Euthanasia

Post Reply New Topic

I see now why you don't consolidate your posts.

Please forgive my misinterperating your posts. I shall merely declare that I disagree, and leave my first post to this thread as my sole contribution to it.

He acts as if those people are good scholars and worthy to listen to. How do we have *more* information on moral theory? We hardly have a lot of improvement and our society is still based upon enlightenment principles as are most of the societies of the rest of the developed world. We have additional arguments by Nozick and Rawls perhaps, but still Bastiat and Locke are more modern thinkers and still referenced.

I disagree, it is the perfect way to establish a relationship of power and authority over an object, and is essential for defining anything.

And what if the latter one, the "less beneficial" one, was your child. Wouldn't this be somewhat different? What if you simply liked the latter a lot better? I still think it is subjective.


Worth more only is useful if you are evaluating something. If I am the appraiser then I may place whatever price I want on whomever or whatever I want as value is inherently subjective and not objective.


We're all ignorant of all of the variables, but we all are allowed to make choices.


Possibly so, but they still can make choices on whatever they want, as nobody knows all of the variables.

Don't present things with anal amounts of detail and learn to shorten your writings. It is a simple skill, and you'll need it.


Rationality in human action is a self-aggrandizing lie.
And when you say should, you refer back to moral truth. Can you prove that moral truth even exists? No. Therefore, how can you prove that suicide is morally wrong?


I assuredly don't have to trump that 1+1=3, now do I? Laws are facts, theories aren't, but rather good estimations, as there are competing theories in most areas.


Well, technically, as you stated. Science doesn't assert what facts are, however, if one proposed a 6000 year old earth theory based upon a really old book without much proof then I don't really have to trump it because the means to establish the claim is already seen as illegitimate. 6000 year old earth is hardly a theory, it is a belief.

It would not be the same house because it literally isn't the same house. It could be a very good approximation to that same house, but it would not be the same house. Continuity in the human being is a more complex thing than what you give it, and it is not that essential of a thing either, as in both cases a structure was lost and in both cases a structure can be replaced.

I disagree with your reasoning. I assert that human beings can be replaced.

Nope, I am still me due to continuity. If I were cloned and my clone were given all of the same attributes, and even if it was after my death and everything, then that clone would not be me because of the lack of continuity.

I don't believe in human rights, I believe in property. If I dispose of future mes according to my self-ownership then that is what I do.

Yes you can. You don't have to rebuild them or their conscience, you just have to get a being to fill their position.

Sane is arbitrary. No, universal law cannot, as there are not universal laws that we have direct access to, in order to determine how beings ought to act. I say that we cannot define sanity.

I disagree with both. How do we know sane? How do we know insane? We have no absolute means of telling how a being ought to act or how they ought not to act, therefore I say that sanity is a social construct. You can assert whatever you want, but how can you prove that your basis of measurement is not subjectively chosen?

You may not necessarily be able to rebuild the item destroyed. If I destroy an heirloom, a wedding dress, or anything like that then I cannot get that item back. Not only that, but I still don't think that something not being restorable even MATTERS. You assert it does, I say that the claim is baseless as restoration has nothing to do with ownership.

Nothing is identical, and frankly, adequate is subjective. It does not matter if we have the same individual back.

Benefit is subjective, there may be absolute elements to benefit such as mental reactions, but benefit itself is subjective. No, they your assertion of "should" is stupid and only self-serving.


I completely and totally disagree with that statement and no definition of yours of good or moral or ethical will sate me. We do not know, and we CANNOT know, and therefore anything you say is nonsense.

It is not an issue of calculation. There is NO data. As David Hume wrote: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

Both are impossible.


Why? If we define this item as the other person's item then it is totally rational. That item belongs to them, intruding upon that would be going against the rule set up. Net benefit is not something I care about, once again, a social definition of rights being imposed upon the problem.

Your posts are too long and your logical processes are too annoying. I take it chunk by chunk as most of the time there is nothing gained through your additional words.

No, because the destroyer desires it to be destroyed. It is irrational for him to cede his desires to another being. We can argue that the desire for destruction is irrational, but rationality in desire is a stupid concept prone only to self-serving concepts, especially given that all of these truth based assertions are baseless.


Well, rational actions must follow from something and the most rational thing I can think of *is* desire, as otherwise we merely impose values based upon our desires.

No, we know no variables.

But most of the knowledge is beyond our reach anyway, in economic analysis for example we have the division of positive and normative economics, where positive economics is merely facts, and normative is judgment. The two aren't the same because facts are different than judgment, as the latter requires moral ideas and moral ideas are beyond the reach of knowledge.

I disagree, you can't prove a wrong one.

Actually, some evolutionary biologists think that suicide arose for the reason of benefiting the integrity of one's relatives. http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/facstu1.htm Do a search for evolutionary and you'll find that theory, it should be somewhat below the middle of the page.

But driving and motivating a species doesn't matter to the individual in the species. Very few people live in a strictly Darwinian manner. Also, if all desire is rational then how can we call any desire irrational.

But why does impacting the world matter? I'd argue that there is no inherent reason why we should say it matters.
Society is a construct and a rather unimportant one.

