• Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    ↪Agent Smith

    I respect your view about No.3 and also your experience regarding it. For me, experience is most important in formulating our realities.

    Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Rube Goldberg machines? — Agent Smith
    I knew about them but not that they had that name or any name! :smile: Thanks for letting me know. (But I can't promise I won't forget soon this name! :grin:) Yes, killing oneself that way is not impossible. There's also Murphy's Law! :grin:

    God moves in a mysterious way. — Agent Smith
    Sorry, but I don't like this at all. In fact, I find that besides that it cannot be even considered an argument or an acceptable reply in any discussion, it's also a coward way to explain out things. "I don't know" or "You are right" are at least honest replies. At least one "dies" with honor and dignity. It also shows wisdom. (Indeed, "Openly giving up", by admitting one's defeat is a missing category in your example-situation! :smile:)

    Talking about wisdom (not morality), such kind of a giving up often occurs in fights between two masculine animals. One of them just stops fighting and the fight ends just there. Or it just refuses to fight at all in a confrontation and the fight does not take place. Both animals "know their place" and they both live. Animals are often wiser than humans.

    Right. Same thing applies if, as you say, you "swap God's plan with mother nature's".

    Die if need be, never kill. — Agent Smith
    Here it is. Another "preset" code that is to be followed blindly, ignoring circumstances and human judgement, esp. moral judgement. In fact, following such a "forced upon" code might not even show morality. It could show "obedience". One can of course really agree with such a code. But why don't you let the individual decide himself about what is right or wrong, if he can kill or not, etc., by just laying down for him the foundations of an ethics system? Wouldn't that be more fruitful?

    ***

    Nice to have this exchange with you, @Agent Smith! :smile:
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    ↪Agent Smith

    Thank you for your coming back with all that!
    I'll try to reciprocate! :smile:

    1. Fight (to the death)
    2. Flight (run for your life)
    3. Freeze (die)
    Killing in self-defense is 1. What about 2 and 3? Some animals are known to roll over and play dead (possums)     — Agent Smith
    Yes, flies too do that. And then they are crashed! :grin:
    So we can forget No. 3 because it's not a solution.
    No. 2, escaping, can be a good solution. Only that it wouldn't be that dangerous a situation if one could just do that. But what if a soldier decides to do that in a battle? He will be punished as a deserter. And what if the enemy is a fire and you are a father who runs away out of the house to save your life, leaving your wife and children to die? Certainly, this would not considered moral, would it?
    Therefore, in both of the above, and all the similar cases, the most morally accepted solution is No. 1. No one would condemn that. Instead, the opposite: it could be applauded.

    The bottom line - it isn't necessary to kill (even in self-defense), you could just die! :chin: — Agent Smith
    Right, it certainly isn't necessary. But the above example shows that in most cases, fighting is the generally accepted solution. Besides, aside from your situation you presented, in which death is certain, in real situations it is not always certain that someone will kiiled in the fight. So, by fighting you could save both lives. Or, by killing the aggressor, you may save other people's lives from being taken by the aggressor.

    So, you're positing an ethics without a code? — Agent Smith
    Not exactly. I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. Any entity --individual, family, group-- can and usually does have a code of ethical conduct, "silent" if not expressed orally or in writing, which pertains to specific subjects. Rights, for exemple, is between the most important and known one in a group or society. Also about racism, etc. A family can set or does have a code for children's behaviour, inside and outside the house. The couples also have commonly agreed codes of conduct for themselves. And you, as an individual, can set and do actually have a code of conduct for yourself regarding various subjects. Even if you have not laid it down expressedly or even be really aware of it, you don't want to break it!

    Suppose you say each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately because each is unique and that precludes mechanical application of moral injunctions. Isn't that a code? — Agent Smith
    I wouldn't classify this as a "code". Maybe as a method or rule. It's too general.
    A code is an agerement or moral principle based on which one must act or behave regarding a particular subject or area or sphere. So, since the statement "Each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately" is general, i.e. it does not refer to a particular subject, it cannot be considered a code.
    The examples I mentioned above refer to specific subjects (right, racism, etc.), so they can be called codes.

    Anyway, I wouldn't get stuck on codes, in general. They are supplementary to an ethics theory or system, which I think is the main issue in this latest part of the discussion.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    ↪L'éléphant

    Thank you for coming up with an alternative ethics scheme. I was craving for one! :grin:

    How about the constructivist approach to ethics? — L'éléphant
    I tried to learn about "moral constructism" but I was kind of lost ... So I will stick to your description.

    we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. — L'éléphant
    It would be good to see one or two examples here of how this works ...

