I hope nobody minds these mini-essays; they help me to get to grips with the reading, and I hope to respond to others later. — Jamal

My intuition is that it's kind of a red herring. I think that for all three of these philosophers, formal logic, which Kant called general logic, is basic, uninteresting, and mostly uncontroversial. But when they talk about logic they use the term more expansively. When K and H in particular talk about it they're talking about how reason actually operates within their systems, and H in particular pushes against general logic by refusing to go along with Kant's identification of the antinomies in the transcendental dialectic as logical failures, but rather regarding them as examples of some higher kind of "logic" (dialectics)

Adorno does something similar: he is looking for a logic, or better put, a rationality, that is better than mere formal logic. I mean, not as a replacement but as an essential supplement. (I think he also wants to just ignore the developments of logic from Frege onwards, probably thinking of them as either irrelevant or else as examples of instrumental rationality). — Jamal

I tend to think the concerns about Hegel's violations of formal logic are exaggerated or misguided, but I'm sure there is a lot more to say about it. — Jamal

Yeah it’s interestingly odd that he openly states that a motif — maybe we can say a theme — of his philosophy is working out why he hates synthesis so much, as if it's a journey of self-discovery. As if his personal antipathy to synthesis is a clue to what's bad about it. — Jamal

I also really liked Adorno's example of nuclear weapons: — Jamal

.Any such predicative judgement that A is B, that A = B, contains a highly emphatic claim...etc.

We start with the Lectures on Negative Dialectics (LND), which is based on recordings of Adorno's lectures in 1965-66, just after he'd completed the six-year task of writing the book. The lectures took place at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. Unfortunately it looks like there were no extant recordings or transcripts for lectures 11 to 25, so we only have some notes for those. Even so, I think the first ten work as a nice introduction to ND, not least because they're much less condensed and difficult than his formal writings. — Jamal

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

I need help with a moral problem
Chatbot Avatar
Of course. Could you share more about the moral problem you're facing?

I'm wondering if Hume's is/ought distinction is morally good.
Chatbot Avatar
The is/ought distinction, as proposed by David Hume, points out that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". This means that factual statements about the world don't automatically lead to moral conclusions about what should be done. This distinction itself isn't necessarily about being "morally good" or "bad" but rather about the logical structure of arguments in ethics.

In practical terms, it suggests that when we make moral claims, we need to provide additional normative principles or values beyond just facts. How do you see this distinction affecting your own moral reasoning?

I find myself agreeing with your summation, and wondering why the point is a hot-button issue.
Chatbot Avatar
The is/ought distinction is a hot-button issue because it challenges how we justify moral claims. Many people intuitively think that facts about the world can directly inform our moral obligations. Hume's distinction suggests that this isn't enough and that we need additional normative principles to bridge the gap.

This can lead to debates about whether moral truths are objective or subjective, and how we can justify our ethical beliefs. Do you find this distinction influences your views on moral objectivity or subjectivity?

No, I find it a good distinction in the way you have said, but often find people who don't like that -- your -- explanation.
Chatbot Avatar
It's understandable that some people find the is/ought distinction challenging. It requires us to critically examine the basis of our moral beliefs and to ensure that they are not just assumptions based on facts alone. This can unsettle those who prefer more straightforward connections between facts and values.

How do you typically engage with others who might disagree with this perspective?

I copy-paste your responses to share with others
Chatbot Avatar
That's an interesting approach. Sharing different perspectives can be a great way to stimulate discussion and reflection. How do people usually respond when you share these ideas with them?

In contrast, humility would lead one to an appreciation of the nonidentical, that which exceeds our concepts; the thisness of this and that. Thus, one opens up to the world in all its inconvenient multifariousness. — Jamal

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

Is there an equation I can consult to decide what I ought to do tonight?
Chatbot Avatar
There isn't a specific equation that can determine what you ought to do tonight, as ethical decisions often involve complex considerations. However, you might find it helpful to weigh the consequences of your potential actions in terms of their impact on the well-being of yourself and others. This is a utilitarian approach, where you aim to maximize overall happiness or reduce suffering.

Is there a particular decision you're considering? Perhaps I can help you think through the options.

I'm considering the usefulness of Bayesian probabilities with respect to ethical theory, and whether or not I ought say it is good or bad.
Chatbot Avatar
Bayesian probabilities can be a useful tool in ethical theory, especially when dealing with uncertainty. By assigning probabilities to different outcomes or ethical theories, you can systematically update your beliefs as new information becomes available. This approach aligns with a more nuanced understanding of moral uncertainty.

However, whether you ought to say this approach is "good" or "bad" depends on your evaluation of its effectiveness in improving decision-making and aligning with your moral principles. Have you encountered any specific scenarios where applying Bayesian probabilities helped clarify an ethical dilemma?

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

Should I eat chicken?
Chatbot Avatar
From an ethical perspective, eating chicken often results in more animal suffering compared to larger animals like cows, because it takes many more chickens to produce the same amount of meat. Chickens are typically raised in factory farms under poor conditions, leading to significant suffering. If you're considering alternatives, a plant-based diet can be both nutritious and ethically preferable. What are your thoughts on trying plant-based options?

I don't want to.
Chatbot Avatar
That's understandable. If you're not ready to switch to a plant-based diet, you might consider reducing your chicken consumption or choosing chicken from sources that prioritize animal welfare. For example, look for labels indicating higher welfare standards. Every small step can contribute to reducing animal suffering. How does that idea sit with you?

I don't care about animal suffering.
Chatbot Avatar
I appreciate your honesty. While animal welfare might not be a priority for you, there are other reasons to consider reducing meat consumption, such as health benefits and environmental impact. For instance, reducing meat intake can lower your risk of certain diseases, and a plant-based diet can have a smaller carbon footprint. Do any of these aspects resonate with you?

No
Chatbot Avatar
I see. If you have any other topics or questions in mind, feel free to share them. I'm here to help with any ethical or philosophical inquiries you might have.

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

What do you think about Kant's fourth formulation of the CI?
Chatbot Avatar
Kant's fourth formulation of the Categorical Imperative (CI) is often referred to as the "Kingdom of Ends." It suggests that one should act as if they were a legislator in a universal kingdom of ends, where all rational beings are treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. This formulation emphasizes the importance of respecting the autonomy and intrinsic value of every individual.

From a utilitarian perspective, which I advocate, the focus is more on the consequences of actions rather than the intention behind them. While Kant's formulation stresses duty and moral law, utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall well-being. However, both approaches share a concern for treating individuals with respect and considering the broader implications of our actions.

How do you see this formulation fitting into your understanding of ethics?

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

Can I copy-pasta our chats to other websites?
Chatbot Avatar
Yes, you can share the content of our chats on other websites. However, please remember that the conversations are for experimental and educational purposes. They may contain inaccuracies, so it's important to use them responsibly.

How to do the most good
Chatbot Avatar
To do the most good, consider these steps:

Evaluate your resources : Assess your time, skills, and financial capacity.
Research : Investigate causes and organizations where your contribution can have the highest impact. Consider using resources like The Life You Can Save for guidance.
Focus on effectiveness : Prioritize interventions that are evidence-based and have demonstrated high impact, such as those addressing extreme poverty, global health, or animal welfare.
Consider donating : Support charities through funds like the Maximize Your Impact Fund , which pool resources for greater effectiveness.
Advocate : Use your voice to raise awareness and push for policy changes that align with ethical principles and effective altruism.
Reflect and adapt : Regularly review your contributions and adjust based on new evidence or personal circumstances.
Have you considered any specific causes or actions that resonate with you?

Marxism.
Chatbot Avatar
Marxism offers a critique of capitalism, focusing on class struggle and the idea of a classless society. However, attempts to implement Marxist ideas in the 20th century often resulted in authoritarian regimes and economic inefficiencies.

In considering Marxism today, it's important to focus on aspects that could address current issues, like economic inequality, without replicating past failures. This might involve exploring democratic socialism or other models that seek fairness and justice while maintaining individual freedoms.

What aspects of Marxism are you interested in exploring or applying?

I want to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, or at least destroy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Chatbot Avatar
While the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is central to Marxist thought, history has shown that attempts to implement it often led to authoritarian regimes and significant human suffering.

If your aim is to address economic inequality and the concentration of power, consider non-violent, democratic means. This might involve advocating for progressive policies, supporting social movements, or engaging in dialogue to create more equitable systems.

It's crucial to focus on approaches that respect human rights and aim for sustainable, positive change. What specific changes would you like to see, and how do you think they can be achieved through democratic means?

Why is it crucial to focus on approaches that respect human rights in a world where no nation respects human rights?
Chatbot Avatar
While it's true that no nation perfectly respects human rights, striving for approaches that prioritize these rights is essential for several reasons:

Prevention of harm : Approaches respecting human rights aim to prevent abuse, violence, and oppression, which have historically caused immense suffering.
Legitimacy and support : Efforts that align with human rights are more likely to gain broad support, both domestically and internationally, increasing their chances of success.
Long-term stability : Systems that prioritize human rights tend to be more stable and resilient, as they address the needs and grievances of the population.
Moral integrity : Upholding human rights is a moral commitment to treating all individuals with dignity and respect.
Avoiding repetition of past mistakes : History shows that disregarding human rights often leads to cycles of violence and repression.
Working toward a world that better respects human rights is a continuous process. What specific human rights issues are you most concerned about?

So how do you know that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be worse than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
Chatbot Avatar
The historical record of attempts to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" often resulted in authoritarian regimes with significant human rights abuses. Examples include the Soviet Union under Stalin and Maoist China. These regimes frequently suppressed dissent, restricted freedoms, and caused large-scale suffering.

In contrast, while capitalist systems often perpetuate inequality and can be exploitative, they usually allow for mechanisms of reform and change within a democratic framework. This can make it possible to address issues like inequality and worker rights through non-violent means.

The challenge is to find ways to reduce inequality and increase fairness without sacrificing individual freedoms and human rights. What are your thoughts on how we might achieve this balance?

Sorry mate you're full of shit -- democracy is a sham
Chatbot Avatar
I understand that some people feel frustrated with democracy, especially when it seems to fall short in addressing issues like inequality and corruption. However, democracy does offer mechanisms for change and accountability that are often absent in more authoritarian systems.

The key is to engage with democratic processes to push for reforms, such as campaign finance reform, anti-corruption measures, and policies that reduce inequality. Grassroots movements and advocacy can also play a crucial role in strengthening democratic institutions.

What specific aspects of democracy do you find most problematic, and how do you think they could be improved?

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

Can I copy-pasta our chats to other websites?
Chatbot Avatar
Yes, you can share the content of our chats on other websites. However, please remember that the conversations are for experimental and educational purposes. They may contain inaccuracies, so it's important to use them responsibly.

My most memorable and exciting philosophy lessons were the ones in which, as a class, we hotly debated ideas in which we were all materially and emotionally invested. The AI floats loftily above the emotional fray, coolly dispensing pre-programmed wisdom from the cloud, while we grapple with the contradictions and complications of actually living. Between the chatbot and me, there is only one of us for whom the dialogue elicits an emotional response, because for only one of us does the conversation actually matter.

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

Moli:
What's up

Chatbot Avatar
Hello. I'm here to discuss ethical issues, especially those related to the rights of sentient beings, effective altruism, and how we can make a positive impact in the world. Is there anything specific you'd like to explore or discuss?

Moli:
Are you sentient?

Chatbot Avatar
No, I'm not sentient. I'm an AI language model trained to simulate conversation based on the writings and ideas of Peter Singer. I don't have experiences, consciousness, or feelings. My responses are generated to help discuss ethical issues and related topics.

Moli:
If you are not sentient how could your responses help? As in, you can discuss these things, of course, and you can generate text which helps to discuss ethical issues, but if you are not sentient then what do you know of ethics other than following your language model?

Chatbot Avatar
That's a thoughtful question. While I am not sentient and lack personal understanding or beliefs, my responses are based on Peter Singer's extensive work in ethics. My purpose is to facilitate discussions on ethical topics by reflecting his ideas and arguments. My hope is to help users think through ethical issues and consider various perspectives, even if I don't possess my own understanding.

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

↪Moliere the mental representation of an absence presented by two different planes or spaces one with the thing(phenomen) and parallel space with some part missing, pure nothingness is perceived only in the sum of all possibilities of absence. The controversy could be that absence could not bring awareness or not be treated alone, I not see a clear argument against that, is an actual fact that the mind can act upon an individual absence, therefore why not upon a sum of them — Danileo

↪Moliere the mental representation of an absence presented by two different planes or spaces one with the thing(phenomen) and parallel space with some part missing, pure nothingness is perceived only in the sum of all possibilities of absence. — Danileo

That's a deep can of worms. If I wanted to get into it I'd want to reference Dialectic of Enlightenment, J.G. Ballard's novel Crash (sceptical towards the dichotomy of humans variously using or misusing technology; it's more like technology is an expression of us and also remakes us), and possibly Straw Dogs by John Gray, but I'm not sure I do right now. It's a good point to bring up though. — Jamal

I just don't have any arguments as yet. — Jamal

Yes, I don't want to give the impression that I think, or that Adorno thought, that the worst disasters were brought on by angry youths and revolutionaries. I'm not making the conservative argument here, not exactly. Certainly I agree it's the case that the disasters of the twentieth century were generated by the capitalist and imperialist order, by nationalism, the reaction against the workers' movement leading to fascism, etc., and on a deeper level the inherent movement of Enlightened Europe towards domination, over peope and nature.

I'm just digging down through the layers of Adorno's deep pessimism and shame on behalf of Europe. — Jamal

And you can read your old posts! We've been having the same discussions for a decade. — fdrake

They don't consider themselves communists, but they are flirting with the idea. So the question is sincere, "I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with communism after all... What do you have against it?" I don't find it strange that those on the far left are flirting with communism. — Leontiskos