No, if you don't own yourself then the choice is illegitimate as others are meant to choose for you and will force you into their choices. Like I said, I don't care much about a Sartrean definition of freedom in a discussion of liberty, it is sort of stupid and disingenuous. Also, happiness is really not what I am aiming at, I don't care about happiness.


Um..... no. Nonsensical statements and ultimately just sophistry.

No, disutility does not require death. Continued existence is perceived by suicidal individuals as causing disutility. Utilizing things is not important, nor is contributing, what matters is living or dying by your choices.

Not exactly, as we are defining the terms differently. I'd argue that utility seeking is not the "proper behavior" but rather IS the behavior, and argue that utility seeking is expressed by fulfilling ones desires, including suicide, including religion, including all things egoistic and altruistic.


Um.... so? Change and progress don't have inherent meaning, heck, progress is only highly trumpeted by you because it is a god term within our society.

Yeah, you are now getting religious. The universe enforces nothing. Evolution IS not anything so anthropomorphic. Not only that, but there is no reason why another highly intelligent species would pop up, we really aren't that important. Progress is not a foundation, as progress means positive change. The universe changes, and that is all. Entropy can be seen as progress but most see it as negative.

Ok, I still disagree. Especially given that we are operating on the assumption that suicide must be bad.

People have bodies, people have choices with their bodies, people should be able to choose without the morality of others forced upon them, therefore suicide.

Seems to me the basic assumption here is that living is good and dying is not.

To the best of my knowledge... everyone dies... eventually.
So when and how someone dies is just a variable that can be changed by a great many factors.

To argue that suicide is selfish is to say that we owe other people our continued existence.

To argue that suicide is an end and death should be avoided at all costs is to assume that there is something wrong with dying, even though we know it will happen no matter what we do.

Arguments about one's sanity and ability to make rational decisions whether to live or die will never be absolutely proven one way or another.

I believe that on an individual level, a person has the inherent right to decide when and how they will die... be it suicide or natural causes. Accidental death would be one defined as being out of their control.

The argument against suicide and euthanasia comes from two kinds fo people... the one's left behind when a person dies, and persons who attempt suicide - fail - then change their mind about dying.

The people left behind take the position that they know that living is better than dying... even when they could not possibly know this. It may be the fear of the unkown, or a selfish interest in keeping a loved one alive, that drives their feelings.

The person who attempts suicide but fails and then is glad they did not succeed does not become the spokesperson for anyone contemplating suicide, yet our societies use them as such (or they do this themselves sometimes).

Oh that I had your temperance and theory of mind awesomelyglorious.

And if only I had a duck avatar. Frankly, I regret my stubbornness, each post I read is a few pages long, if only I were given simple syllogisms so that I could say "I disagree with premise 3!" or some such.

lol... the duck is mine! squeek SQUEEK!

As for the rest of it.. it's a shame we don't disagree more. I'm sick and tired of trying to decipher long and complex and inherently complex posts. I should just leave that up to you in future.

I seem to always get it wrong, and even when I get it right they person seems to be able to think they can get away with "oh, I didn't mean it like that" and then invent another meaning for the words they have spoken. I know my theory of mind sucks and I have a great deal of troubles looking at a problem from other people's perspectives. Which is why I think I sometimes come across as a complete arse in this subforum. But it's always nice reading your posts because while I disagree with some basic premises of yours... at least your premises remain constant. This Hero is like trying to debate "snake(numbers)" Anyhow... you should probably get back to this right to life business.


EDIT: I mean that "right to life" as in "the right to own (and dispose) of that life" rather than the "right to have someone else force you to live"

I would not call his post complex. I suppose it is complex, but the ideas he references seem rather simple. He distrusts old Enlightenment liberals and dislikes our obsession with their values. He refers to progress as if it is inherently good and calls things irrational if he dislikes them. He tends to think of reality as a huge math problem with missing variables and thus is rigidly rationalistic. He regards all human values from a communal perspective and thus when we say as methodological individualists "why not?" his question will start off as "why?". He thinks very highly of his intelligence and analytical ability when most of what he does is he uses terms very literally or unusually in some form or fashion and invokes his own odd philosophy. His English seems odd, like either a foreigner, a younger individual or someone with odder issues, which could explain why his philosophy seems unusual. I think he is most likely a young person though given his cockiness and insulting nature, and the fact that odd political leanings are common at that age and he seems to have an odd political leaning. He tends to hold to a view of choice which could be described as Sartrean, in that freedom can never diminish from his view, he likely uses this idea to argue that less free societies are not actually less free, and it seems a dead give away that he hates liberal ideas of society. Seems to be a utilitarian with a worship for "progress". And that is only what I got from just one of his major posts, other posts he seems to express a deference for some universal rules.


He has his own theory of mind problems from what I can tell, and really, "oh, I didn't mean it like that." is simply a problem to be found on the internet. Heck, I've said "oh, I didn't mean it like that" a few times before, mostly if I run into something I consider an improper interpretation. I probably have my own theory of mind problems as I know that there are some thinkers I have major problems in debating as even though I don't think that I am wrong, neither side can really effectively communicate with the other. Thanks, I am glad that my premises remain relatively constant. I think our major disagreements might end up being on the meaning of objective reality and on moral truth as I know you are an objectivist, but I end up seeming rather skeptical on both of those issues.

