The Limits of Morality

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4952
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:11 am

Judaka wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 2:18 am
I have presented no counter-argument to your ideas because when you say something like "morality is a means of being" it's just too stupid to listen to. You're talking about something biologically hardwired into humans through evolution and calling it a "means of being". Moral actions "act as boundaries which form reality". Can you understand that what you're saying makes no sense? It may be possible that you're actually trying to say something sensible but I can't tell because either you're talking complete nonsense or it's so esoteric that one can't take anything you say at face value.

I would be surprised if Tryingmybest can paraphrase your argument correctly because honestly, whenever I read even one sentence from a post of yours, I find confusing language being used inappropriately and misleadingly.

Whether you've willfully misread what I've said or not, I can't tell, however, to say people are generally intelligent and industrious enough to understand whatever they're taught well is not an argument you have any evidence to support. You are perhaps out of touch with what the average working person is capable of doing and what they are not.

I think my hope is that in a moment of lucidity you may respond in a way that helps me to understand you and I might learn something interesting but it does not even appear you're aware that you're different and I find lack of self-awareness makes for dull conversation.
Thanks for wasting your time on me.

All morality is a way to be where right and wrong actions are premised on values that act as points of origin for the human condition. For example "love" may be a value, it is the origin of a person's or societies actions. There is a right way to love, where love exists in a fully ordered and unified state. There is a wrong way to love where love exists in a fractured disordered state.

All being exists through unity, where what is seperate or percieved as seperate is absent of structure. Being seperate from a society or having a body with elements seperate from there place observe deficiencies in health or being.

What is not unified is absent of being, this absence of being occurs through division resulting in extremes. The issues of killing and morality observes one extreme of warmongering or pacifism.
Killing becomes immoral when subject to either extreme, hence a balanced approach is necessary.

This balance occurs through embracing both, and both are embraced when kept within there proper order. What is seperated by various extremes is brought together through a middle path in which both are embraced.

Proper order is defined by necessity. Necessity is defined by keeping need in balance with want.

Now all actions have a ripple effect. They form reality. They either work with natural law or against it.

If I pick up a cup fill it with coffee, this action is a boundary of movement. This movement leads to another movement where reality is composed of various movements.

The same occurs with a simple action that is premised in selfishness or selflessness. Doing what is necessary vs doing what I want but do not need. One set of actions leads to another set of actions. All reality is composed of various frameworks of movement.

Now because the practical examples are innumerable you may want to ask questions if you do not understand or provide a counter argument on any or all of the points.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:57 am

I will once again advise that if you speak with a goal of conversation or communication, perhaps a little more effort into speaking plain English? Grand gestures and expressions are counterproductive.

You speak more nonsense frankly, I don't wish to argue about irrelevant things like whether love is a value or not, in my mind, it clearly isn't but speaking about just morality.

What is your position on the origin of morality? From God? Natural Law? I can only speak about morality to those who understand it is subjective because I want some potential for me to learn and not merely argue against stupidity.

If you recognise morality is 1. subjective and 2. biological then your positions become flawed, since you talk about morality like it isn't flawed, contradictory, emotional, unfair and so on. Clearly, if you look around the world, morality can be all of these things but some people don't want to see what is actually there but simply live in a fairy tale. It can't be that if you subscribe to Western morality you agree with for instance, rural Indian or Muslim morality (of the many examples) and vice versa I suppose.

When one approaches things as a student instead of clamouring to teach, the things they can learn!

You want to understand morality then go look at it, don't talk about values and ideas. After you understand it then you can invest yourself into philosophy.

The "ripple" effect of actions is not necessarily pre-determined, if it creates boundaries for you then it's because you perceive them. I have no idea what a "boundary of movement" is in this context, what boundary exists for anyone because of coffee being poured into a cup? Are you trying to make sense or are you doing this for your ego?

The world is savage and meaningless, acts of selfishness behave like all other acts, their outcomes determined through causation. If a psychopath murders someone, gets away with it and maybe makes some money and some fond memories, no mystical force exerts itself to intervene or punish. This is not fair to the victim, it's a hard pill to swallow that something so unfair can go unpunished in every possible way. We want to believe it's not true but alas, the world operates under causation and morality is not a force in causation other than in how it compels people to think and act.

