I take it you agree with the principle that good can more than make up for the bad — Down The Rabbit Hole

Sure. But also that it’s better not to do any bad that you have to make up for in the first place

What about the infinite evil of putting people in hell?

And besides, if God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be any negative numbers at all.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not. — schopenhauer1

No I write this to challenge your views. Clearly however, you don't want that. Which makes me question why you start threads in the first place. Do you want a thread where all the replies are "I agree"? What's the point of that?

And where exactly did it seem to you like I think you owe me something? I haven't changed my writing style or anything like that. Maybe I took on a more aggressive tone, but as I said, it's because I get annoyed when people start threads then start making up clearly ridiculous BS like "You're Isaac" to not have to deal with opposing views. If you can't handle opposition, don't post to a public site. Write your OP in a diary or something.

If it's not to convince, and if it's not to look for opposing views, then why write an OP at all?

The imposer doesn't realize they are imposing, neither does the imposed (the controversial part). Again, there was a time when people used to think X was not wrong.. X is now considered wrong. What makes this any different? — schopenhauer1

Give an example of such an X. Slavery? The slaves didn’t think it was right. Gender inequality? Women didn’t think it was right. Racial discrimination? Black people didn’t think it was right. Etc.

No there was no point at which we unanimously agreed that X is right and discovered later that it was wrong or vice versa.

And this argument is as valid as “There were times we had wrong physical theories before, therefore quantum physics is bogus”

We think because if there is a multiplicity of choices for X — schopenhauer1

At first X was some action that we think is either wrong or not wrong. Now it’s a person? I’m confused.

You will say that "as long as "most people" don't see not having the option for no option as bad, it's all good" — schopenhauer1

No one will say that. They will and have said only that it is an important factor.

Rather, it's analog and binary. The evaluations are still subjective.. So even the analog is subjective. So when you have something super painful, or even just mild irritations throughout the day, you would subjectively evaluate that. What I am saying is the results may be different — schopenhauer1

On the one hand you have the momentary evaluations of events. On the other you have the evaluation of whether or not life was worth it overall. What would it mean for these two evaluations to be “the same result”? As you say, one is analog and one is binary. How can they be the same? It makes no sense.

Honestly the entire comment reads like something Bartricks would write.

Copy paste them to a word document and export it to PDF.

You can even keep the exact look if you are using windows. Type "snip" into the search bar and it will bring up a tool that can take photos of your screen as a PNG. Open the post you want, snip it, put the photo in a word doc, and export to PDF.

You don't need a special feature for this.

More cognitive distortions. Once you have a kid, you generally can't take it back or be in a state where you didn't have a kid. — schopenhauer1

Same applies to working out. It produces a lot of pain (If you’re doing it right) but people still do it. Even when they could easily be in a state where they’re not doing it.

The main point being here that there can be something wrong done, even if no one perceives the wrong. — schopenhauer1

So you want to say that right and wrong is divorced from what people think is right and wrong? That everyone can think something is right and it objectively being wrong somehow? I think that’s ridiculous.

You also seem to base this on some utilitarian standard. As in, if an action produces a negative utility, it’s wrong to do. And since we can think that something is right but it actually is wrong, it follows that we can think that something produces a positive utility but it actually produces a negative utility. Making people not good judges of their own happiness, and discrediting their answers to happy they are (cognitive distortions and all that), instead favoring some vague unspecified “objective and unbiased” measure of happiness you think can be achieved.

That's the thing, they minded it at the moment. — schopenhauer1

What do you mean? Who is “they” and when is “the moment”?

Do you mean to restate the fact that people often remember events more fondly than they really were? Ok, what’s the significance of this? How is this an argument for AN?

I remember we had this exchange before about the remembering self and experiencing self. I think the remembering self is what matters, even if it distorts. And so far you’ve given no reason as to why I should change my mind about this.

Well right, analog versus digital. When the question is asked, it's digital, but much of life is lived in the moment in analog (give me this binary answer right now!). Even the mood of the time being asked might affect things. Also, the question, "Did you want to be born" might be gotten at in different ways that isn't as straightforward, as this has all sorts of implications of suicide, depression, etc. that no one would want to project. — schopenhauer1

I’m not seeing an answer to the question anywhere here. You claim that there is some objective way to assess how happy someone is, by assigning numbers to different events and adding them up. So demonstrate it.