I figured as such. I didn't think you were talking about abortions.

Sorry to sound so incoherent and raw earlier. I think I was having an acute allergic reaction to the cetylpyridinium chloride in that mouthwash. I'm not using that stuff anymore, oy! My tongue was swelled-up as a football bat!

Anyway, I think that the key to this issue is to actually try to get past the idea of "self-ownership" and take this to a deeper level. The question we should ask is not whether or not a person should die, but why a person lives. What is it that causes us to value the lives of ourselves and others? What is it that compels us to preserve it? When we can answer this question clearly and succinctly, then it shouldn't be difficult to answer the question as to when or whether someone has a "right to die."

wow... you have a great depth of analysis. I tend to just see posts as much more simplistic. I analyse posts more to the following:

"If I accepted this as true, what would it mean to/for me?"

Then: What is the Metaphysical Premise?
Then: What is the Epistemological Premise?
Then: What is the Ethical Premise?
Then I start by answering the metaphysical.

I don't even think (or think to think) of half the stuff you just labeled.

So when I say your premises remain constant that is how I mean them. I have seen you argue a few different sides at times but your underlying premises remain the same. You'd make a good objectivists lol

Why get past that? Frankly, that deeper question is specifically the one I'm trying to avoid, the reason being that there is no knowable correct answer. I mean, I could say personal preferences easily and go along just fine with that simply going in line with my tendency to post as a moral skeptic, but others might invoke some more higher moral construct, and once we go into morality then we lose any ability to speak of things we can know and it is this icky complicated mess where the question cannot be answered clearly or succinctly.

The reason that I pose the question, though, is that the matter should be entirely elective if we seriously can't think of any particular reason that a person should live. It should be either socially arbitrated or a matter of individual choice.

To be perfectly honest, why give people an individual choice in the matter? If there is really no universal moral skeletal structure within which to make such decisions, then it is all as well to force one decision or another upon someone. The one thing that libertarians never consider about morality is that strong concepts of "liberty" are still a brand of moralizing. It just isn't traditionally acknowledged as such. Libertarians are just as determined as any other politically active group to go about "legislating morality."

I'm certainly pro-choice in all but a slim few respects, but I think that we should take a broader view of what we deem to consist of "morality" or "moralizing." After all, the conflict between conservatism and liberalism is no more than two moral paradigms at war. One just doesn't call itself such.

I do point by point analyses as multipoint posts seem too common.


Most of these are just observations from trying to do a point by point analysis on what he types. It really just boils down to a different type of analysis.

I'd think I'd make a pretty good objectivist too. I know I can accept a lot of their ideas, but I also know I don't really agree with their solution to the is-ought problem though. If they ignored the is-ought problem or had different foundations for their meta-ethics then I might like 'em more. They really should have avoided the questions and followed Max Stirner's somewhat existential path or explained action using Austrian praxeology(though in all fairness, Austrian praxeology was developed around the same time as her philosophy).

Well, the question will fall down to it being socially arbitrated or a matter of individual choice, the problem is that we can't necessarily prove the value of either.


Ah, there is a difference. There is no *known* universal moral structure. Sure, liberty is a moral idea. The logic really ends up going, there is no known higher universal authority, I want less coercion for my life, and you don't have a good reason to coerce me anyway, so therefore, I should be given the right over my life, you should be given the right over your life, and we all will have less to fight over in terms of who must live and who must die, as we have decentralized the decision making and thus less of a moral dilemma. Not only that, but we have more ability to all pursue the unknown good.

Ok, I recognize that.

I am perfectly fine with voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill. I am, however, totally opposed to INVOLUNTARY euthanasia. Also, I have a strong distaste for perfectly healthy people committing suicide, I consider it a form of cowardice and almost always associated with depression and thus the person committing suicide is usually not in their right mind.

Ok...There have been way to many passages...also awesomelyglorious, it would be a lot simpler in that original continued paragraph if you had simply answered in my response to you, not the entire thing, and Izaak to his. Since they are taken from different perspectives it makes things a LOT easier.

--------------------------------------

You must weigh ALL variables. ALso, I was giving simple variables in the description, to make it easier to understand.

Either way it is not subjective in truth. One of the people will still pose a greater net worth than their other. However, to KNOW the truth, you must weigh every variable assosciated with the individuals.

If you lossed your friend or child, you would definitely FEEL bad. However, it doesn't change the absolute. It just sucks for you, but would still be beneficial on the whole.



That is because we don't know everything. It doesn't change the fact that THERE ARE absolutes. Whether or not we KNOW everything has nothing to do with it.

You may than ask "Why attempt to evaluate all variables?"

Well, the more variables you throw in, the better and more accurate answer you arrive at, when they are evaluated.



Detail is a good thing. Most of the greatest written material we have documented has come in the form of books, which requires much detail and writing. As a result I prefer to add more detail when possible.



I know the universe is made up of absolutes. I know therefore, that there is a best answer for all situations.