Morality is not TRYING to ensure that you will succeed in life or that good things will happen to you, there's no reason to think it will outperform other ways of living in this regard. Are you trying to argue otherwise? Are you interpreting a morality that achieves this and yet remain within the confines and restrictions of standard ethics?

More idealism that could only ever be thought of as true because it would be so nice if it were.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:57 am
What is your position on the origin of morality? From God? Natural Law? I can only speak about morality to those who understand it is subjective because I want some potential for me to learn and not merely argue against stupidity.
Varying quantities of nature, nurture and agency.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:57 am
If you recognise morality is 1. subjective and 2. biological then your positions become flawed, since you talk about morality like it isn't flawed, contradictory, emotional, unfair and so on.
All positions are contradictory because all language is recursive. Humans are contradictions.
By what criteria do you evaluate a position as being "flawed" or "sound" and why?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:57 am
When one approaches things as a student instead of clamouring to teach, the things they can learn!
In the paragraph above you failed to disclose your subjective values for "flawed" and "good" arguments. This suggests to me that you don't understand the problems of criterion and justification.

So you should probably follow your own advice and try to learn something.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm

All positions are contradictory because all language is recursive. Humans are contradictions.
By what criteria do you evaluate a position as being "flawed" or "sound" and why
Not sure where you fit into all this Logik but you've come to join in the nonsense?

"All positions are contradictory because ALL LANGUAGE IS RECURSIVE"?

Recursive definition: "characterized by recurrence or repetition".

Confused, I re-read it but it sounds worse every time. Is this perhaps something you feel is known by many or your is it own unique understanding? I can't fathom what you might mean by what you've said here. My own criteria is quite plain and boring, sound arguments have premises that lead to the conclusion necessarily AND all premises are factually correct.

"All positions are contradictory because all language is recursive. Humans are contradictions"

Your premise is that positions are invalid because language is recursive (and perhaps because all humans are contradictions), either way, I wouldn't call this argument sound because firstly it's invalid, as I can easily make a non-contradictory position with recursive language.

"Cheese is a fantastic, delightful, amazing, cherished, delicious, beautiful, lovely, superb, endearing, soft, tasty, wonderous, excellent, gorgeous, splendid, magnificent option for breakfast."

Your argument is also unsound because your premises are untrue; as not all language is recursive in nature.

An argument being unsound is a flaw in anyone's book, if I can prove that an argument is unsound, there need not be any discussion with regards to establishing criteria. Anyone who can't accept an unsound argument is flawed simply isn't worth speaking to.

We might also throw in something about a sound argument only being a good argument if it accomplishes the goal of proving or disproving a point as intended, where that point is useful in either demonstrating an argument or supporting a point in a larger argument.
In the paragraph above you failed to disclose your subjective values for "flawed" and "good" arguments. This suggests to me that you don't understand the problems of criterion and justification.

So you should probably follow your own advice and try to learn something.
Shall I scroll through your threads in this forum to see whether you've followed your own ludicrous advice or is that too sad of a way to spend my time?

If you actually practice what you preach then consider that perhaps consider that when one makes an argument for premises being untrue and saying this makes an argument flawed, some leniency might be shown to this naive individual who thought it would be self-explanatory that an argument with untrue premises and false conclusions might be considered flawed.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:46 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
all premises are factually correct.
By what objective criteria for factual correctness?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
I can easily make a non-contradictory position with recursive language.
Challenge accepted. Go.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
"Cheese is a fantastic, delightful, amazing, cherished, delicious, beautiful, lovely, superb, endearing, soft, tasty, wonderous, excellent, gorgeous, splendid, magnificent option for breakfast."
I have no idea how to assert or verify the truth-value of this claim. So congratulations on your meaningless non-contradictory position.
Unless you help me out on how to determine if cheese is indeed "fantastic", "delightful", "amazing" etc. Maybe it isn't? Have you heard of the mind-projection fallacy? Did I mention that I am lactose intolerant?

