I might call this Living Knowledge, in that it has the potential to die — Mark Dennis

Wouldn't all knowledge be living knowledge and have the potential to die? Considering knowledge needs a knower?

Depends on what you mean by exist. Concepts exist qua concepts.

Whether any entity in the physical world shares the exact traits of that concept is not something that can be affirmed with 100% certainty.

Nothing about Tri inherently implies three and nothing about angle inherently implies joined lines creating angles. Only your relational memory through repeated use of the word does. — Mark Dennis

Sure, sounds and the scribbles on a page don't inherently mean anything.

But we have defined tri to mean three, and we have defined triangle to mean a three angled, sided, two dimensional shape. Therefore, to say that that is what a triangle is is true. And we could give a triangle another name. But the concept of the what-once-was-known-as-triangle would remain the same. And if we changed the concept in any way at all then it will be a wholly different thing.

And a side note, the German and English words for triangle literally contain the words "three angle."

I don't know what the Asian script says, but the German and English are the same.

Bachelors already means unmarried — Mark Dennis

Yes. That is the point. Just as triangle means having three sides.

I agree with you generally that all a posteriori truths are <100% certain to be true.

But a priori truths like a triangle has three sides, or all bachelors are unmarried, is by definition true =100%. To a certain extent they're not especially interesting truths, because they tell us nothing new about the world. They are the categories we have abstractly created to impose on the world.

And a triangle is also predefined as a two-dimensional object :wink:

Do they have the potential to do this? — Mark Dennis

I assume you mean create the Karma Zone? I'm confused, is this supposed to be a virtual reality or a real reality?

Also, my initial thought is that it reminds me a lot of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

What Jesus is saying by talking about how you should treat the weak, is suggesting that just because you have power over someone else, doesn't mean you should abuse it. In fact, especially when you have power over someone else, you should take care to treat them with kindness and respect.

While being chased down by a lion without weapons at hand, we are the helpless and so cannot be subject to Jesus' suggestion.

But the vast majority of time we do have and wield power over billions of animals who are defenseless against us. Be that our pets or farm animals, their lives are literally in our hands. That would be when Jesus' suggestion applies. Don't kick your dog, don't beat your cat, don't behead a chicken.

They like to have followers who worship them; — uncanni

This is an interesting line. I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone whom I consider a troll who has any apparent fans or following.

Surely some sociologists must have studied this online phenomenon?

Something about the anonymous, impersonal interface of a forum makes people less likely to accept the humanity of their interlocutors. People say a lot of things on here they would not say, and/or not say in that way to another human being face-to-face. (And I do not exempt myself from that, though I strive to be better.)

I suppose that can be a double-edged sword. It's too easy to become uncivil or even hostile, and certainly very easy not to seriously consider the validity of another's position. However, there is a freeing element also that allows for more exploration and/or honesty. It's possible that the negatives of the former too often outweigh the positives of the latter, however.

you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see. — god must be atheist

Again, I've shown that your demands of ethics are absurd and irrelevant. That is also there for the world to see. I'm happy to leave it the way it stands for others to see.

I rest satisfied, however, that you were unable to show one single unique and pervasive trait or qualioty, which may be a combinaition of qualities, that applies to what you call ethics. — god must be atheist

I mean, that can be your personal opinion as well. But of course you were making impossible and simultaneously illogical demands for proof... but you can ride off into the sunset believing whatever you want to believe sans reason. :rofl:

Ay-vey. You are going at it from an angle you ought not to.

Apples exist. But to show it to a person who denies the existence of apples, you have to show him an apple.

If you can't show him an apple, from his point of view he won't accept that apples exist. — god must be atheist

I'm sorry, but you're just a moving target. You've gone from needing ethics to be totally and absolutely exclusive to ethics (which is dumb, because ethics is about life and how to live/act) to now needing some physical, tangible proof that probably you'd prefer is edible as well.

But the target you've moved to doesn't even make sense. I've never seen a dinosaur, and I believe they've existed. I've never seen -- actually seen, with my own little eye-- a bacteria, and I believe they exist. I've never even seen the molten iron core of planet earth and I believe that exists.

Furthermore, since ethics is conceptual, you can't show it physically other than pointing perhaps to a book about ethics. Just like statistics is conceptual, or love, or so many other things.