If you apply various laws of the universe to how humans act. And which of those humans have most benefit. And call that morals/ethics. Than moral truth does exist.

If you are going to apply morals as in a sense of "hey this color/shape/item, looks cooler", IE in a subjective sense where their are no true variables, than I simply do not care.

Such items mean little to nothing to me. I can choose to say something is cool or not at any time. It would have no merit.

As a result, I will only use the objective model. Using the objective model, allows me to argue under the constructs and models of math, logic, and science. One should not be using those constructs in the other subjective sense. It would be pointless to do.



We attribute Theory in science to mean "fact" in the vernacular.

The Law of Gravity is still a THEORY in science. The difference is that it was a Theory that was accurate on and on and on and on and on...etc.

However, Using Newton's model, we were only correct with the simple variables on the situation of the planet.

As we had more quantum models...Newton's law showed to be not accurate in all cases. So a more elaborate model was introduced that could be correct in both cases.

However, we generally will still use Newton's model in reference to our planet. And we use the other more accurate model, when necessary and the other is too inaccurate.

If we knew all the variables in reference to gravity than we could make a perfect model of gravity. It would not be what you call "an estimate." It would work in all cases. And there IS a perfect model. We simply do not know it, so we work with what we have.



I only really need this part of that paragraph to answer this.

If you read that quote you took of my own, carefully overlook the wording.

"It would be the same house GIVEN THE VARIABLES attributed to the Changing human body."

To understand that, you than have to go back to yet even the more previous response.

It was an analogy. It basicaly went like this:

X=a+b
Y=a+b

Therefore X=a+b=Y...therefore X=Y.

If you are attributing that model, it was the same house. However I described both that model, and had stated earlier that a house and human are not the same.

You are either trying to win favor, by hiding this from others, or simply chose to overlook that. If you cannot remember what I had written previously, go back to what I had written before as I have implied. (For example, right now).

When you do, take all the information, and make sure to attribute the elaboration, to the models they reference.

If you do not, you will not acquire the whole arguments presented, and will continue to overlook elements.



Which to that quote, and a few others, I see above. I had already answered this. And I said "GIVEN my above assumption." I had already described multiple possible models in my previous writtings. The point of having multiple models, was to show that in all cases...it did not matter. The absolutes were still present in them.



That would not be an adequate replacement. If you want to argue well "its still a replacement". It is more addition to an argument that is not necessary.

For example, if your child died, and you had another child...the new child would not be an adequate replacement. Replacement in the whole nature of the word maybe...but thats pointless to the argument of positive or negative outcome.

Losing the first child is negative. Only by having the first child remain alive, can those negative attributes never come into existence.



We have access to them. However, we do not know them all...there is a difference. Therefore we can define sanity, if we base it on universal law...however, to attain the True Definition we must know all the variables.



I am only concerned with the absolutes one could call benefit. Have you not realized this. Whether or not there are subjective elements one could name benefit, means nothing. As those elements would not matter. And so we would disregard them and not talk about them.

The absolute "benefits" are the only thing that matters. Subjective ones do not.

For example...you may want something. However, if someone prevented you from having it for a logical reason(assuming its one of those absolutes we are talking about)...than Tough S*** for you.

Likewise, if it happens to me. I may try to acquire it. I may try to go behind their back. I may try to steal it(Im not saying I would steal...im just saying its a possible Choice), I may try any number of things.

However if I do not acquire it. Tough S*** for me. There was an absolute reason I should not have it. It is a good thing therefore, that I do not. I may not realize it until later...or at all during my life, but the absolute logic behind it, would be the reason.



We do not know what the true answers necessarily are...however we CAN know. There is no CANNOT know. You can define and know everything. However, no one in our present time has that capacity.



I don't mean to cut up that paragraph to only this statement, but you should realize how foolish that sounds. Everything is data. And there are absolutes that govern the rest of the universe. It is how it is, and always will be.



Reread the paragraph. IF they do not CARE about it, or NEED it...there is NO F***ing desire. Desire requires that you care or need it in some way. Since that person in question had neither, than they given the condition, they should not be stopping the outsider from taking the item, and preventing its destruction.



Wow...Here are a few.

1+1 = X.

X cannot equal 3 therefore.

If you plug in 3 for X, than 1+1=3 is wrong. There it is. EASY.

One step....you plug in a number. Its easy to prove its wrong.

Proving it right requires you to do steps. Luckily in this case it is only one step.

1+1 = X -> 1+1 = 2, Therefore 2 = X.

In that model, we know actualy have the absolute model for 1+1=X...and can easily show which numbers arent wrong.

The more variables you throw in...the harder it is to find the unknown variables. However, when you understanding the workings of the method you can find the absolute answers and models.

If you have X=Y...a case with two unknowns, you do a process to find right and wrong as well.

We could make an analogy that the current cases argued...are the same as now. However, There would be MANY MANY more variables involved. But this is simplicities sake.

X= Y...we could say X=2...and Y =5....if we plug those numbers in. 2=5 is what we get.

2 cannot equal 5. 2 is 2 and only 2. 5 is 5 and only 5. 5 is not 4,3,2 or 1. or any other number for that matter.

As a result, we can say that the values we attributed were wrong.