    This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. — L'éléphant
    OK, this is similar to or implied by the previous description.

    It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions. — L'éléphant
    There. You lost me. I have no idea about Ralwsian's theory, not even Ralwsian himself. As for Kant's ethics, I have to refresh my memory --something which I have in mind to do anyway-- since it has passed a long time ...

    we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium — L'éléphant
    Interesting. How's that achieved? It would be good to see here too one or two examples here of how this works ...

    Well, all this is OK, but it is too theoretical for me. I cannot put it in practice; in real life situations.
    But it can satisfy others, of course. And it certainly enriches this thread!

    Anyway, thank you again for responding to my call and offering an alternative ethical scheme.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    "major good for the greatest number"
    — Alkis Piskas
    The "greatest number" is easily measured.     — EugeneW
    Actually, not even the "greatest number" is always easily to judge. It is not based so much on numbers as to areas of larger magnitude and importance. These are like concentric spheres, one inside the other, whith the individual in the center. But of course, the number always matters.

    One of the best descriptions of this morality is given by Montesquieu, who was not even referring to morality!

    (Free translation)
    "If I knew something that was useful to me and was detrimental to my family, I would reject it from my mind. If I knew something was useful to my family and not in my homeland, I would try to forget it. If I knew something was useful to my country but prejudicial to Europe, or which was useful to Europe and prejudicial to the human race, I would consider it a crime." ("My thoughts, 11 - Thought 741")

    But what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question — EugeneW
    This is mostly were reasoning and judgment come in. It's not always easy to tell. It's not an absolute. It's
    subjective. I must act based on what I consider, I really believe is the correct thing to do. And I have to take certainly into consideration also "the greatest number", the other "spheres", outside me. "Major good" and "greatest number" are inseparable.

    I could condense the "major good for the greatest number" foundation into simply "major good".
    It could maybe easier to think of this by considering its opposite, as in our example in this thread of the "Trolley problem": "Avoid major damage". (This is not a commandement! :smile:)
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    I meant how does a moral code being preset diminish or invalidate the moral code that is (preset)? — Agent Smith
    Do you mean if a moral code can never diminish/invalidate the morality of an action and that it shows what is always the right thing to do for a certain situation? Well, let's take one of the most commonly discussed principle of "The Ten Commandments" , "You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. This is cosidered a justified action, which is not punished by courts or the society. So, what is actually invalidated here is the commandment itself. It is proven useless in this case. It proves that you cannot always act based on a predefined rule.

    You mean to say major good for the greatest number is NOT a code — Agent Smith
    Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation.

    I hope you understand my situation. — Agent Smith
    :smile: I certainly do. Thank you for coming back to that.

    What if I don't believe in your God or to any God?
    — Alkis Piskas
    That's a different kettle of fish.     — Agent Smith
    Well, it's quite big a kettle though, isn't it? :grin:
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    I don't quite get the descriptor "preset" — Agent Smith
    Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.)

    if you don't quite like the idea of a code, you're really rejecting all of ethics, ethics being a system of laws/injunctions/rules (codes). — Agent Smith
    I'm not sure about that. Codes can be a lot of things. They are usually any kind of symbols (words, images) used to represent other things, a systematic collection of laws or pronciples, etc. In this case, it's a set of conventions or moral principles governing behaviour in a particular situation.
    Not every system of ethics --in fact only a few, I guess-- include such codes.

    Ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" do not include any kind of codes. And, while one can argue about it, even reject it on a personal basis, it can certainly not be rejected as a system, in general. That would be just absurd.

    But I can see what is the problem here: There's too much theoretical talking and very little thinking about what is actually happening in life. But this is not the only time. Far from it. This happens too often, unfortunately.
    I have given a lot of examples concening ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" --as I always try to do for any subject, when needed-- but I feel that they are just ignored. They are not even examined. At least not really, as situations in life, not as words.

    In short what's the alternative? — Agent Smith
    I trust your goodwill @Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.)

    If God wills your death, how does saving you square with God's plan? — Agent Smith
    What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? Does that make me immoral?
    See --I mean, I believe you see-- what happens when we put restrictions to and/or conditions on morality?
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith
    I have improved my Latin (and philosophical terminology) by looking up "salve veritate". Thanks! :smile:
    The above two statements are quite different for me. First, because one requires from someone to avoid, refrain from doing something (no action), while the other one requires from someone to do something (action). No action is basically --but not always-- much easier than action. Also, while it is a moral and applauded action to save a life, you cannot require that from someone.

    BTW, I'm totally against "The Ten Commandments" or any "preset" moral codes or dogmas as a basis for morality. Or for whatever else in that matter. I have already mentioned in this thread that they impair moral judgement, and thus judgement in general.

    How does not killing fit into it while saving not? — Agent Smith
    They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments".
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues
    — Alkis Piskas
    Not easy!     — Agent Smith
    Certainly.
    (BTW, this is the phrase that @L'éléphant used referring to the inadequacy of etchics based on "major good for the greatest number".)

    I hit R hard with a wooden plank on his back to disconnect R from a live wire which is electrocuting him, saving R in the process. There are no assault charges filed against me, but I do get my citation. — Agent Smith
    Of course. You have acted based on "major good". This is exactly what I have mentioned a while ago to @EugeneW, bringing up court cases.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job? — EugeneW
    I see, you mean the program, the regular plan that the driver should follow.
    Well, does this include what you should do when you are approaching persons tied on the trolley rails?

    Accident cases are judged based on the circumstances, whether the person who has provoked an accident acted correctly or wrongly according not only to rules pertinent to the job or the activity he was carrying out, but also on moral issues. There are a lot of cases where people have violated the rules pertaining to their jobs to save peoples' lives, they are finally judged to act correctly and they have been declared innocent. And as far as I can remember, the decision was always based on "major good for the greatest number". Why? Because this is the only rational way to see ethics.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    ↪L'éléphant

    I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?"
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Zombies are alive, technically. — baker
    Yes, Frankenstein's monster too.
    Do you see maybe too many horror and fantasy movies?
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Maybe he'll be reprimanded for not sticking to the scheme. — EugeneW
    What scheme?
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Sacrificing your own life to save others is a totally different moral position. Why? Because you are giving consent to your own involvement, even it it means death — L'éléphant
    I agree on this. We can exclude self-sacrifice and cases of consent, although they certainly contain a moral choice.
    But what about my examples with doctors' decisions?

    BTW, I have googled the "runaway train" dillemma and the "Trolley problem" appeared instead. I believe this is what you mean. So, in that problem, there are 5 people tied up on the tracks. The dilemma is 1) do nothing, in which case 5 people will be killed or 2) pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill a person. Well, there can be a lot of variations on this basic scenario, but the present one is not so realistic. Anyway, if the driver does nothing, he will most probably be reprimanded for killing these 5 people instead of trying in any way to avoid it by diverting the trolley. And in the specific case, there would only be one victim (at least this is what is known as certain).

    I believe that there have been a lot of real situations in life like this one, not only with big vehicles but also with cars. And, excluding the cases in which the driver cannot do anything or has no time to react anyway, and assuming that the driver has relatively good reflexes and conttol, i.e., he does not react randomly, uncontrollably or thoughtlessly, he will try to avoid major damage. This is only too evident. It has to do with survival.

    The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. Any kind of morality must have this as purpose. The opposite of this is "major harm". And it is what should be avoided, in the examples brought up in this discussion.
  • This Forum & Physicalism
    Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro
    From my experience in TPF, I can't say that physicalism as a subject is at the focus. Rather the opposite. It's quite scarce. But this is of no surprise, since, based on a poll I carried out about 7 months ago and also discussions I have had, about 80% of the people in here are "materialists", well, labels aside, they believe that everything that exists is matter or ibased on matter". So, indeed what's the purpose of making physicalism or materialism a central subject?

    Nevertheless. I fully undestand your saying that "it does not strike me to have such importance of a philosophical topic". You can see more about this in my topic "The problem with "Materialism" at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12480/the-problem-with-materialism/p1.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. — L'éléphant
    I see. It's not good at all, then. It's useless. Because you can't use it sometimes only, as I said. Right?
    OK. I can accept that. There are a lot of persons who refute ethics based "major good for the greatest number" (the so-called "Utilitarian" ethics or whatever). Well, that's why there exist various ethics theories and systems. What's yours? What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?

    Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. — L'éléphant
    Do you mean cases like the "runaway train" case? Regarding that, you find "saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual morally reprehensible". And that your "decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going". Right?
    OK, but have you read my examples? What if a number of people have no chances to survive, e.g. in a fire, a tempestuous sea, etc., and nothing is done? Shouldn't a fireman, lifeguard etc. who have chances to survive try to save some if not all of them, at a risk of their own lives?
    A more local case: The war in Ukraine. Should the citizens try only to escape or hide, doing nothing to defend their cities and deliver them to the Russians? What about the millions who cannot escape and stay there to receive the Russian gunfire and bombs? This is not what is happening, is it? A few able citizens take their gun to fight the Russians at their cost of their lives and in order to save their city and their compatriots. (I don't mention the Ukrainian Army and soldiers, because it is their job to fight.)
    Sorry, but I cannot accept staying idle in such situation as a moral solution. I cannot accept your "runaway train" attitude as moral. Besides, it's not enough to form an ethical theory or system by itself. So, to which ethical theory or system does it belong?
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. — L'éléphant
    What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality?
    And why "does it stunt our moral judgment"? Isn't or shouldn't moral judgenent be based on certain moral principles? The definition of ethics that I presented, which is what I believe and works for me --you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind?

    What does stunt your moral judgement is believing in and act based on "The Ten Commandments" and whatever other given set of moral values.
  • Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
    ↪Camille

    I am looking for some strategies to appeal to why multiple deaths are worse than one — Camille
    I think that the word "strategies" is too much of a requirement for this case. I would rather use the term "thesis" or even just "argument". The immediate answer is "Because the damage is larger". This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good for the greatest number". Then the opposite would be "doing the major harm to the major number". Isn't this enough for your appeal?

    There are millions of realistic and striking examples one can offer for the above thesis/argument, which don't leave the least doubt for its validity. A single of them is just enough:

    Would it be the same if Nazis had killed a single Jewish person instead of millions?

    I find then difficult to believe that any thinking mind --Taurek or other-- can come to a conclusion such as that "the relative number of people involved is not something of significance in moral decision making" ...

    Nevertheless, let's see what are the arguments here ... Saying that "each individual in a trade-off situation deserves equal consideration and that their chances of survival should each be maximized" can stand as an argument only on the basis that there must not be a discrimination between individuals, in general. But, as a general argument, it cannot always stand. One cannot always maximize the chances all the individuals --involved in case-- at the same time.

    Doctors often have to solve such dilemmas. For example, when they have to save a not-yet-born-baby from its mother's womb by an immediate C-section, when the mother is supposed to die anyway. There are a lot of Covid care cases, where doctors must let an old man or a fatally sick person die and give a single oxygen mask they have at their disposition to a young and more healthy person.

    As far as "numbers" are concerned ... We have a lot of examples in life where one or more individuals sacrifice themselves to save other people, larger in number or who have not the same means of saving themselves as they do. Professional people is the first thing that comes to mind: firemen, soldiers, lifeguards, ... But also any individual who puts his/herself at risk to save others.

    Number counts!

    (I hope this serves your purpose. I wrote much more than what is required. I just tried to inspire you! :smile: The first paragraph is enough, for me at least.)
  • On the matter of logic and the world
    ↪Constance

    Thank you for taking the time to reply in that length!
    I realize now that I have asked too much! :smile: Anyway, I will comment shortly on some things in this reply of yours. I don't ask you to agree or disagree. I just present my views.

    One way to look at it is to note that all knowledge is justified belief — Constance
    Knowledge and belief can be indeed connected: what we believe as true --but it is not proven or established as fact-- can be proven to be true --always for us-- through reasoning (justification), experience or actual, physical proof. Then, it becomes knowledge, i.e. a fact. But only some of our knowledge is obtained in this way. We don't have to justify the fact that it is raining, that the price of tomatoes has risen, etc. So it would be better if one says "some" instead of "all "knowledge is justified belief".

    justification is always presented in a logical form ... But where is the justification for logic's validity?" — Constance
    There's a circularity and self-contradiction here ... It is as if we are asking what is the logic of the logic. The basic error in this question-statement is that logic cannot be justified or validated. Logic itself is a way of justifying and a proof of validity. Logic is reasoning based on principles of validity.

    You might find Kierkegaard's take on concept of time enlightening — Constance
    Indeed! Nice that you brought this up! :up:
  • On the matter of logic and the world
    ↪Constance

    Logic itself is the paradox. — Constance
    This is a topic by itself!
    Can you at least describe it shortly?

    It is because logic is a quantitative delimitation of anything it applies to. — Constance
    Can you explain this please?

    Zeno's paradox: Why do we think the arrow never should reach the target?
    ... The distances between the archer and the target are eternally divisible, but it is not the world that is divisible, it is the logic that imposes a principle on the world that says any given determinative distance is divisible, which is true, but in the world as an actuality, nothing is determined. Everything is indeterminate.     — Constance
    I can see some truth in all this, esp. concerning "divisibility". However, I think that Zeno's "paradoxes" are much easier to explain --or rather, to reject: space and time are assumed to be discontinuous and thus divisible. Which is a fallacy. Space and time are continuous and thus indivisible. Neither of them has a start, middle or end. We can only divide them arbitrarily for description purposes. Thus, we get distances in space and periods in time. These serve to measure and compare things with each other.

    Every so-called "paradox" that is based on a fallacy is a "pseudo-paradox". Zeno's are among them.

    I can talk also about the remaining elements --God and Einstein's space time-- but that would overburden this post!
  • Philosopher = Strange Identity
    ↪ucarr


    2.jpg
    (Descartes, of course ... "Learning by losing")
  • Philosopher = Strange Identity
    We have to fill in the gaps, principle of charity; Trolls, a different tale. — Agent Smith
    :smile:
  • Philosopher = Strange Identity
    You got me with this piercing criticism, — ucarr
    It was a correction, not a criticsim. But if you like this word, you can consider my remarks as "constructive" criticism. :smile:

    Isn't asymmetry how the Big Bang got triggered? — ucarr
    You got me clueless! :smile:

    the gambler strives to beat the odds by slipping the laws of averages — ucarr
    Right.

    A mathematician, a philosopher and a gambler walk into a bar. As the barman pulls each of them a beer, he decides to stir up a bit of trouble. He pulls a die from his pocket and rolls it is a showy way on the bar counter. It comes up with a 1.
    The mathematician says: "The probability that 1 would come up is 1/6, and at the next throw it will be the same. If we roll the dice infinitely many times, the relative frequency of the number 1 will converge to 1/6, that is, to one occurrence every six throws."
    The philosopher strokes his chin, and remarks: "Well, this doesn't mean we won't get that number again at the next throw. Actually, it's physically possible to have the same number on the next 1,000 throws, although that's highly improbable."
    The gambler says: "I know you're both right, but I wouldn't bet on that number for the next throw. Because I trust mathematics, and so I expect that number to come up about once every six throws. Having the same number twice in a row is a rare event. Why would that happen right now?"

    The gambler indeed "strives to beat the odds", as you say.

    Fortunately, mathematicians and philosophers are not gamblers! :grin:
  • Philosopher = Strange Identity
    ↪Agent Smith

    You are not totally wrong! :grin:

    We're not computers that have issues like not understanding IF x > 9 TEHN print "Hello world" — Agent Smith
    Well, you tell me. I'm a computer programmer! :smile:
    But, don't we have similar conditions in philosophy, appearing as logical schemes? Can they work if statements, arguments and propositions are not stated clearly and correctly?
  • Philosophy of education: What should students learn?
    I know that there is a way to make students interested in the content even if they don’t find it interesting — Dermot Griffin
    I totally agree. There's always a way. This point is more important even than what it sounds! I mean, one cannot stress it enough. This has been my answer to discussions about "education" I participated in.

    Unfortunately though, this is not what teachers usually do. And I wonder, is it better --even for yourself, as a teacher-- to have indifferent students in your class, some of whom are bored to death, than to have "alive" students, who are enjoying your class?

    Besides, students might not find the subject interesting because of many reasons: prejudice, misunderstood/wrong/missing concepts, difficulties in learning, and so on. So if you can "repair' all that, I believe you offer a great service to them and the society as a whole. And everyone wins: both your students and yourself.

    The ways to arouse interest are many. They must all though be centered on the usefulness of the taught subject in life. Practical and realistic examples help in that. But even if one cannot or is not supposed to apply the subject in life, understanding it and applying it in imaginary situations, increases logical thinking and thus intelligence. This is a product by itself!
  • Philosopher = Strange Identity
    The philosopher is opposite the gambler. — ucarr
    What does that mean? Please be clear.

    The gambler plays to win. While losing, the philosopher learns to enjoy it. — ucarr
    The second sentence cannot be connected to the first one. It's not what one would logically expect. Both their subjects and predicates differ. At least one must be preserved: they must both talk about either the gambler or winning/losing. Examples:

    "The gambler plays to win. When the gambler loses he doesn't enjoy it."
    "The gambler doesn't enjoy losing. The philosopher learns to enjoy losing."

    I feel like a teacher correcting a school essay here, and I could just ignore all that, but I also feel that I have something to say, because I believe that clear and correct descriptions are very important in here.
  • The Problem of Evil
    ↪tryhard

    the problem of evil is the most powerful argument against the theist argument — tryhard
    Is it? Who is using that argument against theism?
    If you are referring to atheism/atheists, you should state that. Anyway, not so important.

    If God exists, he would remove evil from the world — tryhard
    1) What is considered as "evil"? (One must first define that first.)
    2) Why God would remove evil (however this is defined)? Based on what?

    So, to me the first assumption-proposition is evidently baseless. Hence, the whole argumental/logical construction falls apart. It can't support God's inexistence (or anything else, for that matter).

    I know that there's a lot of argumentation in favor and against the existence of God, by theists and atheist, resp/ly. But there's also another category, which I call "no-theists" for whom God is just a concept. God does not exist for them. That's all. (It may be quite similar to what is known as "nontheism", but since I don't know much about it, I cannot talk from that perspective.)
    This, in my opinion, is the most rational position on the subject. I explain why below.

    There's no meaning in talking about and/or trying to prove the inexistence of something, which one believes that it does not exist or one does not believe it exists. And God is one of them. So, however any attempt to prove the inexistence of God --using the above argumentation scheme or any other-- is destined to fail.

    The existence of God is a question of personal experience and belief. Neither of them is open to dispute.
  • The meaning of life
    ↪Carlikoff

    No matter which approach you take answering the question of the meaning of life, everyone agrees that it's firmly tied to the question "why". — Carlikoff
    "Why" is not a question. It's just an interrogative adverb. One has to use his imagination to turn the "question of the meaning of life" into one that takes the form of "Why", The first that come to my mind is "Why does life exist?", but I can't be sure that this would be your question if you had expressed it.
    Then, how can you assume that everyone agrees that it's firmly tied to, well, actually anything? That's why the word "everyone" is to be avoided, not only in a discussion but also in one's own thoughts. Not only one cannot be certain about that, but sometimes it turns to be even wrong!

    When we ask about meaning, we ask about purpose, about the reason for a given circumstance. — Carlikoff
    Not necessarily. The meaning of a word is its significance, what does this word signify, convey to someone. Just that. It doesn't imply that there's a purpose for that word. For example, "What does Martin mean?", "What is the meaning of the word abracadabra?", "With tall I mean 1.80m height and more", and so on. There are no purposes in any of these.
    Most probably you have been misled by the parallelism of "What is the purpose of life" with "What is the meaning of life".

    What is the common problem with the above two cases? Generalization. This is a trap and is to be totally avoided in reasoning.

    ***

    Well, I believe that the above remarks are more useful than perpetuating and talking about the-meaning-of-life philosophical question, which has been proved, from millions of discussions to lead usually to either a "None"-type or an idealistic/utopian-type of answer, or a religious-type of dogmatic answer.
  • Free Will & Omnipotence
    Free will, it appears, exists in that we can consider all possible options in our minds. — Agent Smith
    How can we consider all possible options? How would we know they will be all?
    Regardless of that, even if we think of and select just a single option, wouldn't that indicate free will?
    Anyway, this is all theoretical. In practice, we just act by choice. That's all. There's nothing more to it. "By choice" means of our own accord. The process of considering and selecting choices is redundant.

    I can even mentally simulate every possible pathway from a given choice node, make a virtual choice and use my knowledge and experience to get an idea of what all possible options will look like. — Agent Smith
    Again, free will is something much more simple than that. It's just acting by choice.
  • Rasmussen’s Paradox that Nothing Exists
    ↪lish

    The Principle of Universal Explanation (PE): everything must have some explanation (in terms of something else). — lish
    This sounds like the classical philosophical questions: "Does everything has a cause?", "Is there a primary cause to everything?", etc. The word "explanation" however, introduces an ambiguity in the subject of "cause and effect", because it means that the existence of everything may be difficult or even impossible to explain, i.e. conceive or just describe in words. But then, this would not exclude its existence, would it? So, since the case here is not a problem of description, but rather of actual existence, I believe that the word "cause" should be used instead, which makes sense and is very clear: "(the existence of) everything must have a cause". However, this would may be some other "principle", not the present one.*

    The Principle of Unexplained Existence (PU): reality in total cannot have an explanation (in terms of anything beyond itself). — lish
    What kind of "reality" are you have in mind? There's no such a thing as an absolute, objective reality. In that case, there's nothing to discuss about or anything that will be discussed based on that inexistent "reality" will be idle talk. Except if by "reality" you mean the "physical world" as a lot of people do. In that case, the proposition will become, "The Universe cannot have an explanation".
    (BTW, the phrase "in terms of anything beyond itself" has no sense in this context, since "itself" does not consist an "explanation".)

    Now, here too, the word "explanation" introduces the same ambiguity as in the first principle.

    ***

    At this point, it there is no much meaning for me to continue, discussing the arguments offered for Rasmussen’s principles. This would unnecessarily burden this post. But I can do it in another post, if I'm aske to ...
  • Free Will & Omnipotence
    ↪Agent Smith

    Free Will (can do anything one wants) = Omnipotence (can do anything one wants) — Agent Smith

    Free will is not being able to do anything one wants! It is the ability and power to act by one's choice.

    Omnipotence is not being able to do anything one wants! It is a quality of having unlimited power.

    The first is a human attribute. The second is pure fiction.

    Like a road roller, you are compacting things you are stepping on! In this case, concepts.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    ↪Gregory A

    A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. — Gregory A
    Saying that "atheism is invalid" makes no sense. It connects two things that are incompatible with each other:
    The word "invalid", in a philosophical context, means that an argument, statement or theory is not true because it is based on erroneous information or unsound reasoning.
    The term "atheism" has nothing to do with any of the above. It refers to the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God.

    So you most probably mean then that the arguments and/or theory supporting atheism are invalid.

    In that case, I more than agree. I believe it is quite evident, if one thinks simply this: How can someone who does not believe that something exists, can prove that it doesn't exist?
    If, as an atheist, I try to make any argument about the inexistence of God, I will immediately fall on my face. It would be trying to prove the inexistence of something I don't believe it exists!

    So, my reply to the subject is that atheists actually have no arguments at all, valid or invalid.

    ***

    (What follows is my position on trying to prove the existence of God.)

    The belief in God (theism) is not a subject to argue about. If we try to prove God's existence based on reasoning, we will have to make arbitrary assumptions --I have proved that elsewhere in TPF-- and the construction will fall apart before even it is completed, because it will be based on wrong or no foundations.

    The belief in God can only be discussed on grounds of personal experience, i.e. having an experience of God. If I say "I feel the presence of God", this is not arguable. You can't say, "This is incorrect", "This is a lie", "Prove it!", etc. If nothing else, God most probably means a different thing and has a different form from what you yourself believe. This alone, excludes the subject from argumentation.

    This, as far as "theism" is concerned. In "atheism" --literally "a-" (=without) + "theism"-- things are more simple. If I have no experience of God, that's all. It doesn't exist for me. End of story. I should better not try to make any argument about that. I explained why in the beginning ...
  • Aristotle: Time Never Begins
    ↪Kuro

    :up: The passage from Aristotle that you brought in is very interesting. It's a very long time I have not read Aristotles --since school maybe-- and I enjoyed it!

    what Aristotle is basically saying is that time is change — Kuro
    This is what I also believe and often mention in discussions. More specifically, that time is our measurement of and reference to change, including movement in space.

    So if the universe changes from "no-time" to "time", that in of itself is a temporal process, making it necessary that "no-time" is actually time. So time never begins. — Kuro
    Well, this could be a very good point if its description had no some weaknesses:
    1) The universe cannot change from "no-time" to "time". but from non-existence to existence.
    2) A "process" is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. So what we are talking here is an event. (Re: Hawking's singularity)
    3) For something to change, it must already exist. So, we cannot talk about change, transition or whatever from non-existence to existence.
    4) The element of temporariness could well be missing, since it is disputable and not necessary to prove that "time never begins".

    So, the main argument for the thesis that time never begun or it is eternal, can put it in this way: "If we assume time's existence from non-existence, i.e. that it has been created from nothing, there should be a point at which this has happened. But this "point" can only refer to time. This creates a " circularity" or impossibility.
    A second way is this: Something cannot be created from nothing. There is always a source of creation, a cause that creates something. And that, cannot be "nothing".
    There are certainly a lot of ways to prove this thesis.
  • Awareness & Consciousness
    ↪Xtrix

    But I have supported your view! :smile:
    More particularily, I said "In that sense, it is synonymous with consciousness" and also "Which is also what you believe."

    (It's quite unusual to see someone "protesting" (re: "Again, ...") and explaining to me about things that I have already agreed with! :grin:)
  • Awareness & Consciousness
    ↪Xtrix

    You have betrayed yourself! :smile:
    You said "As far as I'm aware". Can you equally say, "As far as I'm conscious"? Most probably not. Of course, "as far as I'm aware" is an expression, similar to "as far as I know", and does not reflect what awareness actually is, i.e., what it commonly means, which is, a state and the ability to perceive the existence of something. In that sense, it is synonymous with consciousness. They are almost the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Which is also what you believe.

    But this only as concepts, as nouns. Their verb form differs. The verb "aware" has more meanings and applications than the verb "conscious", as I already indicated at start. Other examples: you can say "I'm aware of the fact", "I am aware of what is happening at this moment", etc. You cannot replace the word "aware" with "conscious" in these sentences. It will be incorrect. The verb "conscious" is much more strict and limited in scope. It can be only used in the sense that "I am in a state and I able to perceive things", "I am awake and I can respond to my environment", etc. But again, this is not what "Consciousness" as a concept means, a term with a much wider significance. One that is quite controversial and most probably will always be! :smile:

    ***

    Note: I said "verb" referring to "aware" and "conscious". It's a mistake. They are adjectives. I had in mind the verb forms/expressions "I am aware" and "I am conscious", as my examples show.
  • Pessimism’s ultimate insight
    It is tabooed to suggest that the assumption (that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry) is not justified. — baker
    Let me get that straight. Because the negation and the justification part ("not justified") somewhat perplexes me. Do you mean that we should absolutely believe that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry without questioning it? And that not believing that is forbidden?
    If it's something like that, it reminds of "Have faith and doubt not", which of course is related to God and what the Christan religion teaches. So, is this "eating and drinking" belief about life a kind of new religion? Because taboos refer mainly to religion and by extension to social customs.
    Well, I can't imagine even the hardcore "materislists" claiming such a thing. And if they indeed are, they would certainly not talk about taboos! :smile:

    Like you say, we usually take for granted and we are expected to take for granted that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry. — baker
    I didn't say that. I said "Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life!". It's quite different. People don't assume or take for granted any truth here. People are not taught in their families or at school that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, and believe it without questioning it. People arrive at that conclusion based on their personal experience of and thoughts about life, which then of course they naturally believe.

    So, in my opinion, nothing is taken for granted nor is tabooed.
  • Not PARTICLES! QUANTA! Is that really all we can accurately state?
    I think you are imagining that is true! — universeness
    :down: Please don't tell me what I'm imagining!

    You just killed this exchange.
  • Not PARTICLES! QUANTA! Is that really all we can accurately state?
    Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. — EugeneW
    The exact quote is: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself”.
    It's one of my favorite quotes! I don't miss the opportunity to bring it up when the circumstances arise ...
  • Not PARTICLES! QUANTA! Is that really all we can accurately state?
    is a gnawing imagination just my personal experience alone? — universeness
    I couldn't know that. I personally use my imagination for pleasure or creative purposes ... And it doesn't gnaw at me. I'm the one who gnaws at it! :smile:

    Why do humans wish to know their origin story? — universeness
    For various reasons, I guess.

    Why willingly submit ourselves to stressful thinking — universeness
    I personally don't. I have control when it comes to thinking voluntarily, esp. rationally. Thinking coming from the subconscious, feelings, etc., however, can be stressful.
  • Not PARTICLES! QUANTA! Is that really all we can accurately state?
    Just left some context out — EugeneW
    Exactly. This is what journalists do! :smile:
  • Not PARTICLES! QUANTA! Is that really all we can accurately state?
    When a really intelligent scientists such as Sean Carroll or Carlo Rovelli and many of their contemporaries cannot prove exactly how the Universe works, they turn to their imagination to try to make progress. — universeness
    OK, but as physicists, their imagination would still wander around protons, electrons, quanta and that sort of things. And they most probably are using their imagination --as others scientists-- with the purpose of finding solutions, explanations, etc., about the nature of these things and how they work. In the same way as I use my imagination as a computer programmer to find programming solutions to various problems ...
Home » Alkis Piskas