31 am
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,



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.
But what is being tracked? There is a temperature at which under normal circumstances of pressure and so on a particular gas will become a liquid, or a liquid will freeze. The thermometer can have zero written anywhere along the line, and it can go up to three, or fifty, or a million and the numbers themselves dont' matter. But that thermometer is tracking the temperature of the substance it dipped into.

Your numbers don't do that. They aren't measuring anything, they don't track a moral fact, they are narrative numbers, you made them up to tell a story.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:14 am
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.
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.
But what is being tracked? There is a temperature at which under normal circumstances of pressure and so on a particular gas will become a liquid, or a liquid will freeze. The thermometer can have zero written anywhere along the line, and it can go up to three, or fifty, or a million and the numbers themselves dont' matter. But that thermometer is tracking the temperature of the substance it dipped into.

Your numbers don't do that. They aren't measuring anything, they don't track a moral fact, they are narrative numbers, you made them up to tell a story.
The numbers are made up to represent and track the relative changes in temperature.

I have already explained how my numbers relate to the degree of evilness.
The discussion in this case was not directly related to numbers and a moral fact per se.
It was related to how I rate the degree of evilness [indirect], i.e. in this case evilness of 'killings of humans'.
In this case, the relative degrees of evilness can be the number of people killed, there is a big difference between 1 killed and >1 million humans killed.

Which normal person will dispute strongly if I rate the degree of evilness as 1/100 for 1 killed and 99/100 for >1 million killed?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:28 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:14 am
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.
But what is being tracked? There is a temperature at which under normal circumstances of pressure and so on a particular gas will become a liquid, or a liquid will freeze. The thermometer can have zero written anywhere along the line, and it can go up to three, or fifty, or a million and the numbers themselves dont' matter. But that thermometer is tracking the temperature of the substance it dipped into.

Your numbers don't do that. They aren't measuring anything, they don't track a moral fact, they are narrative numbers, you made them up to tell a story.
The numbers are made up to represent and track the relative changes in temperature.

I have already explained how my numbers relate to the degree of evilness.
The discussion in this case was not directly related to numbers and a moral fact per se.
It was related to how I rate the degree of evilness [indirect], i.e. in this case evilness of 'killings of humans'.
In this case, the relative degrees of evilness can be the number of people killed, there is a big difference between 1 killed and >1 million humans killed.

Which normal person will dispute strongly if I rate the degree of evilness as 1/100 for 1 killed and 99/100 for >1 million killed?
So the numbers you issue as the basis for deciding what is and is not evil are made up by you to represent your opinions. And that's how you decided that it wasn't immoral to piss on a baby.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:28 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:01 pm
But what is being tracked? There is a temperature at which under normal circumstances of pressure and so on a particular gas will become a liquid, or a liquid will freeze. The thermometer can have zero written anywhere along the line, and it can go up to three, or fifty, or a million and the numbers themselves dont' matter. But that thermometer is tracking the temperature of the substance it dipped into.

Your numbers don't do that. They aren't measuring anything, they don't track a moral fact, they are narrative numbers, you made them up to tell a story.
The numbers are made up to represent and track the relative changes in temperature.

I have already explained how my numbers relate to the degree of evilness.
The discussion in this case was not directly related to numbers and a moral fact per se.
It was related to how I rate the degree of evilness [indirect], i.e. in this case evilness of 'killings of humans'.
In this case, the relative degrees of evilness can be the number of people killed, there is a big difference between 1 killed and >1 million humans killed.

Which normal person will dispute strongly if I rate the degree of evilness as 1/100 for 1 killed and 99/100 for >1 million killed?
So the numbers you issue as the basis for deciding what is and is not evil are made up by you to represent your opinions. And that's how you decided that it wasn't immoral to piss on a baby.
As I had stated all quantification of the subjective are made up.
What is critical is whether they are reasonable, rational and consistently by those who are familiar with the numbers and their contexts.

As I had asked,
Which normal person will dispute strongly if I rate the degree of evilness as 1/100 for 1 killed and 99/100 for >1 million killed?

Pissing on a baby [your previous 'pissing into a baptismal bowl'] is not directly related to morality.
But if you insist I can rate it at 0.1/100 degree of evilness to 90/100 evilness for killing a baby.
Surely normal persons can understand the relative differences in the number and will response to them emotionally with similar sense of disgust.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:04 am As I had stated all quantification of the subjective are made up.
Perhaps that's why you should stop fooling yourself that it makes any sense to quantify the subjective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Degrees of evilness?

What makes an action 37% evil? What extra little bit of evil would notch it up to 38% evil?

Is 0% evilness not-evilness? And are there also degrees of not-evilness?

Who says an action is evil in the first place?

Here's a counter to this argument: if evilness isn't shown to be a thing of some kind that exists independent from opinion - a bit like the devil? - then quantifying evilness is a ridiculous idea. It's like ascribing properties to a devil - or a god.

VA, please take note. The above is a clear counter to your argument - one of those things you say we never provide.

We do think of some actions as 'better' and 'worse' - and so more or less worthy of praise and condemnation - than others, based on our moral opinions. But the point of the trolley problem is to expose moral dilemmas that render attempts at quantification, such as utilitarianism, often worse than useless.
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: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:36 am Degrees of evilness?

What makes an action 37% evil? What extra little bit of evil would notch it up to 38% evil?

Is 0% evilness not-evilness? And are there also degrees of not-evilness?

Who says an action is evil in the first place?