We can say that OBJECTIVELY...not subjectively.



I want go reading into it...but I'm assuming it will try to explain about methods similar to seppuku?

I will still repeat my comment of it being the most idiotic and irrational reason for suicide ever. And as you saw, I did describe about such things. However, have said that they are for reasons that are more complex than simply integrity, but used integrity as the means to make claims for their pain and suffering, somewhere.



I never said desire was irrational. You had made that claim on several occasions.

And I said "As long as we are arguing for the basis of desire alone."

This means that desire can lead to us to do irrational things. However, Desire as a mode is in itself a rational concept.



Evolution and progress. One could say there is no subjective meaning to Impacting the world. Since people die through some means anyway. However, I don't care for subjectivity. Presenting subjectivity, or any theory of subjectivity in a debate, is idiotic in the first place.

People do it all the time. It is best to only apply the objective comments that you could manipulate as variables. Things that go back to science and math.

In fact, even using sources, is mostly a bad idea. It helps make other people BELIEVE...however, it has no bearing on a rational argument. Not unless those sources lack conclusion. Or unless we could honestly say we knew everything responding to that idea, and its perfect model(for example the model of 1+1=X, is a perfected model for its simple idea.) If sources showed only a model, or experiment, and showed the data or results; Than that is fine. Or if you are using it to think about things from a different perspective, to help draw new ideas, and possibly discover variables.



Ownership and choice are not mutually exclusive. We have had a similar debate in another thread.

Also...using the most base definition of freedom is the best and only way to be purely objective. Using any other model besides the most base of definitions, will create a gray model.

Science and math are defined through blacks and whites. They have many gray variables, but their foundations are set in stone.

As a result, using individual, social, environmental..etc concepts to prove anything, if they are themselves not using only black and white foundations, and based upon the most basic foundations and definitions are illogical and pointless.

Doing so would be no better than saying "Im better than you. Your not better than me." etc.

If you want to debate about something, if I choose to bring the debate into something of the objective nature, than do not ignore it.

Given the comments and ideas you have presented, I am assuming that you may have difficulty with complex systems under this construction, . If you think you are capable, but choose not to go there for another reason, than understand that I argue in the black and white because it allows for total objectivity.

If you debate using social models, and more gray material...than fine. However, understand, that when Debating I tend to shun away from that, because it becomes more subjective and pointless.

I use black and white models...because if you prove something wrong in the black and white models...than it doesn't matter in what form you describe things or debate them. It it will be incorrect no matter what.

All models are founded upon the most base model. That is why I will try to attack the foundations first. If I can collapse the foundation, than the whole theory is incorrect. However, if the foundation withstands the attack...than I will start testing the variables present in the theory.

That method of applying the theory again and again and again, is the same model followed in science.

Now, that got a little bit off topic, because that is neither here nor there, in regards to the debate of suicide/euthanasia. However, since you made mention of how I go about my debates, understand why I use the methods I do.



Than you are not using the greater Term utility. You are defining only individuals perception of utility. Something that when compared to All variables, really hardly matters.

Additionally...I find it strange that you would include altruism. Given your other presentations. Also, considering the topic in which it is presented. Suicide will not be altruistic in the end. Committing an act that causes harm to others, would be selfish, not altruistic. Altruism, would be remaining alive for the sake of others.



Change and progress do have inherent meaning if we DEFINE them.

Progress that I am trying to describe, is not the same as the progress so highly trumpeted in our society. I think you would have realized that by now.

In a possibly summarized simplified term, I define Progress as "Positive or Beneficial Advancement in any manner or form given all variables presented."

The full definition Would likely be read much much longer. I highly doubt that your average citizen defines progress in such a way. They tend to loosely throw it about, either to gain support and approval socially...or as a regards to their own perspective.



The universe is everything. All absolutes lie within. It also has laws, that we cannot exceed, and therefore are enforced.

That is not arguing in a religious context. Gravity, electromagnetism, quantum physics, heat, etc. We have models(all of which are currently incomplete) of all these things, and they are bound by absolutes.

Understanding and faith are too entirely seperate things. I do not care whether someone has faith or no faith in anything. They simply must understand.

---------------------------




To slip in quick:(Izaak)



I think you will find everyone's premises have remained constant. People are disagreeing here, so they will latch to those belief they agree with.

The reason you may have difficulty understanding where I am coming from is because I am not here to introduce a working model. I am here to get rid of models that do not work. Basically I am not introducing my opinion on the subject. I have yet to actually Introduce it at all.

I don't plan to introduce my opinion either. The only thing I am trying to do, is disprove a model using purely BLACK and WHITE Objective means, starting from the most basic level...and elaborating upward if necessary.


--------------------------------------
//////////////////////////
-------------------------


----------


Back to you Awesomely Glorious...I may need to chop up a little bit...Just to keep things direct and understood on what Im replying to.



I try to keep them rather simple, even if the passages are longwinded. Simplicity allows the reader to understand the writings to a better degree. Sometimes keeping things in that format however, makes passages massive as you can see.



I do not remember saying anything about dislike, that is neither here nor there. I actually have no opinion on the matter about your obsession with their values.