And I fully expect you to accuse me of moving the goal posts. Don't care. If it's unverifiable - I don't care about your positions.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
Your argument is also unsound because your premises are untrue; as not all language is recursive in nature.
All language is recursive. Define "language". <---- See what I did there?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
An argument being unsound is a flaw in anyone's book, if I can prove that an argument is unsound, there need not be any discussion with regards to establishing criteria.
Well, that's rather ironic. By what objective criteria for unsoundness would you prove that my argument is unsound?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
Anyone who can't accept an unsound argument is flawed simply isn't worth speaking to.
Logical fallacy: Begging the question. See paragraph above.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
We might also throw in something about a sound argument only being a good argument if it accomplishes the goal of proving or disproving a point as intended, where that point is useful in either demonstrating an argument or supporting a point in a larger argument.
By what objective criteria for proof or disproof?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:40 pm
Shall I scroll through your threads in this forum to see whether you've followed your own ludicrous advice or is that too sad of a way to spend my time?

If you actually practice what you preach then consider that perhaps consider that when one makes an argument for premises being untrue and saying this makes an argument flawed, some leniency might be shown to this naive individual who thought it would be self-explanatory that an argument with untrue premises and false conclusions might be considered flawed.
Help me understand how you establish the truth-value of your premises?

Never mind. Can you give me something which you consider to be a "true premise". A premise whose truth-value cannot be doubted or challenged?

Lets see if you've ever heard of the Münchhausen trilemma; Alfred Tarski's undefinability theorem or Pyrrhonism in general.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am

I have no idea how to assert or verify the truth-value of this claim. So congratulations on your meaningless non-contradictory position.
Excuse me? I only endeavoured to show you a non-contradictory position because you said there was no such thing! This position is necessarily subjective. There is no truth-value in this claim but if you've accepted your position is wrong then I shan't beat a dead horse.
All language is recursive. Define "language". <---- See what I did there?
No, I have no idea what you did here.

What's more interesting to me than you accepting my position on cheese as non-contradictory is that you accepted it as an example of recursive language. I could have just said "Cheese is good" because, in your mind, that's recursive since all language is recursive but I didn't. Why not? Because "Cheese is good" is not recursive and any idiot can see that.
Well, that's rather ironic. By what objective criteria for unsoundness would you prove that my argument is unsound?
I fail to see the irony here, have I not already offered you the general criteria for unsoundness and have I not already proven that your argument is unsound? You aren't even disputing my demonstration merely asking me to repeat myself.

You continually use the term "objective criteria" but what exactly do you think that means in the context of philosophy? You ask for truth-value to be determined in a position on how tasty cheese is and you accuse me of logical fallacy for an opinion on who is worth spending my time on despite the fact it's not playing a role in my arguments, I'm still spending my time on you despite what I said right?

An argument is unsound if it is invalid or the premises are untrue - there is a general consensus on this. If you wish to argue against this then do so but I shan't continually entertain stupid questions. You can offer an alternative if you want to discuss this further.

You're asking for objective criteria for proof and disproof? Earlier you were asking for my subjective criteria and that's fine but now I don't see what you want. The scientific community has their standards, I have my standards, you've got yours (well maybe you don't) but you get the idea. Don't ask for unreasonable things.

Can't say I've heard anything about the theories you've mentioned but all they're saying is that the truth can't be proven right?

The only way that one can argue that the truth cannot be proven is by discounting the observation of causation and intersubjectively verified observable truths. It's comparable to the arguments one should make when arguing in favour of solipsism! I choose to believe in my senses.

You've been asking me stupid questions, making stupid statements and I have no idea what you're even lecturing me about anymore. You've got a problem with me failing to establish my own criteria for good arguments and now you're complaining that my position on cheese is not assertable or verifiable as a claim (its an opinion). So I give you my positions on what is a good argument and what is a flawed argument and you literally come back and tell me that it's not good enough, I need some objective criteria. Then you proceed to tell me the truth cannot be proven, what ramifications that has for "objective criteria" for you I can only guess.

I'll once again refer to my main point that you're completely derailing this thread with this line of conversation. This would happen in every thread you decided to bring up this line of conversation. Hence, why should I press people to give me this kind of information as you're requesting when it undermines the conversation at hand as opposed to making it better?
Last edited by Judaka on Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:07 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Excuse me? I only endeavoured to show you a non-contradictory position because you said there was no such thing! This position is necessarily
subjective.
So you claim that you have shown a non-contradictory position. Lets put aside the contradiction or non-contradiction aspect for now and focus on the claim that you have "shown a position".

Have you? Maybe you have - maybe you have not.