Here's a counter to this argument: if evilness isn't shown to be a thing of some kind that exists independent from opinion - a bit like the devil? - then quantifying evilness is a ridiculous idea. It's like ascribing properties to a devil - or a god.

VA, please take note. The above is a clear counter to your argument - one of those things you say we never provide.

We do think of some actions as 'better' and 'worse' - and so more or less worthy of praise and condemnation - than others, based on our moral opinions. But the point of the trolley problem is to expose moral dilemmas that render attempts at quantification, such as utilitarianism, often worse than useless.
If you look at subjective sports e.g. gymnastics, diving, and similar the winner's point is at times a merely 0.001 over the second place or a total of perhaps the difference between the top five could be within a range of 1.000.
Generally the results are accepted without disputes except in rare cases.
So how did they differentiate between the first and second by merely .001 points.
An Analysis of Margin of Victory in Gymnastics
https://themedalcount.com/closest-margi ... ll-around/

What is critical is that the framework and system for the relevant must be soundly structured and organized to account for any potential discrepancies with allowance for margins of error.
I don't think the difference between 37% and 38% will be a big issue as compared if we recklessly rate a 37% evil as 70% or e.g. rate a murder of 10 the same evilness as >10,000 or a petty crime the same a murder.

You keep referring to 'moral opinions' but shut out what I stated, i.e. whatever must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible FSK.

Btw, whatever is finalized is not to be enforced nor imposed penalties upon individuals but merely provide a guide to individuals for their self-improvements plus to guidance for a society.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:54 am [verified and justified empirically and philosophical
We all know that you created that little slice of bullshit to avoid having to work out whether any particular claim you make is supposed to be empirical or not by the way.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:54 am [verified and justified empirically and philosophical
We all know that you created that little slice of bullshit to avoid having to work out whether any particular claim you make is supposed to be empirical or not by the way.
I have not done the empirical testing myself but relied on scientific facts and those that are potentially empirically possible.
For example if I claim there are human-liked aliens on a planet 1 light year away exists, this is empirically possible [all the bolded variables are empirically possible] whilst awaiting the evidence to confirm or reject it. In contrast if I claim God exists, it would be impossible empirically.

I claimed the moral fact upon a moral FSK is depended on the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is the represented by neurons and chemicals in the human brain, that is soundly empirical. I provide a crude empirical inference of falsifiability in comparison to psychopaths who had damaged inhibitors to kill.

Are you aware of the following,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
to map the whole human brains neurons and their correlation to human behaviors?
A lot of progress had already been done and when sufficient information is available humanity will be able to verify and justify that moral fact the 'oughtness not to kill humans' & others plus the inherent moral system. I noted a lot of other research that can support my point indirectly.

Btw, what I had presented is merely a small tip of the iceberg of my thesis. There are tons of materials I have not brought up and I don't intend to do so here.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:27 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:54 am [verified and justified empirically and philosophical
We all know that you created that little slice of bullshit to avoid having to work out whether any particular claim you make is supposed to be empirical or not by the way.
I have not done the empirical testing myself but relied on scientific facts and those that are potentially empirically possible.
For example if I claim there are human-liked aliens on a planet 1 light year away exists, this is empirically possible [all the bolded variables are empirically possible] whilst awaiting the evidence to confirm or reject it. In contrast if I claim God exists, it would be impossible empirically.

I claimed the moral fact upon a moral FSK is depended on the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is the represented by neurons and chemicals in the human brain, that is soundly empirical. I provide a crude empirical inference of falsifiability in comparison to psychopaths who had damaged inhibitors to kill.

Are you aware of the following,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
to map the whole human brains neurons and their correlation to human behaviors?
A lot of progress had already been done and when sufficient information is available humanity will be able to verify and justify that moral fact the 'oughtness not to kill humans' & others plus the inherent moral system. I noted a lot of other research that can support my point indirectly.

Btw, what I had presented is merely a small tip of the iceberg of my thesis. There are tons of materials I have not brought up and I don't intend to do so here.
You never even worked out if that "all ises exist in reality" thing was supposed to be empirical or true by some sort of definition. You just use that magic mantra of "confirming either empirically or philosophically" to avoid ever working out what sort of claim you are making. Then you treat every claim you've made as just both and neither.

There's nothing empirical about any "oughtness" at all, nor any other evaluative proposition. So you have to keep vacillating, never quite thinking about what sort of claim you've just made at any time, and treating it as whichever suits the moment.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:54 am You keep referring to 'moral opinions' but shut out what I stated, i.e. whatever must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible FSK.
The axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.

And that is a defeating counter to your claim about a credible FSK. And it refutes your argument for moral objectivity. So cut the 'where is your counter to my position?' bullshit.
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 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 am The axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.
Yeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 am The axioms or premises of your invented credible moral FSK can be nothing other than moral opinions: this is evil or not-evil (aka good); this is morally right or wrong; this is 73% evil - and so on.
Yeah, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly and he's yet to really acknowledge it or address it. He just keeps repeating the same talking points like a mantra. That's why I've said talking with him is like dealing with a telemarketer. In telemarketing, a lot of objections are simply ignored in favor of hammering-in talking points, basically with the hope of "beating the potential customer into submission," or more or less "brainwashing" them or something.
He's been stuck in this quantitative assesment of qualitive phenomena rut for years with zero progress. He's been known to argue that the Miss World competition counts as a scientific measurement of beauty.
Post Reply