Only really smart people can do it. — Purple Pond

Baden can do it.

What a horribly judgemental view of those who take recreational drugs. I think that that is far more immoral than the act of taking recreational drugs.

Like, on a physical level, what is the reason we can't think more than one sentence at a time? Obviously, there has to be a scientific reason for it. What is it? — YuZhonglu

I don't know the answer in terms of neuroscience. Ask a neuroscientist. Or at least a science forum. This is a philosophy forum. But we can't do so because evolution doesn't work like that. We didn't jump straight from fish to humans. Advancement takes time.

And we know you don’t clarify because it would reveal the meagerness of your point. — praxis

I frequently clarify upon request, but, funnily enough, when someone persistently misinterprets me, or fails to get the point, I tend to become less inclined towards doing so. I am only human, and my patience isn't infinite.

I thought that the point of my analogy was clear enough. And I want to put this to the test by asking someone who I judge to be more capable than you in this regard to tell us what he thinks I was getting at with that analogy.

So, @Terrapin Station, what do you think my point was with the analogy that his criticism of my explanation is like saying that cars are rubbish because they can't fly?

...when we examine the system as a whole - it has no start - so the system as a whole is impossible. — Devans99

No, that is just your completely unfounded and unreasonable belief, Devans. It is a belief that you are psychologically attached to. The only bit that you're right about is that it has no start, but that goes without saying. Your conclusion doesn't follow, and a repetition of your argument - your refuted argument - won't change that.

And again you ignored a direct question. — tim wood

Some questions don't dignify a response.

But your criticism is destructive, not constructive. — tim wood

Yes, there's nothing constructive in criticism which suggests the way to self-improvement through educating yourself about an important distinction in philosophy, and in learning the importance of staying on topic.

It would better be said that emotion, as distinct from the most basic affect, is founded in moral and aesthetic judgement. Moral and aesthetic judgements are the foundation of our communal, that is to say emotional, lives, and it is within that context that more complex emotions are possible. — Janus

No, it's better how I said it. (And sometimes less is more).

If ‘cars’ are nature and ‘flying’ is nurture — praxis

Then you would have completely misunderstood me once again.

Would it help if I drew pictures? — praxis

No, it would help if you paid closer attention.

Because we know that it's impossible for houses to turn into flowers. Whereas if she were to say that the tree in her garden became a shed we wouldn't question it because we know that carpenters are able to do this.

So I think it's entirely appropriate to say that houses can't turn into flowers because the laws of physics as we know them preclude this kind of transmutation. It really has nothing to do with language or our concepts at all. — Michael

I agree with this. I don't think that there was ever any real problem here to begin with. Do you? Apparently my earlier criticism along these lines, criticism which is unsympathetic to the thoughts and feelings behind the creation of this discussion, was deemed to be worthy of deletion. I'm guessing the excuse would be "low quality".

I've done nothing wrong by objecting to your attempts to change the subject, and explaining why that's inappropriate. It's not my fault that you do not seem to have a good understanding of the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics. If you had a good understanding of that distinction, then we wouldn't be having this problem. You ought to take responsibility for that instead of taking it out on me. I'm not going to stop criticising people for doing things like this, irrespective of whether you get personal and resort to name-calling as you often do. I am not the sort of person who can be browbeaten into submission by being called toxic or by saying that I don't say anything of substance.

You want a continuation of the meta-ethical discussion from elsewhere on the forum, and I do not. Especially not here, where it's clearly inappropriate. And especially not by you role playing as Socrates, in an excruciating step-by-step run through of one of Plato's dialogues. I've given you more than enough on that topic already. There's over sixty pages of discussion. I suggest you go and review my many posts in that discussion, and that will probably answer most, if not all, of your questions.

Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that. — tim wood

That's not an argument, that's just a condescending assertion, and an implicit attack on my character. I can't say I'm surprised to see this sort of response from you. I've come to expect it.

I think you're talking about legal culpability - but who knows? Are you? — tim wood

No, I was talking about responsibility in the context of ethics. I wasn't talking about legal anything there. That's a poor interpretation of what I was saying.