How about you allow us to decide for ourselves by being transparent with what you deem to be valid inclusionary AND exclusionary criteria for what entails a "position".

Is this statement a position: Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen?
How about this one: Waggedy shmoog poof.

Once we have established what is and is not a "position" then we can determine whether any particular claim is contradictory or non-contradictory.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
There is no truth-value in this claim but if you've accepted your position is wrong then I shan't beat a dead horse.
Don't pat yourself on the back just yet ;)
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
No, I have no idea what you did here.

What's more interesting to me than you accepting my position on cheese as non-contradictory is that you accepted it as an accept of recursive language. I could have just said "Cheese is good" because, in your mind, that's recursive since all language is recursive but I didn't. Why not? Because "Cheese is good" is not recursive and any idiot can see that.
Ad hominem.

Perhaps any idiot can see that it is not recursive.
Perhaps only a genius can see that it is.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
I fail to see the irony here, have I not already offered you the general criteria for unsoundness and have I not already proven that your argument is unsound? You aren't even disputing my demonstration merely asking me to repeat myself.
I never asked you for a general criterion. I asked you for a procedure so that I can (for myself) decide what is a "sound" and an "unsound" argument.
I am asking you to teach me the process by which you have come to decide that my argument is "unsound".
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You continually use the term "objective criteria" but what exactly do you think that means in the context of philosophy?
I don't know what you consider to be "in" and "out of" context for philosophy. To demonstrate. If you claim that some things are "in" and some things are "out of" the context of philosophy, then you should be able to explain
to me the procedure by which you decided which is which.

Go ahead. I am waiting.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You ask for truth-value to be determined in a position on how tasty cheese is and you accuse me of logical fallacy for an opinion on who is worth spending my time on despite the fact it's not playing a role in my arguments, I'm still spending my time on you despite what I said right?
Allow us to determine if you were right. Let us know what procedure you used to reach that conclusion.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
An argument is unsound if it is invalid or the premises are untrue - there is a general consensus on this. If you wish to argue against this then do so but I shan't continually entertain stupid questions. You can offer an alternative if you want to discuss this further.
You are not helping your case here, sport.

Now that you have drawn distinctions between "sound" and "unsound" arguments without providing a procedure to tell them apart,
You have now drawn more distinctions between "valid" and "invalid premises". Can you give us a procedure to distinguish such premises from each other?
You have also drawn a distinction between true and untrue premises. Can you give us a procedure to distinguish those from each other?

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You're asking for objective criteria for proof and disproof?
I am asking for a procedure for drawing the distinctions that you have drawn. Is that too much to ask?

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Earlier you were asking for my subjective criteria and that's fine but now I don't see what you want. The scientific community has their standards, I have my standards, you've got yours (well maybe you don't) but you get the idea. Don't ask for unreasonable things.
Would you be so kind as to provide a procedure for distinguishing "reasonable" from "unreasonable" asks?

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Can't say I've heard anything about the theories you've mentioned but all they're saying is that the truth can't be proven right?
No. Tarski says that truth cannot be defined. Godel says that truth is a higher notion than proof. There are things which are true that cannot be proven to be true.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
The only way that one can argue that the truth cannot be proven is by discounting the observation of causation and intersubjectively verified observable truths.
You mean the only way that you know of. If your knowledge is limited, then you could be wrong?
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You've been asking me stupid questions, making stupid statements and I have no idea what you're even lecturing me about anymore. You've got a problem with me failing to establish my own criteria for good arguments and now you're complaining that my position on cheese is not assertable or verifiable as a claim (its an opinion).
By what criteria for "smart" vs "stupid" questions?
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
So I give you my positions on what is a good argument and what is a flawed argument and you literally come back and tell me that it's not good enough, I need some objective criteria. Then you proceed to tell me the truth cannot be proven, what ramifications that has for "objective criteria" for you I can only guess.
So far all I have heard from you is "I trust my own senses" and "I am the arbiter of what's a good argument".

Because you have sure failed to state your criteria.
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
I'll once again refer to my main point that you're completely derailing this thread with this line of conversation. This would happen in every thread you decided to bring up this line of conversation. Hence, why should I press people to give me this kind of information as you're requesting when it undermines the conversation at hand as opposed to making it better?
By what criteria for "on-point" vs "derailment" ?

