You don't think murder is a moral concern? Fine.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm I am discussing morality while you are discussing murder so we cannot agree
How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Because some moral issues are more complex than murder and so require a greater length discourse.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm But if everyone agrees that murder is wrong then why does this not equally apply to all morally questionable actions ?
And maybe even multiple dialectics until settled.
It is "The best it can possibly be". And it's getting better. Slowly - but it's getting better.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm For if there was universal agreement about morality then society would actually be the best that it could possibly be ?
Holy fuck! That's a Stalinist over-reaction right there.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain
Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean we should burn it all to the ground?
For every 1 person that commits an immoral act millions do not! Why are you condemning all of humanity based on the actions of a few?
There is a name for this fallacy: hasty generalization.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to sayLogic wrote:
Just because its not perfect it doesnt mean we should burn it all to the ground ?
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve
I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Then I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this:surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:32 pm I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to say
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve
I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so
Man has free will. Fact.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 pm The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain
We have been making continued moral progress for thousands of years. Fact.
Given the two premises above I don't understand why you see free will as an obstacle to moral progress?
it sure sounds a lot like an "all or nothing" mindset...
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time
Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
We can however despite that work within such limitations and so become better human beings
Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
We can however despite that work within such limitations and so become better human beings
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
And who wold decide what is morally right?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:40 pm My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time
Mostly is better than never....surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:40 pm Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Nobody would because there would be no free willLogic wrote:
And who would decide what is morally right ?
For everyone would think and act exactly the same
However that is not a society I would want to live in
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.prof wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:56 am"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation. When such a sign appears in an exponent, it greatly reduces the over-all value in the outcome.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:20 pm
I-Values, being derived as you have written from quantitative measurement of the amount of attention units given by an observer to the observed, also include jealousy and hate. Indeed, passionate hate would probably be one of the most potent sources of I-Value imaginable. So Hate > Functions > Opinions.
The same applies to passionate jealousy.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Economists call this revealed vs stated preference. It's nothing new. It's the erudite way of saying "actions speak louder than words".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:06 pm So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.
The gap in communication is that for as long as you are using real-world measurements of human behaviour you will always be making descriptive not prescriptive arguments. And yet morality is dead in the water without a prescriptive element.
Murder is wrong. Not because <descriptive argument> but because prescriptive reasons. By the authority vested in our sheer numbers - we will lock you up! Or if we are less than civilized - we might even sentence you to death.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone. In that sense, murder contradicts Ethics; to murder is to be unethical. And, of course, to also be immoral. Murder violates morality.
All the above is descriptive. Yet, by connotation and implication it is at once prescriptive. A situation can be both at the same time.
Problem solved.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.
Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.
Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?
Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?
If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".
It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 amThat is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.
Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.
Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?
Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?
If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".
It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!
"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!!
What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.
Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.
It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
No, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pmROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 amThat is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.
Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.
Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?
Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?
If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".
It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!
"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!!
What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.
Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.
See! This is where you keep fucking up!Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!
5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!
That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
Actually "murder is wrong" is an axiom....it is assumed and as assumed it projects the course of people's lives.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:45 pmNo, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pmROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 am
That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.
Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).
While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.
Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.
I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?
Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?
If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".
It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.
ROFL!!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!
"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".
ROFL!!!!!
What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.
Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.
See! This is where you keep fucking up!Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.
The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!
5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!
That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.
So "without any axioms"....ROFL!!!!!
Alot of philosopher's talk about the evils of suicide (ie murder) as well as "murder" of other's...google it. Save the "you are for killing" argument.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
I was thinking more of a slave/master relationship(shouldn't have used abusive), in that I plot to murder for my freedom and succeed in that aim.Logik wrote: Self-defence is not murder. ...
What on earth is 'personhood'? But in the UK you can kill someone in self-defense but you will have to be prepared to justify it on the grounds of fear for one's life and there being no other alternative.Unless, of course - you live in a fucked up country like the UK where personhood means nothing, and self-defence is not a constitutional human right