However, investigate the holistic case of what is going on throughout the feelings, moods, and experiences throughout a day, a week, a month, a year, etc. — schopenhauer1

Right and when I do this I find I’m generally very happy. You think this is some bias or other and that my answer should not be taken seriously in ethical considerations because of this bias. Instead, there is some objective, unbiased view of how happy I am, and it can be expressed numerically and that’s what we should use instead.

So, find that objective answer. Apparently I’m not a good indicator of how happy I “actually” am, so please indicate to me how happy I “actually” was that morning objectively in an unbiased way. Numerically, if you could.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? — schopenhauer1

You already know my position on this but: No to all but the second (yes he’s being exploitative, which isn’t a problem when the person getting exploited doesn’t see an issue with it)

When you add it all up, you're actually at a net negative. — schopenhauer1

What’s the significance of this?

To me what matters is whether or not someone has an issue with the sum being negative. Most people with negative sums seem not to have an issue with it.

First off, the idea of assigning numbers to pleasure and pain and summing them up is ridiculous, but even if it were possible, and even if the sum was negative, you haven’t given the reason why we should care. Why should this (nonsensical and impossible) objective measurement be taken more seriously than whether or not the person themselves minds the imposition.

“You were in a traffic jam, and you spilled your coffee too! You would’ve been better off not born”

It seems clear to me that the sum of pleasure and pain isn’t all we consider. Raising children is more often than not extremely painful in comparison to how much pleasure it brings. Yet everyone does it and doesn’t seem to mind the negative balance (note, I said raising not having. This applies even more so to adoptive parents)

1) Cultural bias.. Even if someone was to REALLY think about life in depth, without reflexively giving an answer, that person might look to what social norms generally accepts as an appropriate answer. So a person on the fence who is thoughtful might never give the true answer, because then they are the weird "Negative Nancy" or "Debbie Downer" (or put in X pejorative here).

2) Cognitive bias... People have cognitive biases to distort what their experiences are when recalling them. They become cherry-picked, confused, etc. So sure we can say that in their evaluation they sounded like they were content with the situation, but then not be living the situation they are describing (see Scenario 2). — schopenhauer1

Same as above. Why should any of this be more important than whether or not the person minds the imposition.

(khaled and Isaac same person, slightly different writing style? haha.. collusion?) — schopenhauer1

Ah yes. I had a 100+ comment back and forth with myself, at the beginning merely pretending to be an antinatalist (and I have to say I did a very good job since my machinations lay undetected by you despite the fact that the 3 of us have been in every single AN thread) then “changed my mind” through the conversation with myself, all the while making sure to stay up 24/7 to make it seem like me and Isaac are clearly in different time zones all to troll Mr. Schopenhauer here.

Well, precisely. This is again to throw doubt on simply saying "it's all subjective". — schopenhauer1

No one said “it’s all subjective” about ethics. But yes it is absolutely all subjective when it comes to your assessment of your situation. That seems clear enough. To some, being stuck in a room with a tarantula is terrifying but I hear Australians think of them as food. Which one here is objectively correct?

Your point here, again, is reinforcing my point -this brief summation may simply not be "the" answer, because it was constructed based on various factors which may bias it. — schopenhauer1

What would a “correct” answer of “how happy are you” be? And how do you get it? Actually, just show me.

I woke up today, the day after the vaccine and my shoulder is in pain. I had breakfast then opened this site randomly because I haven’t checked it in a while. I started reading your replies which weren’t really directed at me, and got annoyed at the fact you think I’m Isaac. Because I get annoyed when people start a conversation then refuse to actually tackle the opposition, instead making up some excuse as to why it is not worth tackling (in this case, that I’m supposedly Isaac). That’s been everything of note in my day so far. Please tell me how happy I am objectively, using the standard -100 to 100 numerical scale, given the above information, and demonstrate your workings.

[10 marks]

It's about how we assess what "too much" imposition is. — schopenhauer1

Right, that’s what I’m saying. But you claim that the person who thinks life is not too much of an imposition is wrong. What is your justification?

Sometimes, a slave for example, might not know how bad they have it objectively — schopenhauer1

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment.

Are we measuring whether someone makes a statement at a point in time that “All burdens that happened, currently exist, and will exist are fine and dandy.” or Are we measuring the amount of actual burden one is given once one is given the dual“gift” of both burdens and non-suffering circumstances? — schopenhauer1

I legitimately don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Certainly, most surprise parties and gifts don’t reach anywhere near the imposition, enduring duration, and frequency of burden as this gift. — schopenhauer1

So unlike in the OP, it’s not that doing something on someone else’s behalf when most people would want it is wrong, period. It’s only wrong when the imposition becomes too much, correct? There are situations where “most people would want this” is enough to justify a certain action, you just don’t think birth is one of them because it’s “too much” of an imposition.

So again, you’ve gone from a type argument to an extent argument. And so you again don’t have any objectivity behind your claim. What makes birth too much of an imposition while surprise parties are not too much? Why would someone who thinks birth is not too much be objectively wrong?

Well, no one suffers not living. — schopenhauer1

And no one suffers lack of surprise parties, by definition.

I don't have any argument against giving someone money or a gift, even if they weren't expecting it. I just don't agree with giving someone a burden and then justifying it by giving them a gift. — schopenhauer1

Every gift can be a burden. That's the point of the example. Maybe they really didn't want a party right now and are miserable because of it. It's a real if small possibility. On the other hand, we know they won't suffer if they don't receive this surprise party (since they don't know about it). So no surprise parties ever?

The point is, when any gift is not relieving suffering, by your system it automatically becomes wrong to give, since it can always be harmful.

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. In our back-and-forths, due to you wanting me to provide a one-size-fits-all heuristic as a basis for my AN, I do end up doing that I think (see previous discussions). — schopenhauer1

But in the OP you say:

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

Again, it doesn’t have to be the only consideration.

One can even argue, giving a present to someone is also doing this — schopenhauer1

No they can’t. Not consistently anyways. Unless you believe that every instance of pleasure is just amelioration of harm.

Currently if someone gave me 10 dollars I’d be happy. Even though I’m not suffering due to lack of 10 dollars. I wasn’t being harmed by lack of 10 dollars yet I’d appreciate the gift. You think this is never the case?

surprise party, or whatever example you want to use. — schopenhauer1

The whole point of that example is that no one suffers due to lack of surprise party. It’s a surprise. They weren’t expecting it. You can’t suffer due to not having something you weren’t expecting.

Are you currently suffering due to me not gifting you 10000 dollars? No. Because you don’t expect 10000 dollars from me. But would you be happy if I gifted you 10000 dollars? Probably.

The asymmetry is that:

Having children: Chance of harm (bad), chance of pleasure (good)

Not having children: No harm (good), No pleasure (not bad)

I don’t see how that follows from anything I said. I think it’s stupid to say that the absence of harm is good in itself.

Wouldn’t it be a morally good thing to disable the mine even though nobody who would be harmed by it is alive? — Albero

To disarm it? Sure. But that’s not the analogy. The analogy would be to put it down vs to not put it down. It’s not good to simply not plant a mine. Claiming it is would be like saying: “Look at how much of a paragon of virtue I am, for I haven’t murdered anyone!”

Simply not harming people is not good in itself.

“In order to prevent work and suffering one must prevent someone else’s or his own work and suffering. [The anti-natalist] is preventing no one’s work and suffering.” — NOS4A2

Fair enough. I took a step further and thought you said this to argue “And so having children is justified”.

Not an AN anymore but that line doesn’t work for the examples I cited above.

but in order to prevent work and suffering one must prevent someone else’s or his own work and suffering. You’re preventing no one’s work and suffering. I can’t get past that fact. — NOS4A2

I'm not AN anymore but I still hate this argument.

Suppose there was a parent that wanted to have a disabled child and so requested that his doctor genetically engineer the zygote so that his child comes out blind and deaf whereas otherwise he/she would be fine. Is that moral? After all, he's not harming anyone! Unless you think a single cell is a person.

Or another example, say someone had a time machine and he knew that Johnny, 13 years old, would be the first to step on a specific area in the woods 25 years from now. Is it moral to plant a mine there? After all, Johnny doesn't exist yet. And we know Johnny would be the first to set off the mine. Therefore it must be ok by this logic, it's not harming anyone!

You keep making this argument despite first making it like 1 or 2 years ago and I explained to you why it doesn't work. For an antinatalist, it's not that not having children is a good thing, it's that having children is a bad thing.