However, About trust...well its a little different. I Technically do not trust anybody. I am not even sure the concept of trusting oneself, is a possible argument.

I only trust absolutes and objective values.

From another perspective...sometimes people might look at someone like me, and be positive I were atheist.

I am not atheist...I am not anything in regards to religion. I don't care. It does not aid anything answering the Why.

I am interested in Who, What, Where, When, and how. The "WHY" of any question simply gives you an answer you cannot work with. So It is the least of things I care for.

As a result the only religious view one can attribute to me is : NONE

I don't mean to go a little off topic, or even say that you assumed such a thing about me...or that religious view even mattered in this context. However, I thought since you are attempting to define me, and doing a rather poor job of it, that I might as well elaborate and do it myself so you DO know.



Progress under the definition I gave earlier, would be a synonym for what you could than call good.(which would then also make good rigid, and not subjective thought). And I call things irrational if they ARE irrational. Not whether or not like them. I could very well see that a person has good intentions when they ACT, in various scenarios. I might even say that like the fact they cared enough to act on a pure conviction.

However, if it is irrational, than I will not fit it with thick language and make it seem pretty. I will define it for what it is, and what it is alone.



Just a little repitition. But as I said, the question of Why, really doesnt matter to me. It is the other 5 I am interested in. Why, is useless to manipulate.

Why may bring about the THOUGHT of looking into specific item. However, it is who, what, where, when, and how that defines them.



I use terms literally so there can be no questions. If I used them loosely, there would be problems with interpretation based on the individual. I want everyone reading to receive the same premise.

And the only real philosophy I have presented is that "There are absolutes. Objectivity allows us to understand them, and therefore I will use that as method for Truth."

Anything else I have done has been either elaboration, or a step by step cohesive explanation of logic in response to a proposed model.

I never said what the right things were. Simply what the wrong ones were.



I think my language presentation seems odd and at times missing words...because of:

1. Length of replies. It is tiring to spend this much time on a reply.

2. In many models I am using words in a set in stone method. Sometimes as a result, it will get oddly both verbose and repititive. IN SOME CASES...its like speaking math. Using words as variables.

For example,

Y=X-4

If X=4, Than Y=0.
X is the number of people
Y is the number of people on the ground

In english could be stated(if we only want to state the bottom, and not the whole passage):

If there are 4 people sitting on the chairs, than there is no one sitting on the ground.

...(which different than 3 or 5 people. with 3, one chair is open...with 5, one is on the floor. We can than also understand, that the 4 in this scenario also represents the number of chairs present)



There is no intentional insults being thrown my way toward you. Within the other thread(something we don't need to go into depth here), the most insulting candidate was in fact you. At least I meant to be critical and not to harm. You personally threw harmful insults at me, and then admitted to doing it.

The only political leaning I would agree to, to define me is moderate. However, the problem with this, is it may not necessarily fit the description given today's criteria.

By moderate I mean...is I choose not to have an opinion or allow it to be ever changing, until I have all variables presented to me.(or at least so many as the decision one could gather from it, appears to be the MOST correct).

However, if you would like to know my background. The majority of my family was and still is actually liberal.

However, I would prefer to scrap all political ties and the current political cockfight going around.

So if you want one of the few OPINIONS about me, that I have ever presented in either of these debates:

I would LIKE to see the faction based system, of both the thoughts of (liberal, moderate, conservative .....and any ideas within you could contribute), and (Democrat, independant, Republican, Fascist, etc.), to be done away with entirely.

Than politicians could simply race for their individual merit of ability, intelligence, etc. People would have to choose them for THEM, and not for other reasons.

Notice how I don't mention variables, or try to objectively prove anything. That is an opinion.

I could, given enough time, and assuming I had Most if not all variables presented to me, determine if that would in fact be a good thing. However, I don't want to at the moment or anytime soon. Maybe some day, but not right now.



Actually, I consider the current model of our world, most notably starting with the United states Model, the best model That has been presented as of yet. However, there are still better ways, and refinements must be made.

I don't know the best one, but it is out there. I can only attack or know the wrong ones.

However, in regards to a full society. I would argue, since I use the most basic concepts first and foremost, that a less free society still allows for the same amount of individual choice as other Freer societies, assuming we are not introducing more variables.

For example. Having a physical wall blocking you door sized, on a plain, will not allow for less choice in the end.

Even though you can no longer walk in that direction. The new option of climbing(which was not possible before), is now possible in the new model. So you still maintain the same choice.

However, if you were surrounded on all sides. Such as a prison. You lose Freedom. However, that is given the parameters presented.

Stating that a less free society gives individuals less choice is a logical fallacy.

Only when one assumes and interpret what that means, and all its parameters can one claim if it is or not.

So under only the variables presented. A less free society does not give individuals, less freedom of choice.

If you want to argue different. Present more variables. You will see with more variables, I will elaborate further, and the answer will reflect that.

For example like I did, with the scenario of a prison.



I don't technically fit into any of the current proposed models. The best way you could describe my thought process, is THe absolute Mean(as in average) of the universe.

It differs from the stance of thinkers in moral absolutism(though holds some elements, such as there being absolutes to all, and thus morals), consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and more.