Alright, so let's say you got drunk and belligerent and punched a guy named Bob in the face. There are 100 percentage points of responsibility you can dole out. How many of those 100 points do you get? If not 100, who gets the rest? — Hanover

It's not something that can be quantified, at least not precisely, and that's not something I need to do to support my point. And surely you recognise that your second question is a loaded question, so I'm definitely not answering that one. My point is just that I'm not fully responsible as a sober person would be, because I wasn't fully in control as a sober person would be. And even that doesn't take into account that sober people can still be categorised into more and less serious crimes based on whether the crime was premeditated or a crime of passion. Come on, you know the law better than I do. I don't base my morality on it to a T, but there's a rough template there for my reasoning on this. Basically, less control, less responsible. We've been over this already. What's the use of going over it again?

Perhaps your punishment should be lessened due to the extent of your intent, but I can't see reducing your responsibility. — Hanover

And we've already agreed to disagree over this.

If your behavior was motivated by a high fever, it'd likely reduce or eliminate your responsibility, but I can't see voluntary intoxication as a viable defense. — Hanover

For me, it's irrelevant whether or not it would stand up in a court of law, but obviously I consider it to be a justification for only partial responsibility.

Great! The implication is that you know what morality and immorality are. Clearly one needs to know to determine the morality of taking illegal drugs. Tell us then please what you say morality is. — tim wood

The people of this forum never cease to amaze me. In a discussion on meta-ethics, people treat the topic as though it is a discussion on normative ethics, and in a discussion on normative ethics, people treat the topic as though it is a discussion on meta-ethics.

My meta-ethics is irrelevant. What's relevant is my judgement on whether or not taking illegal drugs is immoral.

You'd think people would educate themselves on a branch of philosophy before entering discussions within that branch of philosophy.

So you deny full responsibility to assuage your guilt so that you can feel better about yourself so that you can be a better person. Nice mental gymnastics. Does this method of self-affirmation work only for drug induced violent states or does it also work for intentional acts of violence? Can I shoot someone in the face and then deny full responsibility in order to unburden my conscience so that I can go out and be more productive? — Hanover

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible.

I get the impression that you really dislike philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Fascinating.

Refutation

@Devans99, please bookmarks this as a reference for the next time you think about lying about the fact that I've provided a refutation.

The logic of a regress is actually really simple to understand.

{...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}

If we take Devans99's pool table example, we could say that the black ball event is represented by "3", the white ball event by "2", and the pool cue event by "1".

Now, anyone with half a brain should be able to see and understand that the pool cue event was preceded by a prior cause, and that cause was preceded by a prior cause, and so on.

The principle of cause and effect is that an effect is preceded by a prior cause. Any alleged exception must be justified.

Now, once again, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that if we kept tracing the chain of causes backwards, then, going by the above principle, we would, in theory, continue to trace it backwards ad infinitum.

We cannot reasonably conclude that we'd reach a first cause, because that hasn't been justified.

And we cannot reasonably conclude that the chain is a) undefined or b) doesn't exist, because a) every single event in the chain is defined by the cause prior to it, and b) his claim that it doesn't exist is based on the fallacious assumption that a first cause is necessary for the chain to exist. He hasn't justified this assumption, he just assumes it.

His response is to assume a first cause, and then assume that it has been removed from the chain, and then note that there would be no second, third, fourth, and so on. And this proves absolutely nothing of any logical relevance. It just tells us what we already know, namely that there's no reason to believe that there's a first cause, or any other cause defined by a first cause. There's just a chain of causes, with each cause defined by the prior cause, ad infinitum.

Of course, he will not accept this refutation, because it is clear to everyone besides Devans99, that he is fanatically attached to the argument. And this isn't surprising, because the world is full of fanatical theists. It is full of people who have a psychological need for there to be a God.

I think it would be documented on the web somewhere if there was such an obvious hole in the prime mover argument... really you are clutching at straws. You are wrong on this one and just won't admit it is one possibility. The other is you are just too dumb to comprehend the dynamics of the situation. — Devans99

Sure, whatever you say. Good luck with your paper. You're going to need it.

No-one has pointed out Aquinas's error in 800 years. You certainly have not. — Devans99

Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No.

Aquinas is regarded as one of the most intelligent men ever. You are saying he is wrong. You are wrong. — Devans99

That's a really dumb thing to say. Intelligent people can be wrong, and Aquinas is one example of that.

I'm still not sure whether you're a troll or just stupid.

No my (and Aquinas's) reasoning points out that an infinite chain of causes has no start and because of this, none of it can exist. — Devans99

You don't need to point out what's obvious and goes without saying, and the conclusion doesn't follow.

It does not matter whether we can trace back through each member of the infinite regress; we know it has no start and nothing in the regress is defined without a start (does the black go in if you don't hit the white first? No - a regress does not exist without a first member). — Devans99

You haven't shown that nothing in an infinite regress would be defined, because you rely on faulty logic to do so. Everything in an infinite regress is defined. It doesn't need a start for that, and it can't have one anyway, otherwise it wouldn't even be an infinite regress. You would have to shut up about a start that isn't there, and demonstrate that something in the chain is undefined. But you've proven incapable of doing so. You just reassert the completely unfounded assertion that there needs to be a first cause, or a start, when there doesn't.

You aren't genuinely interested in the faults in your argument, you just want to push the argument over and over again, even though you're not convincing anyone at all, and even though this bad logic from hundreds of years ago won't magically work the more you repeat it.

A la Socrates: one morality, that we're trying to figure out? Or many, each to his or her own? — tim wood

I'm not going to play out a Socratic dialogue with you, and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs.

Why not start from the beginning: do you buy the notion that there is such a thing as ethics/morality? (Some folks argue the two terms mean the same thing.) Or not, meaning that any discussion of them is basically delusion, or at best error? — tim wood

Really? That's your question? Of course I think that there's such a thing.

I had started to read through your post, but it's a chore. I just wanted a short, punchy answer. A focused and succinct reply. You said something about cost-benefit analysis, and cost to myself and others. That's the sort of key thing that is at risk of being missed or neglected if your post is too lengthy. Can't you just get straight to the point, and reserve lengthy elaboration as an 'upon request' sort of thing? I will let you know if I need a really detailed example about bike helmets.

Indeed, I should take this to heart, except that you rarely (never?) answer direct questions, as, for example, those at the end of my last post to you. I am force to conclude that the topic of the thread, whatever thread you're in, is at best of tangential interest to you; that you're greater interest is personal display at the expense of both topic and substance. — tim wood

Then I'll skip to that bit and answer them. That's not a problem. What's a problem for me is when you write several sentences for what I can write in a single sentence, with the result being that your post is several times as long.

What I do not like is non-responsiveness. — tim wood

Then you should be more succinct and more on point. But instead you ramble and lose focus. I'm not going to address excessively lengthy posts in the same manner that I address a succinct post, and you should know that by now. It takes too much time and effort to analyse and respond to everything in a lengthy post. So if you don't want me to be "non-responsive", then stick to the key points, don't write an essay.

"Goes some way" is a rather euphemistic way of saying what? Inadequate. — praxis

No, because it isn't inadequate in the context of what it can explain. It's only inadequate if you take it out of the appropriate context I had in mind, which is uncharitable at best, and strawmanning at worst. That's not doing good philosophy.

Inadequacy or 'going some way' is problematic in its deficiency. Clearly that's not a problem for you, and yes, it's a problem for me, and anyone else who is interested in an explanation that goes further than "some way." — praxis

Same problem as above. It's your problem, and anyone else's, if you have unreasonable expectations about what it should explain, and your objections thus far have either been denial of what it does actually explain, or an unreasonable expectation of what it can't currently explain because we haven't advanced that far yet.

That we don't have flying cars is not a reasonable basis for not buying a car. That's the kind of fallacy in your reasoning: cars are rubbish because they can't fly.

I'm not sure why you believe that emotions are any less dependent on culture than morals... — praxis

I'm not sure why you're making shit up and trying to pass it off as something I've said or implied. I said the converse, and my wording was different. I said that moral judgement is founded in emotion. Why can't you just pay attention?

We're done here, I think. I'm cutting it off short instead of continuing with the remainder of your reply.

Does such “proportionality” require handicaps to those with height?
— I like sushi

Justice wouldn't. — Banno

We should stop talking in vague metaphor and stick to a clear context. I'm not sure I'd answer the question in the same way for all contexts.

The comparison is between equity and fairness or justice. Proportionality might stand for justice. — Banno

I would say it leads to justice, and it is fair.

I agree. It's just not in the remit of this thread. — Banno

Yeah, I went off topic. Oops.

A lack of first cause means a lack of 2nd cause, a lack of 3rd cause etc... — Devans99

There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain.

Stop being an illogical theistic nutjob. If you don't think the regress is infinite, keep going back and see where the principle of cause and effect logically takes you. Do it step by step. You would just keep going back infinitely if you never died.

And stop lying or trolling or whatever it is you're doing, because I know I have made this criticism multiple times before.

You are disregarding both science and logic to get to your precious first cause. Logic, going by the principle of cause and effect, leads to an infinite regress. And science leads to, "I don't know". It is your fanatical faith which leads you to a first cause, so that you can be a weakling clinging to the notion of God. You are a weakling if you need that in the first place.

This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your original argument has been countered numerous times, your current posts aren't in support of countering those counter-arguments and you are starting to support your non-supportive current counter-arguments with yourself in another thread. Seriously, this is ridiculous. — Christoffer

Inception-level cognitive bias! That's a good way of putting it.

Have you met creativesoul, by the way?

I really don't get you, the argument is about a lack of first cause - nowhere is it assumed that there is a first cause. — Devans99

A lack of a first cause is an infinite regress. You haven't reasonably reached a first cause. You just assert it. You assert that it's necessary without showing that it is. We're going around in circles again, and you aren't properly dealing with criticism again, and then you'll do the feigned amnesia act and say that I never even provided any criticism.

Let me know if you want to be reasonable. That would require you dealing with the problem of why a regress can't, in theory, just be traced back infinitely, without begging the question by assuming a first cause, or a first start.

You have only asserted that a first cause, or start, is necessary. You have not reasonably demonstrated this.

You quoted before I edited out a typo. I meant to refer to your third sentence: "And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth". I'm going to be blunt and insulting by saying that that's a really dumb thing to say in this context. You can't assume a starting event, and you're not working backwards, when we're talking about a regress for crying out loud. The question is whether there is a first cause or it whethet it just keeps going back.

But we know that infinity has no start. So there is no starting event. And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth. Without the start there is nothing. This is why I say I think you believe in magic - an infinite regress is just that magic - it would be a conjuring trick if it existed in reality. — Devans99

Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your third sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable.

What criticisms do you refer? — Devans99

This is why you get called a troll. It's different to why I have been called a troll. I mock and and can be super aggressive, whereas you feign ignorance to the point of absurdity.

I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you. — Devans99

We don't need a pool table analogy. Take any event and reason backwards using the principle of cause and effect and you can just keep going infinitely. If that's wrong, you haven't reasonably demonstrated it. You just do as I've described, which isn't reasonable.

And the criticisms? Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot.

Aquinas's and my arguments. They are sound arguments. Nothing can exist without a start. I will not go though it again here as I've repeated so many times. — Devans99

Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem.

Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling

I get why you'd say that. But I'm mixed on Aristotle. There's a lot he got very wrong, and he is who I had in mind when I said that influential isn't necessarily a good thing. But he did some foundational work on logic, science, and ethics, so he gets my praise for that.

No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.

I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God. — Devans99

I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It's not the first time that I've heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. And I've spent a heck of a lot of time on philosophy forums.

I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know.

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa

And that one, too! You should write more like this and less like a robot or an angry teen.