I hope that by now you see the general trend emerging here. Any dualism, any binary distinction requires a mind.
Since the crux of the matter is that we have no objective standards, there seems to be this unsolvable problem at hand. Who decides?
And so I would like to draw your attention to the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge.

Ironically and recursively. Making distinctions between procedural and declarative knowledge is procedural not declarative knowledge.

Morality is just a special case. A boolean distinction between right/wrong.
Is it procedural or declarative? Philosophy has been trying to turn it into declarative knowledge for centuries.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:07 pm

So congratulations on your meaningless non-contradictory position
If I am getting ahead of myself it's only because I trust that you say what you mean lol.

A position is a stance/opinion, needlessly to say, it must be intelligible.
Ad hominem.
I do get bored when people look for logical fallacies, I have stated not a single logical fallacy here. Neither did I the last time I was accused. I only took you at your word when you congratulated me on providing a non-contradictory position using language. I made a particular effort to have actual recursive language in my example and you accepted it. My argument is not and was not presented as "only idiots think language is recursive therefore language isn't recursive".
I never asked you for a general criterion. I asked you for a procedure so that I can (for myself) decide what is a "sound" and an "unsound" argument.
You have quoted my very procedure for determining what a sound argument is in your post.
You mean the only way that you know of. If your knowledge is limited, then you could be wrong?
I am never 100% certain about anything, I believe it is wiser to doubt myself and be open to new ideas than be convinced I am correct when that only closes me off to new ideas. Even if the result will probably be the same in that I'm sure enough that what I'm saying is correct that I'll act as though it is until proven wrong.
You are not helping your case here, sport.
What do you think my case is? What do you think I'm trying to demonstrate? I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove. That people should devolve their justifications for all their word choices? That I should assume our vocabulary could be confused and share definitions for every word we use to ensure proper understanding?

You came into this thread about morality and told me "all positions are contradictory" and "you need to explain what your idea of a good and flawed argument". So my goal was to show that positions are not necessarily contradictory, you agreed, now you disagree again.

I've offered you an explanation on what a flawed argument or a good argument is and your response was to lecture me on how I also need to define what is a sound argument, what is a valid argument and etc. When did I agree to play this game with you? Once I've answered those questions, you'll bombard me with further demands for extrapolating on my word usage and positions right?

If your goal is to toss me into an epistemological nightmare where conversations can't take place because truths can't be verified, language is recursive or whatever else you've got in store for me, let me save you the trouble. I am not interested in detrimental philosophy that restricts and hurts, I am interested in using philosophy for practical applications only.

You can understand what I'm saying perfectly well and this conversation is going smoothly as we share ideas and thoughts. Yes, there's misunderstandings and complications and yes, the limitations of language are partly to blame for that. If you've got some practical ideas for how the impact of linguistic problems in conversations can be lessened by an attentive individual then share it. Otherwise, this conversation isn't worth continuing, though I won't explain why that is, I hope not knowing won't render you unable to understand what I'm saying but somehow I think you'll manage.

I would never have ventured into the epistemological side of a philosophy forum, these conversations are always so pointless. I'm not unaware of the problems you're talking about and I know it goes way deeper than you've so far brought up (with regards to interpretations of words and concepts) but I choose to ignore these problems in the respects where worrying about it would only prevent imperfect yet worthwhile conversation.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:40 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:07 pm
If I am getting ahead of myself it's only because I trust that you say what you mean lol.

A position is a stance/opinion, needlessly to say, it must be intelligible.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I meant it when I said "Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen!"
So can you be forth-coming about your criteria for "intelligible" vs "unintelligible".
I made a particular effort to have actual recursive language in my example and you accepted it. My argument is not and was not presented as "only idiots think language is recursive therefore language isn't recursive".
What I challenged you on was the incompleteness of your claim. That "any idiot can see that X is not recursive".
You omitted the alternative hypothesis: Only a genius can see that it is recursive.

If you don't track of both possibilities that's just bad science.
You have quoted my very procedure for determining what a sound argument is in your post.
When I asked you for a procedure for drawing distinctions you have me a paragraph where you drew 3 other distinctions you couldn't explain.
So when I was uncertain about the 2 distinctions you previously drew (sound vs unsound argument) now I am uncertain about the 6 further distinctions you have drawn.

So much for your position being "intelligible".

