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

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 2:53 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:50 pm
where's the set of rules for justice in the animal kingdom? who enforces it?
Where as in 'where are they written down'?

They are not. The rules are understood and enforced by the group.

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 3:03 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:53 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:50 pm
where's the set of rules for justice in the animal kingdom? who enforces it?
Where as in 'where are they written down'?

They are not. The rules are understood and enforced by the group.
how is that? that would be make angry the dominate one and he attacks correct? again the dominate does as he pleases to the submissive and the week. hence survival instincts on the part of the weaker.

where as your parents teach you to not do a thing and do a thing in respect to a moral which can be the same method, but that's because you didn't respond to what was said correctly in teaching you. hence words in which the rules were expressed or revealed to the other that did not know the rules or have any rules.


and besides this thread is about man's need for agreement, not a debate on instincts v the existence of morals in animal kingdom

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 3:14 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:03 pm
how is that? that would be make angry the dominate one and he attacks correct? again the dominate does as he pleases to the submissive and the week. hence survival instincts on the part of the weaker.
Up to a point. At some point those you treat like shit will revolt.

And you kinda need them to survive.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:03 pm
where as your parents teach you to not do a thing and do a thing in respect to a moral which can be the same method, but that's because you didn't respond to what was said correctly in teaching you. hence words in which the rules were expressed or revealed to the other that did not know the rules or have any rules.
Correct. They indoctrinate you in the current social norms.

A lot of the behaviour you learned were through pain, or threats of pain, not through words.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:03 pm
and besides this thread is about man's need for agreement, not a debate on instincts v the existence of morals in animal kingdom
There are many kinds of agreement. Tacit. Verbal. Contractual.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by -1- » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:29 am

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:37 pm

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.
I think you may have wanted to say "repercussions" there instead of the "reproduction".

Anywhoo. You been inside he brain of a bird? How do you know how it feels emotionally and in culturally ingrained guilt after it cheats on her or his spouse? I think it's too large a leap in assuming that they don't have a moral code, or barring that, that they don't feel remorse or guilt.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:35 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:29 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:37 pm

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.
I think you may have wanted to say "repercussions" there instead of the "reproduction".

Anywhoo. You been inside he brain of a bird? How do you know how it feels emotionally and in culturally ingrained guilt after it cheats on her or his spouse? I think it's too large a leap in assuming that they don't have a moral code, or barring that, that they don't feel remorse or guilt.
how do you know they do? did they tell you? I wasn't trying to prove they do. the proof that mankind does is all over the human race but animals no, if they did surly there'd be proof not theory.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:44 pm
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"?
You defined the problem yourself.

"Problem" presupposes consequence. If we say we "ought" to do something, it's only because it's "useful for" some consequence that we are taking to be justified. Or to put it another way, problems aren't just problems: they're "problems FOR..." (outcome X, or Y, or Z). But X (or Y, or ) cannot be shown to be "the right consequence."

You've killed consequentialism, then. And you did it all by yourself. You didn't need my help at all, except to realize you'd done it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:30 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:37 pm
the morals is the agreement, example; the Ten Commandment are a set of morals
Ah. No, this makes a mistake.

It's one thing to say, "A code of commandments exists."

It's quite a different one to say, "This is the RIGHT code of commandments, and we are duty-bound to obey it."

There are many "codes of commandments," and they often command us to different things. The Mayans, for example, thought human sacrifice was a religious and moral achievement and duty. We don't.
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.
Nietzsche thought this was true. He said that moral commands simple serve some aspect of the general human (specifically male) "will to power." In other words, they are just expressions of desire to control others, enforced by power not rightness or duty.

But is that moral? Are ethics no more than a power-play by ethicists and those they serve?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:27 pm

image001.png
image001.png (110.03 KiB) Viewed 520 times

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by -1- » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:16 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:35 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:29 am

Anywhoo. You been inside he brain of a bird? How do you know how it feels emotionally and in culturally ingrained guilt after it cheats on her or his spouse? I think it's too large a leap in assuming that they don't have a moral code, or barring that, that they don't feel remorse or guilt.
how do you know they do? did they tell you? I wasn't trying to prove they do. the proof that mankind does is all over the human race but animals no, if they did surly there'd be proof not theory.
You're actually right. I give this argument to you. I lost.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:44 pm
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"?
You defined the problem yourself.
No, I didn't? Please refrain from inserting things into my mouth (words or otherwise) before I slap you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm
"Problem" presupposes consequence. If we say we "ought" to do something, it's only because it's "useful for" some consequence that we are taking to be justified. Or to put it another way, problems aren't just problems: they're "problems FOR..." (outcome X, or Y, or Z). But X (or Y, or ) cannot be shown to be "the right consequence."

You've killed consequentialism, then. And you did it all by yourself. You didn't need my help at all, except to realize you'd done it.
3rd datapoint confirming my suspicions that you have some reading disability.

It's almost, as if, my prophecy is coming true. AMEN!
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:02 pm
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".
4th (and final request) In the simplest English possible.

Please park the "consequentialism" discussion for now. We are going to get absolutely NOWHERE on any topic until you explain your conception of a"problem" to us.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:46 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:42 am
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".
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:26 pm
"Problem" presupposes consequence. If we say we "ought" to do something, it's only because it's "useful for" some consequence that we are taking to be justified. Or to put it another way, problems aren't just problems: they're "problems FOR..." (outcome X, or Y, or Z). But X (or Y, or ) cannot be shown to be "the right consequence."
You have the response you need, one in which I agree to the problem you identify with "problem," and also show that consequentialisms of all kinds are deeply flawed, as you can see.

It's your choice as to whether or not you like the facts. But they are what they are.

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:46 pm
You have the response you need, one in which I agree to the problem you identify with "problem," and also show that consequentialisms of all kinds are deeply flawed, as you can see.
4th datapoint.

Once is ignorance. Twice is error. Three times is benefit of the doubt. Fourth time is sheer fucking malice. This sophist asshole deserves no mercy!

No. I don't have the response I need you dumb c.u.n.t. I told you to stop putting words in my mouth.

I have not identified any "problems". I MENTIONED but I didn't USE the word 'problem'.

You keep USING the word 'problem' so I insist that you define it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:57 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:48 pm
You keep USING the word 'problem' so I insist that you define it.
I've said already. A "problem" is a term that presumes a consequence. You said exactly the same thing. I only added that the "consequence-in-view" you choose, whatever it may be, is incapable of a showing of any justification.

Is that a "problem" for your desire that I should say something different (your chosen consequence)? Too bad, really: the fact is that you simply can't justify your claim that (or anybody in my place) should.

QED

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

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:57 pm
I've said already. A "problem" is a term that presumes a consequence.
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
You USED the word "problem"!!!! You PRESUMED that Consequentialism has CONSEQUENCES.

If you see a problem with the word "problem" then stop fucking USING IT!
If you think presuming consequences is a problem then stop fucking DOING IT.

As a philosopher surely you strive to avoid contradictions?
Yet here you are, committing the worst kind of contradiction - performative ones!!!

I told you. No. I PROMISED you this early enough:
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:55 am
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.
I am going to shove the "consistency" cactus as far up your ass as it will go.

Performative contradiction by performative contradiction I am going to take away ALL of your language.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6448
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:16 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:59 pm
Performative contradiction by performative contradiction I am going to take away ALL of your language.
Are you suggesting that "performative consistencies" are...problematic? How do you justify that claim?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests