Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jun 2010, 11:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

But it was not Einstein but Lorenz who talked about short trains.
Since you are so confident of your chronological correctness I assume you always use a stopped wristwatch to tell time . On he basis of your statement I would not take the judgment of one whacko on the status of another.


Lorentz had the equations (in 1904), but he did not really believe time slowed down. Einstein was the one who took the equations seriously. Lorentz was trying to account for shortening of material bodies with aether. There is only one problem; there is no aether. Later on Lorentz admitted that it was Einstein who got it right and the foundations. Lorentz was trying to preserve the aether theory, but that had to give way to facts. No aether. Light is not carried by some space filling stiff Jello, it is photons through empty space.

ruveyn


Which gives you no privileges as to determining which of Nietzsche's ravings were sane and which insane.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jun 2010, 11:59 am

Sand wrote:

Which gives you no privileges as to determining which of Nietzsche's ravings were sane and which insane.


I read history and the newspapers. If Might doesn't make Right, it sure produces Results. Historically, goodness and justice rarely triumph. Even when they do triumph it is all over for goodness and justice two generations down the line. That is why the struggle goes on without end.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jun 2010, 12:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Which gives you no privileges as to determining which of Nietzsche's ravings were sane and which insane.


I read history and the newspapers. If Might doesn't make Right, it sure produces Results. Historically, goodness and justice rarely triumph. Even when they do triumph it is all over for goodness and justice two generations down the line. That is why the struggle goes on without end.

ruveyn


I see. The holocaust was merely the first phase. The second comes when all those Arab nations get the atomic bomb. Since Israel s so small i won't take many.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

06 Jun 2010, 3:54 pm

Poly-ethics topic

I do not have a system such as Mjght-Right or reciprocal behaviour conseqences so I approach doing the best thing from an experiential viewpoint. It is an eclectic, cautious approach and highly individualized, so that what might work for me would not work for others. 8)


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

06 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I am not sure you can take "brandless utilitarianism" and really have any system, much less a consistent one. I mean, you, from the beginning are completely blown away given that you don't even know for certain what you are maximizing. I mean, do animals matter? Do some beings matter more than others? Is there a such thing as justice? If there is no "real" justice, then I feel that you have missed a major part of ethics, but I don't think the utilitarian account even begins to fit on this issue.

I find that sort of strange that you don't feel those intuitive emotional objections, but then again, I am torn between a lot of different ethical ideas and really try even less to have definiteness, despite the drive for consistency.

Yeah, no problem on the link. I wish I could do better, I found out about the pain thing from reading Donald Hebb's Organization of Behavior, but I can't give people the literal book, so I found that interview.

In any given situation, I'll tend to adopt whatever utilitarian perspective seems nice to me at the time. So in general, I can't claim to be taking the view of any specific type - and you're right, this probably will prevent me from coming up with a fully consistent system. That's not going to stop me trying, though. Ethics is something I engage with because I enjoy it as I enjoy a piece of music. There are some things I find genuinely disgusting, and some things I find very good, and I like trying to fit those 'emotional responses' into an ethical system.

Animals certainly matter to me. Yes, some beings matter more than others. I think that an average fully grown human is more morally relevant than an infant, for example.

I don't believe there is such a thing as justice, and I consider that to be a damn good thing. Oftentimes when people talk about criminals, they might mention how the current system doesn't deliver what they consider to be the right amount of justice to an offender - it doesn't give offenders what they deserve. The idea of inflicting suffering on somebody simply on the basis that they have inflicted suffering on somebody else previously is one of those things that I have an emotional response of disgust to. And I mean that unrestrictedly. If you told me that this serial child rapist deserves to be thrown behind bars for 10 years (a fairly tame punishment compared to what most people would want), then I would consider that disgusting (I'd consider his crime disgusting, too).

I do have intuitive emotional objections - as you can see from what I said above - but I don't object to the same kind of things most people do. That's probably why utilitarianism works well for me: it tends to fit my immediate emotional responses.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


Exclavius
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
Location: Ontario, Canada

06 Jun 2010, 8:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
What are your thoughts on ethics?



There are no ethical facts, or to put it differently, facts, as such, have no ethical import.

Systems of ethics are social constructs, they are conventions. There is nothing in the laws of physical nature that could lead one to an ethical conclusion.

ruveyn


About as accurate as i could put it (moreso, really), if in fact the universe is only deterministic and/or probabilistic

If free will exists, then ethics is no longer moot. The most realistic method from changing social equilibrium from A to D, would be essentially the wican rede. Though the word "harm" is rather ambiguous.

"An(If) it harm no one, do as thou please"

define Harm: effectively limit the freedoms of another person/entity (or conduit of free will)
(yes, "effectively" remains subjective, but it's the best i've been able to make the statement as objective as possible while discounting silly banalities)

of course you'd have to put a caveat in there permitting the "harming" of someone who is trying to "harm" another.

Enforcement of ethics is the problem, there are two agents for doing so, a) Law; b) indoctrination.
If law enforcement is feasible and effective, and can be carried out in a reasonably objective manner, then there is no issue. Lacking sufficient enforcement of law, ethics would require b) which has to be a violation of any realistic ethical system -- or at least, i would reject any ethical system that would permit b)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2010, 9:01 pm

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
I don't believe there is such a thing as justice, and I consider that to be a damn good thing. Oftentimes when people talk about criminals, they might mention how the current system doesn't deliver what they consider to be the right amount of justice to an offender - it doesn't give offenders what they deserve. The idea of inflicting suffering on somebody simply on the basis that they have inflicted suffering on somebody else previously is one of those things that I have an emotional response of disgust to. And I mean that unrestrictedly. If you told me that this serial child rapist deserves to be thrown behind bars for 10 years (a fairly tame punishment compared to what most people would want), then I would consider that disgusting (I'd consider his crime disgusting, too).

I don't fully understand your position, and on some level it does not make sense to me. I mean, I can understand that sometimes punishment is silly, but I don't understand the position "all punishment is silly", nor would I think it reasonable to never address the wrongs a person has done, even if the method isn't strictly punitive. I dunno, that just seems like a person saying that they like listening to loud TV static.



you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

07 Jun 2010, 12:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I don't fully understand your position, and on some level it does not make sense to me. I mean, I can understand that sometimes punishment is silly, but I don't understand the position "all punishment is silly", nor would I think it reasonable to never address the wrongs a person has done, even if the method isn't strictly punitive.

Punishment may be useful for other purposes. I would never advocate completely abandoning all punishment. I just don't like punishment for its own sake: the fact that a person has inflicted suffering on somebody, no matter severe that suffering may be, simply isn't a reason to inflict suffering on them. If that is justice, then I would like to see justice abolished. Some forms of punishment, however, may have value as deterrents or as forms of rehabilitation - though I think there would have to be significant changes in the current system to make that worthwhile. I don't consider my view on punishment to be particularly radical, and I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to somebody. It seems fairly simple to me.

Quote:
I dunno, that just seems like a person saying that they like listening to loud TV static.

I certainly like that, and I know a few other people who do, too.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."