The point in my Pyrrhonian perspective is to demonstrate to you how much you take for granted.
How much you assume/pre-suppose as true. You haven't asked enough "why?" questions. You haven't yet been to the abyss.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:06 pm

If this wasn't a philosophy forum I would be sure I was getting trolled but I've met enough people here who have such insane ideas that I believe you actually think you're in the right here.

I've had enough.

Good day.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:14 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:06 pm
If this wasn't a philosophy forum I would be sure I was getting trolled but I've met enough people here who have such insane ideas that I believe you actually think you're in the right here.
You are still stuck in an illusion.

Do you think you can tell the difference between a troll and a gadfly?

Do you think you can tell when you are wrong and somebody else is right? By what criteria for "wrong" and "right"?

Q.E.D - The limits of morality.

Calling me "insane" is either an ad-hominem or a coping mechanism to preserve your religion.

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Dapplegrim » Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:06 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:06 pm
If this wasn't a philosophy forum I would be sure I was getting trolled but I've met enough people here who have such insane ideas that I believe you actually think you're in the right here.

I've had enough.

Good day.
Yep, lots of trolls about and not enough goats!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4952
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:03 pm

Judaka wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:57 am
I will once again advise that if you speak with a goal of conversation or communication, perhaps a little more effort into speaking plain English? Grand gestures and expressions are counterproductive.

Grand gestures and expressions are relative terms to the observer, inherently meaningless in and of themselves.



You speak more nonsense frankly, I don't wish to argue about irrelevant things like whether love is a value or not, in my mind, it clearly isn't but speaking about just morality.

What is your position on the origin of morality? From God? Natural Law? I can only speak about morality to those who understand it is subjective because I want some potential for me to learn and not merely argue against stupidity.

The origin of morality stems from "all of being" as a unified entity in and of itself. We we deem as "moral" is a proper way to be, with what is "proper" observing a form of symmetry. For example it is "proper" to act in one scenario in "x" manner, while "y" manner is deemed improper.
More specifically it is proper to kill in one situation, such as self-defense, in another situation (strictly for pleasure), it is not. The examples can be particularize further from here, but we are still left with a question of "what is proper?"

Considering each active action is deemed as proper depending upon its manifestation in a receiving or "passive" framework, with the framework being any set of events in which the moral action is activated, the action is deemed as "moral" dependent upon its symmetry to a passive (or recieving) set of events the observer "projects" himself into.

The reciprocal nature of the framework, allowing such action to even begin with, necessitates a symmetry between an active/passive nature to the observer/framework and in these respects we are left with symmetry as a foundation for not just morality but an effectual mirror effect where the symmetry between the active and passive (as one fitting into the other) shows a form of "unity".

For example, killing is justified when one is trying to be killed as the "potential death" of the self aligns with the actualization of "killing" to stay alive. The actual state of causing a perceived enemy to "cease" aligns with the framework of potential death.

In these respects, what deems morality as a proper way of being is not just conducive to "timing" but an inherent symmetry through reciprocation that unifies the actions of the observer to a proper set of movements in time (a homeless person begging for food or a man trying to kill the observer effectively are just movements and nothing more).

This symmetry between the active and passive states of "being" lead to a unity or singularity with "unity" being the foundation of not just "being" but an approximation of this "one being" when observed through approximations of it in localized active/passive phenomena.

Each active/passive set of movements is a localization of the "one reality" and exists as an approximation of it and as an approximation takes on a unified nature in itself as an extension of it. Hence we understand morality as a cause/effect paradigm where one singular structure of events leads to another.

Morality as a proper way of being, is rooted in unity of action through symmetry, and is "cause" in itself allowing the observer/framework paradigm to be reciprocating forms of being where "synthesis" is the root of all "cause" and value in the foundation of the not just the human condition but "being" itself.






If you recognise morality is 1. subjective and 2. biological then your positions become flawed, since you talk about morality like it isn't flawed, contradictory, emotional, unfair and so on. Clearly, if you look around the world, morality can be all of these things but some people don't want to see what is actually there but simply live in a fairy tale. It can't be that if you subscribe to Western morality you agree with for instance, rural Indian or Muslim morality (of the many examples) and vice versa I suppose.

If I argue morality as subjective, we are left with a question of what is subjective and are relegating "subjectivity" to an objective interpretation conducive to group agreement; hence it cycles back to group subjectivity and we are left with a dualism between the two.

If I premise this on biology, from a perspective of "all being" as a foundation for morality, I have to include not just physics, chemistry, but math, logic, psychology, etc.



When one approaches things as a student instead of clamouring to teach, the things they can learn!

Is that a position of being "a teacher" or "a student" who doesn't know anything? Learning is probabalistic, because it is premised in a empirical nature of time in many regards, hence it is statistically inevitable not everyone can learn. This probabilism, while observed in the student's receptive capacity, is relegated to the teach as well.



You want to understand morality then go look at it, don't talk about values and ideas. After you understand it then you can invest yourself into philosophy.

Save the preaching "teacher", I have done the "whole charity", "comfort the dying or alone", etc. like everyone else. Have you? Tell me what it is like to deal with a suicidal man everyone is passing by in the streets while everyone is walking by and doing absolutely nothing, or a homeless old person trying to make money doing small jobs people ignore?, tell me about trying to comfort someone whose friend died in a random car accident.

Blah, blah, blah...I am sure you can tell me, but don't go around projecting an absence of basic life situations on other's...this is ignorant to not just me and other's, but it reflects badly on you.



The "ripple" effect of actions is not necessarily pre-determined, if it creates boundaries for you then it's because you perceive them. I have no idea what a "boundary of movement" is in this context, what boundary exists for anyone because of coffee being poured into a cup? Are you trying to make sense or are you doing this for your ego?

The ripple effect observes a foundational nature of "frequency" within all being where a state of actualized movement twists potential being into a further actual state of reality where "actualization" alternates through a continual form of repeated, but ever present cause, through a continual variation of actions.

The ripple effect may not be pre-determined, but the ripple effect is determination and this is determined as self-referencing cause.

The coffee being poured in a cup is a set of movements that exist in a framework of other movements (the physical environment, such as the house being a set of relatively slower movements or the ) and existing from prior movements (the coffee being made) to further potential movements where the action of the coffee being poured exists if and only if there are movements that exist after it (such as being drunk, spilled, evaporation, etc. where the potential state observes not just a formless state of variations but reflects all localized active states as effectively forming "void").

One movement forms another and in these respects causality is the bending of "darkness" where actualization is the light of all being...even in the simplest of movements. This reflects phenomenological interpretations of being and non-being, such as in the genesis allegory, where darkness is given meaning through a simple act of "reason" forming it. Reason, the "word" in the genesis allegory, is the division of nothingness as pure being referencing a state of "actualization" and "potentialization" symmetrical to aristotelean interpretations of phenomenon but further more acting as a foundation of measurement in itself.



The world is savage and meaningless, acts of selfishness behave like all other acts, their outcomes determined through causation. If a psychopath murders someone, gets away with it and maybe makes some money and some fond memories, no mystical force exerts itself to intervene or punish. This is not fair to the victim, it's a hard pill to swallow that something so unfair can go unpunished in every possible way. We want to believe it's not true but alas, the world operates under causation and morality is not a force in causation other than in how it compels people to think and act.

What is savage and meaningless is that which is to be formed in accords to the movement of time, and the question of "meaning" cannot be relegated as a complete question in itself due to its progressive nature of requiring further interpretations.

To say something is without meaning, necessitates a continual definition of meaning to be defined, hence the observation of "meaningless" is meaningless.

True savagery is cold objectivity and observing the futility of cruelty as changing anything.



Morality is not TRYING to ensure that you will succeed in life or that good things will happen to you, there's no reason to think it will outperform other ways of living in this regard. Are you trying to argue otherwise? Are you interpreting a morality that achieves this and yet remain within the confines and restrictions of standard ethics?

More idealism that could only ever be thought of as true because it would be so nice if it were.


You are the one pushing an idea about morality.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4952
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:35 am

Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:06 pm
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:06 pm
If this wasn't a philosophy forum I would be sure I was getting trolled but I've met enough people here who have such insane ideas that I believe you actually think you're in the right here.

I've had enough.

Good day.
Yep, lots of trolls about and not enough goats!
I don't know if I necessarily agree with your statement entirely, judaka seems like a good sacrificial goat to me.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:55 am

Goats? Think of the vegetarian trolls!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest