what justfies?

[DPMartin]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

[Immanuel Can]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

What justifies what?

[DPMartin]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

What justifies what?

anything

a tornado tears through your home and shreds and throws all the people you care about what justifies that? a bomb lands on your home and does the same thing what justifies that? some one comes to your home and pretty much does the same what justifies that?


for example but really anything, what justifies anything? and why should there be a disagreement on what justifies?

[Impenitent]

circular definitions that never reach the thing in itself

-Imp

[Walker]

a tornado tears through your home and shreds and throws all the people you care about what justifies that? a bomb lands on your home and does the same thing what justifies that? some one comes to your home and pretty much does the same what justifies that?

Climate change?

[Immanuel Can]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

What justifies what?

anything

Like...having a cold "justifies" carrying a hankie?

That looks pretty easy, so I can't imagine that's what you meant. Can you be more specific?

[Scott Mayers]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

What justifies what?

anything

a tornado tears through your home and shreds and throws all the people you care about what justifies that? a bomb lands on your home and does the same thing what justifies that? some one comes to your home and pretty much does the same what justifies that?


for example but really anything, what justifies anything? and why should there be a disagreement on what justifies?

You seem to be implying a "justification" as some 'cause'. If you are thinking of some extended meaning, such as "good cause" versus "bad cause", this reduces to a discussion about the word, "just", as in "justice". For that, Plato's Republic may be of interest to you to read first, as this question was one of the earliest questions raised there. The whole book is about asking that one question.

If you mean, "correct cause", without value, then your question is reduced to, "how do we know what correctly causes any event?"

Which are you intending to ask?

[Logik]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

Risk appetite justifies. One's willingness to be wrong.

The Pyrrhonean definition of "knowledge" is the absence of uncertainty.

After all the evidence, facts and reasoning is done, after all perspectives are considered - uncertainty always remains.
All we have are probable or proximate causes, but the chance of being mistaken is ever-present.

Human understanding is imperfect and incomplete. That's a fundamental fact of the human condition.
The scientific principle of falsification hinges on this property of human (mis?)understanding.

What "justifies" is one's willingness to make a decision and act based on incomplete information.
What "justifies" is one's willingness to accept and tolerate the negative consequences.

Not IF, but WHEN you are wrong as a result of acting on incomplete information.

As with all human affairs - it's a continuum. Some people are too cautious, some people are too reckless.

Where is the balance? Somewehere here:

Risk-takers.
Risk-avoiders.
Risk-managers.

[DPMartin]

What justifies what?

anything

a tornado tears through your home and shreds and throws all the people you care about what justifies that? a bomb lands on your home and does the same thing what justifies that? some one comes to your home and pretty much does the same what justifies that?


for example but really anything, what justifies anything? and why should there be a disagreement on what justifies?

You seem to be implying a "justification" as some 'cause'. If you are thinking of some extended meaning, such as "good cause" versus "bad cause", this reduces to a discussion about the word, "just", as in "justice". For that, Plato's Republic may be of interest to you to read first, as this question was one of the earliest questions raised there. The whole book is about asking that one question.

If you mean, "correct cause", without value, then your question is reduced to, "how do we know what correctly causes any event?"

Which are you intending to ask?

this is not something I seek an answer for, this is posted to see what is seen as justified and why.

[DPMartin]

What justifies what?

anything

Like...having a cold "justifies" carrying a hankie?

That looks pretty easy, so I can't imagine that's what you meant. Can you be more specific?

so, you're saying reason justifies?

so in your example by reason of the voices in your head are saying you should kill and rape so that justifies, correct?

[DPMartin]

a tornado tears through your home and shreds and throws all the people you care about what justifies that? a bomb lands on your home and does the same thing what justifies that? some one comes to your home and pretty much does the same what justifies that?

Climate change?

you seem to listen to way to much news media

[DPMartin]

simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?

Risk appetite justifies. One's willingness to be wrong.

The Pyrrhonean definition of "knowledge" is the absence of uncertainty.

After all the evidence, facts and reasoning is done, after all perspectives are considered - uncertainty always remains.
All we have are probable or proximate causes, but the chance of being mistaken is ever-present.

Human understanding is imperfect and incomplete. That's a fundamental fact of the human condition.
The scientific principle of falsification hinges on this property of human (mis?)understanding.

What "justifies" is one's willingness to make a decision and act based on incomplete information.
What "justifies" is one's willingness to accept and tolerate the negative consequences.

Not IF, but WHEN you are wrong as a result of acting on incomplete information.

As with all human affairs - it's a continuum. Some people are too cautious, some people are too reckless.

Where is the balance? Somewehere here:

Risk-takers.
Risk-avoiders.
Risk-managers.

so, you're saying reason justifies?

so in your example by reason of the voices in your head are saying you should kill and rape so that justifies, correct?

[Logik]

so, you're saying reason justifies?

I said risk appetite. Not reason.

so in your example by reason of the voices in your head are saying you should kill and rape so that justifies, correct?

How is that any different to me, a voice outside of your head, telling you to rape and kill? Which voice might veto that advice?

Why does the location of the voice even matter?

If you want to rape and kill, and you accept the risks associated with your actions - kill and rape you shall. Who needs to justify this and why?

[DPMartin]

so, you're saying reason justifies?

I said risk appetite. Not reason.

you are saying "risk appetite" is the reason in your example, whether you know that or not.

so in your example by reason of the voices in your head are saying you should kill and rape so that justifies, correct?

How is that any different to me, a voice outside of your head, telling you to rape and kill? Which voice might veto that advice?

Why does the location of the voice even matter?

If you want to rape and kill, and you accept the risks associated with your actions - kill and rape you shall. Who needs to justify this and why?

its an example, get over it.

[Logik]

you are saying "risk appetite" is the reason in your example, whether you know that or not.

This conversation will go a whole lot smoother if you stopped re-interpreting my words from your reference frame.

Reason is a vague, broad and meaningless term. Risk appetite is a quantifiable, probabilistic/statistical phenomenon which pertains to uncertainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

its an example, get over it.

It's a crappy example. You have given "the voices" agency. If "the voices" have agency then it's no different to me telling you to kill and rape.

Why do you resist me, but submit to your voices?