If I stand on the street and refuse to punch 100 people, I cannot say my behavior was ethical because I prevented 100 bloody noses, when in fact I did nothing at all. — NOS4A2

But you can say that punching 100 people is unethical. Which is exactly what antinatalism is about having children. Again, it's not that not having children is a good thing, (it's not that not punching people is ethical), it's that having children is a bad thing (punching people is unethical). That's antinatalism (anti-punching-people-in-the-street-ism). Hope that makes the analogy clear.

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? — schopenhauer1

That doesn’t follow. It doesn’t have to be the only relevant consideration. Your search for a single simple statement that sums up all of morality is half the reason you end up with AN I think.

Sounds like something you should be asking physicists.

So 'I knew' means the picture I had of X matched the way X really was. Substitute those meanings into our tricky sentences and they are safely conserved between tenses. — Isaac

No they aren’t? If you’re wrong about something.

So for instance “I know England is gonna win tomorrow”. England loses. Now I say, “I thought I knew England was gonna win tomorrow, but I didn’t”. Now the first sentence is not conserved. The picture I had of the outcome of the match did not match the outcome of the match.

This is why I prefer a degree of confidence model. Since we say things like “England is gonna win tomorrow, I just know it” all the time. And in those instances we use know to express a degree of confidence.

I hadn’t thought of sentences like: “I thought I knew England was gonna win tomorrow, but I didn’t” because I never hear anyone say that. When they want to express the idea that they were wrong they usually just say “I thought England was gonna win, but they didn’t”.

It seems we’re not entirely consistent in our usage. Sometimes we seem to be using a correspondence definition. Sometimes we seem to be using a degree of confidence definition.

Still no answer? Ok.

And no I’m not a diehard utilitarian and I don’t know how you could have reached that conclusion.

But I’m not interested in continuing this anymore either.

You’re not addressing what he said.

A "livable" wage is arbitrary and subjective — Kasperanza

Is false. There’s some subjectivity to it but not much.

Someone's income is not based according to their needs and wants. — Kasperanza

That much is known. And people want to change this to at least be based on needs.

You haven’t given an argument as to why this should be the case. Just asserted that it is, which no one is disputing.

No one asked how you feel.
— khaled

I've given due respect to how you feel/think — TheMadFool

Don’t conflate. I’ve given due respect about how you think despite thinking it’s completely crazy. I just never asked how you feel about the matter. Maybe the way I worded it was too assholish, sorry about that. I think some Bartricks is rubbing off on me. Conversations with it have changed the way I converse with others it seems.

I asked what you think people should do not what you would like them to do.

However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem.
— TheMadFool

Does not lead to.

people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality.
— TheMadFool
— khaled

You've lost the plot Khaled. — TheMadFool

?????

I was refuting one of your arguments on the basis that it’s a non sequitor.

However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool

This is a non sequitor.

Something's off Khaled - you're in dire need of some soul-searching. — TheMadFool

You're blinded by mathematics — TheMadFool

“He doesn’t agree with me, quick characterize him as a cold hearted uncaring robot so I don’t have to deal with his critique!”

One last time and if you dodge it again then this is a waste of time no offense:

In a situation where you can:

1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity

Do you think it’s morally acceptable to pick option 2? Direct answer please. Not “I would prefer you picked 1”.

I've been honest with my answers but it's obvious that you're set in your ways — TheMadFool

It’s hard to tell what your answers were precisely because you refuse to give a direct yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question. You instead talk about which option you would prefer, which wasn’t asked for.

Self-critique is a good thing I hear. Carry on Khaled. — TheMadFool

You know what’s better than self critique? Actually critiquing the argument of the guy you’re talking to. Or else why have conversations at all if self critique was enough?

You have accused me but you haven't made your case yet. — TheMadFool

Calling a non sequitor a non sequitor is making a case. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from any of your premises

However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. — TheMadFool

Does not lead to.

people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool

If you think it does make it a clear syllogism and explain each step.

You're contradicting yourself Khaled — TheMadFool

False. Since the start I’ve given countless examples of cases where the two choices are bad, yet it’s not a dilemma.

I was upfront about how I felt. Choose 1 rather than 2 but this isn't a dilemma — TheMadFool

No one asked how you feel. What was asked is whether or not you think it’s morally permissible to choose 2 in that situation (just donating to charity). So, do you? Give a straight answer so I know if this conversation is worth continuing.

but as you already know or should know you've only increased the number of people without affecting the essence of the moral dilemma encapsulated by the trolley problem. — TheMadFool

This is not the trolley problem. It is assumed that both cases involve you murdering people in exactly the same way (as I already gave the example before). In that case there is no dilemma, clearly killing 10 is better than killing 100.

The reason the trolley problem is a dilemma is that you have a choice of directly causing a death, to prevent 5 deaths that you didn’t directly cause.

If in the trolley problem, the trolley was going to hit 1 person, and you could switch the track to make it hit 5 people instead, do you still think that’s a dilemma? It isn’t, is it? Despite the fact that both options involve someone dying.

In other words, they're equally good — TheMadFool

No. That would be like you trying to solve a math problem, failing to do so, and then concluding: “So the answer must be as negative as it is positive, so it’s 0”

A very large number of problems have their beginnings in folk failing to differentiate clearly between knowledge, truth and belief. — Banno

An example?

However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool

I think it’s the clearest most unequivocal sign of a non sequitor.

You do catch my drift right? If the issue were about a better (moral) deal, there would be no dilemma in the first place. — TheMadFool

False. The point of the trolley problem is that we can’t tell which is better. Because although swapping tracks results in a better outcome, it also means you are killing someone innocent. Now it’s not clear which is better. Clearly morality is about better/worse not just good/bad or else people would just say to the trolley problem “Both options are bad, do whichever”

Let’s look at another thought experiment:

1- Kill 10 innocent people.
2- Kill 100 innocent people.

Do you think this is a moral dilemma here? Both options are bad you know. But apparently there is no such thing as better/worse for you so you must think this is a moral dilemma since both options are bad. Do you think that picking 2 is just as good as picking 1? (Again, both bad)

That said, I'd very much prefer it if you do save my life from a car crash and also donate 100 dollars to charity. — TheMadFool

Ah so it’s just a preference. In terms of morality you truly think picking 2 as opposed to 1 is perfectly ok?

Yea…. Good conversation. But I can’t help if you think letting someone die in a car crash when you can save them is acceptable.

Technically, you end up with an infinite regress always trying to justify the thing that justified. — Cheshire

Seems at most like a problem Banno’s system always shares.

“I know that it’s going to rain tomorrow”
“No you don't, you just think you know it, prove you’re not just mislabeling”
“I know that I know it’s going to rain tomorrow”
“No you don't, you just think you know it, prove you’re not mislabeling”
…..

And you don’t end up with infinite regress if you decided beforehand what constitutes good justification.

But it is just poor expression to say you know something that is false. — Banno

That's where I disagree.

It seems poor expression to me to say that one doesn't know things that are false by definition.

A very large number of problems have their beginnings in folk failing to differentiate clearly between knowledge, truth and belief. — Banno

What's an example of a problem that occurs when one defines knowledge as a very high degree of justification? That's what I've been asking from the start!

If they're both good, it doesn't matter which one you choose. — TheMadFool

Really? A quick thought experiment. Say someone had these two choices in front of them:

1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity.

Both are good clearly, so is one then justified in picking option 2?

My point is precisely that the quote above is not accurate. It does matter much, even if both options are good.

Do you know things that are false? — Banno

Probably.

All I have done is to set out the consequences of answering "no" to that question. — Banno

I don't see the consequences as being any different from answering "yes". That's what I keep asking you about. What is the problem with "yes" that makes you say "no"?

Under this system you can know true things and mislabel false things as known. — Cheshire

So what's so different between this and a system where "knowledge" expresses a high degree of justification?

If what you know is true by definition, but you cannot know whether or not you know something (since you can always just be mislabeling), no extra certainty has been added.

Might as well just say that what you know is NOT true by definition, and that knowledge just means having a high degree of justification.

I'm not disagreeing with Banno I just wanna know why he defines things that way. What benefit does it bring?

For the last time since you seem to not want to have an actual conversation, and would just keep redirecting me to the same posts over and over:

Pull the lever, one innocent dies (bad). Don't pull the lever, many die (bad). This is the meat and potatoes of the trolley problem.

It's both bad.

The Protagorian solution: Pull the lever, many are saved (good). Don't pull the lever, one innocent survives (good).

It's both good. — TheMadFool

Sure. And when they're both bad which should I do? Dilemma! When they're both good which would I do? Dilemma!

A similar argument applies to Kantian ethic in re the murderer at the door thought experiment. — TheMadFool

No it doesn't but others are explaining why so I don't have to.

That's exactly why we don't know what to do - moral ambiguity. — TheMadFool

Ok so we don't know what to do.

Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help — khaled

So I ask what we should do.

Protagoras paradox makes it a clear as crystal. — TheMadFool

And now we know what do do "as clear as crystal"

I'm confused.

Please read through my previous posts. — TheMadFool

I read the whole thread.

This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad".
— khaled

Exactly! — TheMadFool

Resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad" makes no sense. That's the point. So saying:

Do what you want, it's all good. — TheMadFool

Makes no sense either.

What makes a moral dilemma a moral dilemma is that we don't know what to do, not that both options are good/bad. If you compare "kill 100 people" with "kill 10 people in the exact same way" that wouldn't be a moral dilemma. Because clearly killing 10 is better than killing 100 in the exact same way, even though both are bad.

So rephrasing the problem as choosing between two good options as opposed to two bad ones does nothing to tell us which we should actually choose. It doesn't make it not a dilemma.

If you pull the lever, you save many innocent people (good) and if you don't pull the lever, you don't kill one innocent person (good). — TheMadFool

Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help.

Do what you want, it's all good. — TheMadFool

This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad".

It might be wrong, but as things stand it isn't. So it doesn't follow that it cannot be wrong. — Banno

So you can know something, and be wrong? But I thought you can’t know things that are false (from your about page)

I don’t get what you’re saying. Just seems self contradictory.

In Buddhism, attachment leads to suffering, not desire. If the Buddha had no desire he wouldn’t get out of bed.

Stopping someone from using their property is a violation of property rights and is immoral by ANCAP standards — Oppyfan

I’m sure you wouldn’t think so if faced with a school shooter.

And yet we know that this thread is in English. — Banno

By your definition of “is not wrong about” (which is the same as “cannot be wrong about”) no I don’t. It could be the case that the google translate plugin I have had been translating French this whole time without me noticing for example.

I know the thread is in English in the sense that I have very good reason for believing it is.

We talk about stuff we know all the time, but khaled would have us not do so — Banno

Well no, I’d change what “know” means instead of proposing that what we know cannot be false by definition. I asked you what the point of that move was countless times now and you haven’t answered. It doesn’t give any extra certainty, it doesn’t even sound better (not to me anyways).

replacing knowledge with mere belief. — Banno

Belief is what matters. I see no point in proposing the existence of knowledge you can’t be wrong about, with the side effect of not being able to confirm when you have it. It grants no new certainty. And your claims about knowledge are still doubtable as ever.

Again, what’s the difference between “If I know X I cannot be wrong about X, but I can’t actually tell whether or not I know X” and “I can’t tell whether or not X is true”. The loop de loop seems pointless.

There's a reason we have the word "know" and use it sometimes rather than "belief". — Banno

The reason being that “know” implies more certainty. It’s a quantitative not a qualitative difference. For instance: “England is gonna lose, I just know it”. Obviously the speaker cannot see the future, so they don’t “know” it by your definition. The word is used just to express a higher level of certainty than “I believe England will lose”.

Mandating that we not do so. — Banno

When did anyone say that?

You can say we’re morally valuable because we are close enough to a specific configuration of meat. A configuration where we deem that things that take it are morally valuable. None of what you said above necessitates souls, only proposes them as an explanation of moral value.

To put it another way, if you think we are lumps of meat - just lumps of meat that happen to think things - then you have a problem when it comes to explaining our moral value. — Bartricks

False. You can say we are morally valuable because we follow a certain configuration of meat. Problem solved.

I'm not wrong about anything I know.
— Banno
How do you know? — Cheshire

because if something we thought we knew turned out to be false, we only thought we knew it.[/quote — Banno

So you’d propose we do no therapy until we have fully figured out human behavior?

What about people who got harmed because we had false theories in physics?

Yes, that's what I meant.

But you can't tell whether you know anything or you just think you know it.

So in the end you still can't tell whether you're right or wrong. So what's the point of the loop de loop?

If you had said "knowledge is a belief that is not false" we might have agreement. The difference is that one can believe one knows something, but be mistaken. — Banno

Yes, and I'm asking what the point of this is. Instead of simply saying "I do not know whether or not X is true/false", you now made it "If I know X that means X is not false, but I do not know whether or not I know X" so in the end, you do not know whether or not X is true/false.

So why define knowledge such that you are not wrong about something that you know, but you can still be wrong about whether or not you know something? It doesn't net you any extra certainty or anything. Just seems weird to me.