But no scientific method establishes, say, the axiom of extentionality — StreetlightX
One suspects that the very vocabulary here is wrong, that there is a mistake of grammar at work. — StreetlightX
Let's not forget: logic is just a formalisation of rules for inference making. There are multiple logics, not all of which are compatible with each other, depending on what it is you'd like to do. It's just a series of games, like chess and checkers: it simply makes very little sense - it's not even wrong - to speak of the scientific method in establishing the rules for those games - likewise logic. — StreetlightX
How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself. — Noble Dust
So, the circularity concerns rationality, not logic. — TheMadFool
The logic I'm familiar with doesn't tolerate contradictions but some say contradictions are part of quantum physics. What should we do? Ignore real observation or change our logic? — TheMadFool
To get back to the problem of circularity of rationality the only thing we can say about being rational is that we learn it from the outside world. This breaks the circularity. We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool
Isn't this altruism? — TheMadFool
Can't I? I'll call this self-destructive altruism: altruistic behaviour with negative effect to one's happiness and/or well-being. — BlueBanana
You haven't answered my point about us being more motivated by our inner moral codes than by external incentives set by, for example, society. — BlueBanana
What then is an example of perfect goodness? — TheMadFool
Yes there can, and no I don't. Are you claiming slef-destructive behaviour in general doesn't exist? — BlueBanana
Logic is not innate to the mind. We have to learn it. From where? From the external world. We learn the rules of logic by observing the world. Deductive logic works fine at the macroscopic level. In our everyday lives we never see violations of logical principles and deductive and inductive logic work well. — TheMadFool
The correct thing to do is 1; it's implied by a logical principle. However, practical difficulties arise. So, we have to choose between 2 and 3. Most opt for 2. As you can see, option 3 (circularity) is avoided as much as possible. It's the least preferred choice. — TheMadFool
Let's take the perfect state of goodness, altruism. Even the best altruist gains something from being good. You can't deny that the altruist is happy to be one. So, in actuality, altruism is not what it's defined to be - selflessness. — TheMadFool
What, no. It's exactly the opposite. If we do things that contradict incentives that means we're not motivated by incentives, which here means that we're more motivated by morality. — BlueBanana
Yes and No. Yes because there's something to gain from being altruistic and you can't deny that. No, because it's impossible to do anything without the prospect of gain. — TheMadFool
Exactly. We are motivated by incentives rather than by moral considerations. Don't you find that immoral? — TheMadFool
Has a nice ring to it. Rolls off the tongue. — T Clark
Sociobiology has never made much sense to me. I certainly don't have any credentials to have strong opinions. — T Clark
I think this shows a misunderstanding of human nature. — T Clark
This attitude right there is what annoys me the most out of every depiction of post-apocalyptic scenarios. When the chips are down, the vast majority of people, civilised or not, do the same thing they do when the chips aren't down : they band together and try to make the most out of it. A group will always be stronger than an individual. — Akanthinos
Shit hits the fan, you'll find more people trying to rebuild society than people trying to abuse the lack of authority. They are all trying to survive. It's just that being generally polite, mostly good-tempered and sometimes altruistic is a better long-run survival strategy than being a dick. — Akanthinos
Saying that the deepest rooted value is survival is also somewhat faulty by tautology. Every value that is selected for is selected for survival enhancement. The general tendency of humans to band together is a value as "strongly rooted" as survival, because it was selected for it's benefit toward survival. It's likely that the remaining anti-social traits that we also find, like the sociopathy displayed by joker-types, were also selected for because, if they are present in very low percentages, they also have a positive influence on survival. — Akanthinos
how many people would close their eyes and act as if nothing was wrong if they saw someone else being victimised, and they had nothing to gain or lose by helping? — Akanthinos
You have a point. If you do the math then, yes, there are more law-abiding people around than criminals. But don't forget our proclivities. Look at what happens when the rule of law breaks down - disasters, political unrest, war, etc. Atrocities are part and parcel of such events. Doesn't that tell us something about our nature - that it's just Mr. Hyde kept in check by Dr. Jekyll. — TheMadFool
Yes, people would steal more without CCTV cameras. — TheMadFool
No, but how many non-profit organizations are there compared to for-profit companies? — TheMadFool
I'm being as realistic as possible. I've weighed in both our benevolent side and our evil side. The only thing is I find the evil side is winning. — TheMadFool
You said good and bad are relative terms. I agree but that doesn't do anything to relieve the burden of being guilty. — TheMadFool
Kant's categorical imperative is an example of a belief that what others do is as important as what you do. What would be the point of being the only person in the world who tells the truth? — TheMadFool
I'm being balanced as possible. — TheMadFool
How many people are out there doing charity work? Compare that to how many criminals are out there? — TheMadFool
Why do we have CCTV cameras? — TheMadFool
How many charity organizations are there? So few, right? — TheMadFool
Why not? We may compare two people to assess who's better or worse but each can be said to be good or evil. — TheMadFool
But the grey lies between black and white. — TheMadFool
I think it does. What would an alien say about humanity? — TheMadFool
I think forbidding something, as the law does, is to acknowledge our propensity for evil. — TheMadFool
That's a different topic but how does ''dependence'' translate into ''agreement''? — TheMadFool
Society, as I see it, is highly flammable kept below ignition point by the rule of law. The same can't be said of our good side. There's nothing that puts a cap on goodness and yet we don't see it effervescing to the surface. Rather what we see are instances where the law breaks down and the inevitable mayhem that follows. — TheMadFool
Objective or not we can't deny that our moral compasses align sufficiently well to find a common ground for my point. — TheMadFool
We have both selfish and altruistic urges, both of which we encourage in ourselves and each other: different urges at different times, depending... Which is ascendent? — Bitter Crank
Our deepest root values are to get along with each other. In other words, to be good. That doesn't mean that we don't do bad things. Social life involves dominance, aggression, and power along with the nice stuff. Civilization and technology have given us the ability to amplify our negative actions well beyond the effort it takes to make them. It's easier to be really bad than it used to be. — T Clark