In fact I could probably attribute it in one way or another to all forms of thought present on the board.

As I said before, I would only at best allow others to call me a moderate Independant(since factions are not something I agree to participate in, even if they happen, it is by cause/effect, and not by choice).

However, Moderate indepedant, given the context, would still be attributed incorrectly.

And so I choose to therefore in the end, consider myself nothing more than an Observer. In the entirety of the word.

There is an age old question...would someone want to know every answers or every question?

If I had to choose, it would most certainly and definitely be answers.

However, in truth, if there is leeway, it is both. The questions in this context, are in themselves answers.

As a result, if you knew every answer, you would by default have to know every question.

Otherwise when someone asked you "what is the question, to so-and-so an answer?" You would not know the answer.

And if you were to elaborate, into another realm of question. Such as comparison to a god(if we are assuming the context of there being one).

My answer, is that I would want to be or exceed the boundaries of a God. To do that, I need every answer. Simple as that.



I never said "oh, I didn't mean it like that."

I have said at most "please reread what I have previously said. It is clear you did not understand what was written."

That is not the same thing.

-One is saying the answer is there, and you missed it. (what I said)
-The other is saying any number of things, including "I meant something else, even though I never typed it out." (Izaaks description).

They are two different forms of thought. One is specific(mine), the other is vague(Izaaks)

However, I don't think I need to elaborate further, because you probably are able to understand that easily enough.



-------------------------------------


-------------------------------------


-------------------------------------

I really need to target this, in your comment to Griff:



On MANY occassions. I have said there were absolutes. Griff presented you with very effective passage:

"To be perfectly honest, why give people an individual choice in the matter? If there is really no universal moral skeletal structure within which to make such decisions, then it is all as well to force one decision or another upon someone. The one thing that libertarians never consider about morality is that strong concepts of "liberty" are still a brand of moralizing. It just isn't traditionally acknowledged as such. Libertarians are just as determined as any other politically active group to go about "legislating morality."

To which you had than decided to use logic, of...well the answer to that is no "known".

If you forfeited the case of no "known" and agreed, he would have completely battered in the arguments you had presented in regards to one of your philosophies.

Simply put, the only way to claim his argument of the quote wrong, under the assumption he provided...You had to state that, and imply that there IS a universal Moral structure.

If there is no universal moral structure...than what he says is true. Forcing someone to do something is plausible and acceptable.

However, If there is a universal moral structure(something I have also argued as being true, among other things)....than how come you denied it earlier in regards to what I have said.

You specifically claimed such a thing within one of these two threads to the arguments I had presented.

Thus you are presenting a very inconsistent philosophy, and makes me wonder what your motives are.

Inconsistent with DATA, is one thing. I can easily overlook it. Inconsistent with whole arguments and philosophy is a TOTALLY other thing.

Sure it does, if we don't know all of the variables then we may make different choices, or if the variables may include verifiable elements then the entire set up can be different.

Detail is often a good thing and so is conciseness. If you were writing a book then detail would be less bad, but you aren't, and rather are using a medium where conciseness is much much more important than detail. Also, a lot of your detail does not add very much, and if you were an author, I would probably recommend either removing or reformatting a lot of the detail provided.

No, you don't. You have made an assumption that absolutes mean variance. All answers could be absolutely equal. Not only that, but you also cannot know the best answer or even begin to know the best answer, so therefore all answers function as if they are the best answe.


You have assumed hedonism to be correct. You still have not answers David Hume's argument though.


The objective model is agnosticism, or functional nihilism.

Um... no we don't. When we label something a theory, we denigrate it.

I disagreed with your views on continuity.

You ignored the role of time and subjective attachments.



No, I disagreed with that idea. I did not overlook it or hide it, I disagreed with it. Just because you like a model does not mean that I accept it.

If I ignored something it is because your writings are annoying to read and rather long.


If I lived a 100 years back or more then it would be. There are subjective elements to all of these things that relate back to individual preferences.

No, we have no access to them, and we have no way to define sane. You assert we must, I assert that sanity itself is a social construct, and therefore it has no higher meaning and thus is not an objective category but rather intersubjective and thus is undefinable as an objective category.


And I call *all* benefit subjective, as it is related to the values of the benefiting individual. I recognize that you like "absolutes", but frankly, if you ignore categories that are less definable then you ignore a lot of human experience.

No, there is CANNOT know. The assertion that we can always know something is a faith-based assertion.

Um... no, it is not foolish at all. Hume's argument is that data cannot be found on this subject. You continue with faith-based assertions.

But they do care about its fate. They want to destroy it. Wanting to destroy something


No, they aren't. We were speaking on different problems as I was asserting the moral problem.


But I think my assertion is that acting upon desire is not irrational but rather rational.


No, it really isn't given that subjective theories of value are dominant theories for understanding human behavior and action.

Yes, and I ended up disagreeing with the way you conceptualized choice as lacking much analytical value given that changes in the amount of choices did not exist under your model, and opted for using a more coercion based model.


Any way we define something is objective, it is the definition, therefore we should define things more along how the terms are used or meant in either scholarly discourse or common parlance.


