Why does man, need a agreement?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:58 pm
You learned the meaning and the critiques of Consequentialisms from "the real world"?
The 'critiques' of consequentialism is armchair philosophy.
You're on the wrong website, then.

But I can see you don't know enough about the problems inherent to Consequentialism for me to get started with a response to that, and as I say, I have insufficient time and space to provide the information you lack and insist you don't need.

So best wishes to you.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:36 pm
But I can see you don't know enough about the problems inherent to Consequentialism
This sentence of yours. It puzzles me.

What is this notion/concept of a "problem" you speak of without an a priori system/framework of values?

For I am yet to meet a philosopher who can give me a definition of what a "problem" is without ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap, and without appealing to consequentialism in the process of defining the very meaning of a "problem".

But, if you think you are up to the challenge... do give it a try.

The pragmatic definition of a problem is a discrepancy between "is" and "ought".
IS: I don't have X
Ought: I want to have X
Problem: How to get X

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:09 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:02 pm
For I am yet to meet a philosopher who can give me a definition of what a "problem" is without ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap, and without appealing to consequentialism in the process of defining the very meaning of a "problem".
I'm glad you mention the Is-Ought. That's one of the problems.

Consequentialisms can't specify what consequence "ought" to be sought, or why it "ought" to be sought. That's why there are many different kinds of Consequentialism, that range from Egoism, to Utilitarianism, all the way down to non-Aristotelian versions of Care Ethics, depending on what "consequence" gets privileged. That's just one of the problems they all have.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:09 am
I'm glad you mention the Is-Ought. That's one of the problems.

Consequentialisms can't specify what consequence "ought" to be sought, or why it "ought" to be sought. That's why there are many different kinds of Consequentialism, that range from Egoism, to Utilitarianism, all the way down to non-Aristotelian versions of Care Ethics, depending on what "consequence" gets privileged. That's just one of the problems they all have.
Mr Can't, I notice you have some rather profound selective reading skills - you are putting the cart before the horse!

Please address my primary concern with your approach and explain to us why any of those things are "problems". Please tell us what a "problem" is.

Please also tell us why we ought ( :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ) to concern ourselves with "problems". Why not just ignore "problems"?
Since you also allude to the presence of more than one "problem", would you be so considerate as to tell us which "problems" we ought ( :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ) to privilege should we ever decide to solve them?

You strike me as a person who insists on adhering to principles. You seem as if you adhere to consistency and frown upon double standards. so I think it is in your own best interest that I shall hold you accountable to the very standards you have chosen for yourself.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:22 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:04 pm
thing is, is man really more than beast? animals have brains, animals have emotions (if you have a pet you know this) so is man more than beast, and what is it that is the distinction?
Yes, this is the question. I agree entirely.

And we might also note that in asking it, you have done one more thing than your dog can, or ever will do.

Moreover, in believing yourself capable of answering it, you've done a further thing your dog will never do. And in typing on your keyboard...and in waiting for an answer...and in being concerned about it in the first place...and so on.

So really, the empirical evidence is overwhelming that whatever "beast" means, we're something more, something also somewhat different, from that.
yea, but I don't have a dog, now what?

anyway, this very thing mentioned makes it important to understand what it is that requires us to have agreements, things like betrayal and unfulfilled expectations realistic or not and just about every interaction between humans is based on presumptions and assumptions of some sort of agreement or agreed behavior and actions.


the subject came up with a friend and he thought contracts where because of mistrust, but that's not true (though experience with contractors can make one see it that way) a contract (agreement) is the stipulation of what each other is entrusting the other to do, for if one knew not to trust so and so one wouldn't enter into a contract with that person in the first place.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:20 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:55 am
You strike me as a person who insists on adhering to principles.
How nice of you to say.

Consequentialism, as I have said, cannot justify its "ought," no matter which "ought" we take it to represent. That is the simplest way in which I can frame it. And it seems we agree on that, though you once used consequentialism as your justification for something.

So finally we're on the same page: at least about that.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:28 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:55 pm
anyway, this very thing mentioned makes it important to understand what it is that requires us to have agreements, things like betrayal and unfulfilled expectations realistic or not and just about every interaction between humans is based on presumptions and assumptions of some sort of agreement or agreed behavior and actions.
Yes, that's fair to say.

Now, the problem is this: what's binding about an agreement merely between people? Why should one not pretend to agree, then break the agreement in order to obtain advantage of some kind? That's a problem.

The mere existence of an agreement doesn't provide its objective moral justification or attach any duty-to-obey to it, you see. The duty to keep one's agreements has to come from somewhere, if it exists: but from where, since it is necessary to believe in it prior to any good-faith agreement?
...for if one knew not to trust so and so one wouldn't enter into a contract with that person in the first place.
True: but notice that that is exactly what the agreement-betrayer counts on. Most people will, as a matter of fact, tend to keep their agreements more often than not. The agreement-betrayer counts on this, and preys on people by the very means of it.

So it seems that contracts will exist if MANY people are reliable, even if some are not. But what tells us that the unfaithful ones are actually "wrong" or "evil," or "doing a bad thing" in some sense? After all, what they're doing seems to "work" for them, and doesn't completely disrupt the practice of agreement-making. So there's no obvious downside for them.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:20 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:55 am
You strike me as a person who insists on adhering to principles.
How nice of you to say.