At this point I'm really not sure where the conversation is going, because from my vantage point (and I'm sorry if this isn't true from your vantage point) your answers/questions are becoming more and more silly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/principle

noun

• an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
• a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
• a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:
• principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
• guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
• an adopted rule or method for application in action:

The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition that fits your own position, but that's not how I have employed it throughout this discussion.

And a principle is a feature of ethics. Calling something either of those terms is not mutually exclusive.

Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist. — god must be atheist

Does an apple only exist because it is different from everything else? And here I thought all fruit share various qualities and aspects.

I can put the same apple in a sauce, in a pie, in a fruitcake, in a crumble, in cider, or just eat straight. Is it now not an apple per your definition?

Maybe we cross-posted. — god must be atheist

Yup, that's what happened.

Right, but it does not apply exclusively to ethics. Please read my car seat example as a support of my claim in this matter. — god must be atheist

You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle.

However, if you can't find even one, then I rest my case, and feel satisfied that you failed to show me that ethics exist. — god must be atheist

Why are you ignoring what I said?

I think the only rational thing to do is adopt an optimistic attitude. Here's my calculation:

If we're pessimistic about it, then we won't do anything, and if we don't do anything the chance of averting climate change or dealing with it successfully =0%.

If we're optimistic about it, then we'll do something, and if we do something the chance of success is >0%.

As broad as you can make it. — Possibility

That leads you to something as useless as "just do it" or worse, "do."

just how many different principles do you think there are? — Possibility

Why should there be a limit?

While, sure, the kitten principle is a more specific version of "do no harm," that doesn't mean it's not a principle. Just like the law generally prohibits theft, but it also has more specific rules about specific kinds of theft.

Why does it have to be exclusive to ethics? I don't understand that criterion.

And I already stated a common ethical principle: avoid causing unnecessary suffering. An example of how that gets applied globally is that murder is prohibited globally. While definitions of what constitutes "murder" differ, the fundamental concept is still global.

My point is that such principle does not exist. Your point is that it exists. — god must be atheist

No. I'm not saying and have never said that there is one naive Kantian maxim by which all ethics function. You can stop strawpersoning me now.

I have said, and you have yet to disprove, that there are commonalities between ethics globally.

No, I'm not going to do a survey of all ethics across the globe to prove it, as that would be a project of many years, and simply too much work for an online discussion. I assume you feel the same way about proving your own position.

Therefore, we can agree to disagree or try this from a different angle.

I hope I have made my argument a little clearer — Possibility

I asked before and you evaded the question, but I'll ask again: how broad or narrow does an ethical principle have to be to fit your definition thereof?

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about?
— Artemis

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises — Possibility

In the end, when increasing ethical awareness, etc., you're going to be working on your awareness of ethical principles.

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises? — Possibility

In ethics, increasing your awareness of the the specific shade of lipstick Mary Tyler Moore wears on the Dick Van Dyke Show seems fairly nonessential, for example.

If you asked me what two plus two is, and I gave the answer ‘two plus two is NOT five’, the statement would be correct in itself, but its function as a statement of what two plus two is would be inadequate. — Artemis

Ethics and math share this striking resemblance: it's of equal importance to figure out when something is wrong as it is to figure out when something is right.

And yes, those who choose to get trained in it formally will inevitably pick up a bit of 'brainwashing' along with the methodology. It's not hard to break out of, but I think it's naive to image some kind of culturally neutral 'how to think' instruction could ever happen. — Isaac

As you might be aware of/be interested to learn, there are several contemporary capital-P-hilosophers taking on that very issue. I'm currently reading Harvey Siegel's "Educating Reason" after having read "Rationality Redeemed" a little while ago. He's most commonly referenced in Phil of Education circles, but he is more broadly applicable, I think. Anywho, he argues in that first book that a certain degree/kind of indoctrination is necessary in education, but that of course you're counterbalancing that (hopefully) with giving students the very skills to then question the "indoctrinated" values, etc.

I would really like to see what Mark Dennis and @Artemis have to say about the proposition the video makes. — god must be atheist

I will have to get back to you later about the video.

Increase awareness, connection and collaboration — Possibility

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about?

As for the kittens, you still haven't disproven the wrongness of drowning kittens in burlap sacks. All you're saying is that it can't be the only principle you follow. It's not exhaustive in scope. But neither is 2+2=4.

philology - a study, interpretation and analysis - sometimes apologetic, rarely critical - of texts, as well as a history of ideas, or as you said, who said what when. — SophistiCat

Probably depends on the department and who your profs are. My professors did that but also had us study texts of various sides of a debate on which basis we then critically discussed the subject as a group.

But there is a lot to be said for slowing students down in their knee-jerk criticisms and trying to get them to understand before they disagree.

Mine or the ape's?

Sure - just don't use burlap. — Banno

Can I drown apes wearing sunglasses in burlap?

The statement ‘Don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is not a faithful representation of an underlying ethical principle - which is what you are claiming the statement to be. As a specific command, it can be considered correct in all details and exact. — Possibility

You think it's okay to drown kittens??? :scream:

2+2=4 is not an ethical principle, and doesn’t claim to be. — Possibility

Doesn't matter. Your definition of the word "inaccurate" should be applicable in both cases if it is to be... accurate (by both of our definitions of accuracy, mind you).

As if you had anticipated my question, you say "don't cause unnecessary suffering" is the ultimate code of ethics. — god must be atheist

Interesting choice of paraphrasing. I did not say "ultimate." I suggested that it is one example of an underlying principle that I believe to exist in most cultures across the world. Now, I haven't exhaustively studied all world religions/ethics, but I have yet to come across one that actually contradicts the wrongness of unnecessary suffering. Though people might disagree on what things are necessary or are suffering, generally all ethics seeks to reduce the sum total of suffering.

Or can you give me a good counter example?

Yet if it came down to choosing between a human life and, say, a shark, then under what circumstances might the shark be the priority? — Possibility

If the human were Trump :rofl:

inaccurate, due to its incompleteness. — Possibility

By your logic: 2+2=4 is inaccurate because it does not tell us that 3+5=8.

Simply put: most good deeds are bad in one way or another. — god must be atheist

Correction, Simply put: ethics is more complicated than the naive early-Kantian maxims doctrine. Even Kant recognized that later in his career.

Note that by judging any of those scenarios good and then bad, you have to rely on underlying ethical judgments. All of your counterclaims tacitly imply that there exists an objective standard by which you could measure these actions somehow.

Reverence for life demands Biocentrism. It would be foolish to ignore the value of the non human parts of the biosphere in our own and their survival. Whether that is an Earth biosphere, the solar systems, galaxy or universe. Symbiosis with nature is a far safer state of affairs than behaving parasitically toward it. — Mark Dennis

Hey, look at that! More common ground :wink:

That’s a specific statement about very specific behaviour, that doesn’t even come close to an ethical principle. — Possibility

How broad or narrow does a principle have to be to fit your definition thereof?

Why is it bad to drown kittens in a burlap sack? Does that make it okay to drown kittens in a plastic bag instead? What if I just put the kittens in the sack and give it someone else - I’m not doing anything wrong then, am I?

This is what I mean by inaccurate. If that statement is an ethical principle, then it’s a highly inaccurate account of the principle, isn’t it? Is there a statement of ethical principle, either positive or negative, that doesn’t require further explanation in terms of what is or is not acceptable? — Possibility

I think your definition of inaccurate is inaccurate. The wrongness of burlap sack drowning does not preclude the wrongness of plastic bag drowning. The wrongness of drowning does not preclude the rightness of giving them to a better home (though, please, don't carry kittens around in any kind of sack, even if you're giving them to a good home---that's still mean :(

I'm surprised that there are no students or associate's degrees. — Pfhorrest

I dunno about the associate's degrees (maybe those are just in general less common?) but I assume students of philosophy share at least one reason with professors of philosophy for not being here: they're already philosophizing all day long, plus homework and/or grading, and the last thing you want to do is get into another conversation about free will.

I assume that's similar in most professions.

If they're rooted in genetics, two questions:

1. wouldn't that mean that we all probably have the same gut-level instincts ultimately with slight preference variations.

2. wouldn't that suggest that there is some objectively identifiable and justifiable reason/s for having those? Like, altruism is our gut-level preference because it's better for group survival, etc.