No, I disagree. Terms have definitions and understood meanings. Forcing your position of redefining commonly used terms away from their understood meanings is sophistry.

You aren't being objective though, objectivity is using terms how they are going to be more commonly understood or how they are understood in a reasonably reputable intellectual circle.


Total objectivity is impossible for human beings. I don't have a difficulty with complex systems, I have a difficult accepting your constructions as valid given that we have terminological disputes and things that seem to me to be attempts on your part to smuggle in beliefs as facts, which is finally compounded with your annoying and overlong writing style and arrogance.

We are defining social creatures, if we aren't using models to fit their experiences then what we are doing is pointless.


Trust me, you aren't really working from things using a black and white model, you are smuggling in assumptions which you attempt to hide under your scientism.

I would argue that the individual's perception is more important.

Change does, progress doesn't. Progress refers to positive change. Positive is not definable as positive relates to subjective preference.

And I would consider positive and beneficial to both be undefinable terms. Primitivists would consider the removal of technology to be progress, the rest of us would consider it to be regress. Some of the issues of progress vs regress are unknowable, therefore, progress is loaded.

Depending on how we define universe, but considering that the term multiverse exists, I don't think that the universe can be called everything.

Now that is a lie. So, either you lied at the start or you are lying now. Trust me, I have played the skeptics game before, the refusal to set up a positive model is done with a purpose in and of itself, and given that this is a binary set up, you are trying to prove something.


Um... well that seems flawed given that you have not addressed methodological individualism or really even the underlying ethical idea that I am using. Most of the argument instead is on other matters that aren't central to my idea.

Wow, you are trying to keep things simple??? You are making simple things needlessly more complex. Your posts could probably be chopped in half and still contain as much information and be more understandable.


Actually, you didn't say dislike, instead, you dismissed. The 2 things actions are essentially the same, especially given that you really aren't that self-aware in your analysis and don't have the biting skepticism that you could. In fact, within that little comment you still dismissed. There is also the diatribe you had in another thread about being disgusted every time that democracy or freedom were invoked.

You trust yourself to provide you with these absolutes and objective values, therefore you trust something that isn't absolute. This problem especially becomes clear given that modern researchers such as George Lakoff and past philosophers such as Descartes have actually expressed doubts about the validity of logic with Lakoff expressing the idea that it is a result of our thinking processes rather than objective, and Descartes suggesting the evil genius hypothesis that reasoning itself could be false.


That means you are an apatheist. You are interested in WHY's though, the entire question relates more to a why than anything else.


Umm.... I didn't say anything about your religion other than in a rather mocking tone earlier. You must have read something that wasn't there.

Well, progress has 2 definitions increased development and good change. You use progress in phrasings where "increased development" would make sense and attribute that with the quality of good. This could just be an issue of your phrasing where you should pick "good" instead of "progress", but usually our choice of terms reflects our thinking. No, you do both on some level. We have not fully defined rational actions vs irrational actions enough where your distinction makes sense.

Except that this isn't a question of who, when, where, what or how.

Not, really, you call your usage literal, but I already looked up the definition of freedom and most definitions actually include a regard towards coercion or punishment.

Rationalism, you use reason to guide your thinking. You'd probably get along relatively well with the logical positivists once you stopped thinking moralistically.

Your phrasing is off. Your sentences are constructed in an unorthodox manner. It isn't a matter of missing words, and the fact that this is your style reflects and not an occasional slip up reveals a lot.

You lack some theory of mind I imagine as you were insulting. I know that I am insulting, I actually am insulting somewhat intentionally to show disapproval. Meaning or not meaning well is not the question, the question is the actions and what they reveal. Yes, I did, but in a different manner. The way that one does something is revealing.

I actually tend to doubt that. I think there is a surface behavior like that, but that your actual methodology is less flexible.

I don't care so much, but I might have guessed that. I would probably guess that your family is not so much liberal as they are union-workers, admirers of FDR, or something of that nature.

How could you argue against success?


No. In fact, one of the definitions of choice is "the power, right or liberty to choose". Less freedom reduces the power to choose, and it eliminates the right or liberty to choose. Not a logical fallacy, simply you hand-picking a definition.

Ok, now I imagine that it is a rather mixed up hodge-podge, however, you have typically justified things based upon your ethics and brought in consequentialism in speaking on meta-ethics.

Umm.... this goes back to your theory of mind. I switched topics and frankly I am not sure that Izaak was referring to you so much.

And I recognize that argument.


Umm.... not so much. I had to state or imply that one side had a greater chance of being moral than the other. Therefore I implied that there might be a moral structure.

If what he says is true then there can be no argument in the first place. All actions are equally valid and the discussion ends as his argument is not in promotion of any view but rather the demolition of all views, which is sort of pointless. Demolishing views is easy, just undermine the epistemology, establishing views is harder.

In both cases I denied knowledge of it. I argued that greater liberty allowed for morality to be found and expressed and less of it prevented the expression to Griff, and essentially I upheld skepticism without upholding nihilism.

No, you simply aren't keeping track of all of the movement. I never said I was a moral nihilist, I said that nihilism was logical perhaps, but I think I said that I was a skeptic to ideas of moral knowledge, not a nihilist.