Consequentialism, as I have said, cannot justify its "ought," no matter which "ought" we take it to represent. That is the simplest way in which I can frame it. And it seems we agree on that, though you once used consequentialism as your justification for something.

So finally we're on the same page: at least about that.
2nd datapoint confirming my suspicions that you have some reading disability.

No, we are not on the same page. I asked you to explain to us what a "problem" is. Why should we care about "problems"?

Till you do that, your opinion on any other topic you think you know anything about is worth less than an anal wart to me.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by -1- » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:15 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
A aggreement made by two animal's be the same strongly contractual binding as a aggreement between two folk's who build one house. One for money, one for to live in the inside for there house.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:25 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:15 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
A aggreement made by two animal's be the same strongly contractual binding as a aggreement between two folk's who build one house. One for money, one for to live in the inside for there house.
what animals

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:28 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:55 pm
anyway, this very thing mentioned makes it important to understand what it is that requires us to have agreements, things like betrayal and unfulfilled expectations realistic or not and just about every interaction between humans is based on presumptions and assumptions of some sort of agreement or agreed behavior and actions.
Yes, that's fair to say.

Now, the problem is this: what's binding about an agreement merely between people? Why should one not pretend to agree, then break the agreement in order to obtain advantage of some kind? That's a problem.
now you're talking what ethics is

The mere existence of an agreement doesn't provide its objective moral justification or attach any duty-to-obey to it, you see. The duty to keep one's agreements has to come from somewhere, if it exists: but from where, since it is necessary to believe in it prior to any good-faith agreement?
the morals is the agreement, example; the Ten Commandment are a set of morals
...for if one knew not to trust so and so one wouldn't enter into a contract with that person in the first place.
True: but notice that that is exactly what the agreement-betrayer counts on. Most people will, as a matter of fact, tend to keep their agreements more often than not. The agreement-betrayer counts on this, and preys on people by the very means of it.

So it seems that contracts will exist if MANY people are reliable, even if some are not. But what tells us that the unfaithful ones are actually "wrong" or "evil," or "doing a bad thing" in some sense? After all, what they're doing seems to "work" for them, and doesn't completely disrupt the practice of agreement-making. So there's no obvious downside for them.
well who has the power to enforce the contract, is where the deal is in this case. borrow money from a loan shark he will force the other party to fulfill his end. hence for fear of the normally unethical might still fulfill the agreement.

but as far as justification. one is always justified to fulfill his end of the bargain. the agreement justifies. the law (the agreement to use public roadways) justifies the police officer to fulfill his duty to write you a citation for speeding. hence take money from you.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by -1- » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:28 am

DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:25 pm
what animals
Two birds for instance. They live in marriage, they don't cheat on each other. They agree to fuck only each other.

Or take the mighty elephant. Or the king of all animals, the lion. Female lion hunts, brings home food for husband and king. That's how it should be. Or take for instance the Walrus. He has 294 wives on the average. If a intruder cometh, the male walrus will chase him away.

Or take the funny chimp. When you throw an piece of food to the cage, the alpha male will eat from it; then pass it to the Beta female. The beta female will take a bite, and pass it down. everybody gets a bite, even the chimp at the bottome off the totem pole of the tribe. Nobody gets left out.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:37 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:28 am
DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:25 pm
what animals
Two birds for instance. They live in marriage, they don't cheat on each other. They agree to fuck only each other.

Or take the mighty elephant. Or the king of all animals, the lion. Female lion hunts, brings home food for husband and king. That's how it should be. Or take for instance the Walrus. He has 294 wives on the average. If a intruder cometh, the male walrus will chase him away.

Or take the funny chimp. When you throw an piece of food to the cage, the alpha male will eat from it; then pass it to the Beta female. The beta female will take a bite, and pass it down. everybody gets a bite, even the chimp at the bottome off the totem pole of the tribe. Nobody gets left out.
and what if the two birds don't? what if any of these mentioned stop doing what you say they agreed to do? is there guilt? is the repercussions according to the agreement? or does the dominate one do as he pleases to the submissive and or the week?

there's no agreement, instinctual survival of some sort, yes, not an agreement. if in many cases the species doesn't respond to its instincts then it is most likely not to survive much longer.

if a one of the birds mentioned does anything out side of the instinctual norm there is no moral reproductions other than a result of the particular action. which technically has nothing to do with nothing in the case of morals and ethic, is all about the agreement in this case.
Last edited by DPMartin on Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:46 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:37 pm
and what if the two birds don't? and what if any of these don't do what you say they do?
Different things happen... but various animals have ridderent conceptions of justice and morality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... wrong.html

Justice and morality are nothing but tools for maintaining social order

As with all matters scientific - some work better than others.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:50 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:46 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:37 pm
and what if the two birds don't? and what if any of these don't do what you say they do?
Different things happen... but various animals have ridderent conceptions of justice and morality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... wrong.html

Justice and morality are nothing but tools for maintaining social order

As with all matters scientific - some work better than others.
where's the set of rules for justice in the animal kingdom? who enforces it?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests