• Bob's Normative Ethical Theory
    P1: If something is solely a means towards an end, then it is not an end in itself. — Bob Ross
    This is a vacuous definition, not an ostensible claim.

    P2: To value something entails it is solely a means towards an end.
    Demonstrate this entailment.

    C1: To value something entails it is not an end in itself.
    Invalid inference from underdetermined "propositions". Ergo, "FET proof" (C6) fails.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Relativist
    This far out from the 2024 election, polling only indicates relative name recognition and nothing more. What will "turn this around" is GOP primary voters deciding they want to beat Biden more than they want to loyally back a proven loser (neither SP-1 nor MAGA candidates have won a majority of voters in general, midterm & special elections, nationally or locally, since 2016 to 2023). Also, SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 was the final nail in SP-1's coffin as all of the "pro-life" (anti-woman) ballot measure defeats in "red states" such as Ohio & Kansas unequivocally demonstrate. IMO, there is nothing non-trivial to "turn around" (and hasn't been since the day Putin's Bitch pre-ejaculated that he's running again for the presidency (i.e. to stay out of prison)).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Relativist
    If a majority of GOP primary voters want a chance at taking back the White House in 2024, then they will show SP-1 the door in the spring (or sooner). Of course, he'll continue to play the whiny victim and run as a 3rd party spoiler to keep the grift going in order to pay his legal bills. Otherwise, SP-1 will take what's left of the GOP down in flames (à la the Hindenburg) with him next fall. :mask:
  • Why be moral?
    That you think "moral" = "rational"; and "immoral" = "irrational" ... — Vaskane
    Another vapid strawman.

    :shade: Go troll someone else, kid.
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    Inequality is the root cause of dishonesty. — YiRu Li
    I disagree. "Dishonesty" is caused by intelligence; it is often an effective social, business or political tactic.

    This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally.
    The world is not static, it is entropic and chaotic. Because we are inseparable from the world, we can only slow or accelerate, not stop, its changes.

    But there is a way to deal with the inequalities [changes] and be peaceful & honest.
    What is the way?
    My guess: scientific understanding × nonzero sum practices.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Art never responds to the wish to make it democratic; it is not for everybody; it is only for those who are willing to undergo the effort to understand it. — Flannery O'Connor
  • There is No Such Thing as Freedom
    ↪Manuel
    :up: :up:

    Only an idiot can't tell – won't admit – the difference between a territorial concentration camp and a self-governing, cosmopolitan city.
  • Why be moral?
    ↪Banno
    :up:

    If ethical non-naturalism is true then... — Michael
    :roll:

    ↪Vaskane
    Besides misquoting me, rationality =/= "to rationalize", lil troll.
  • Why be moral?
    Again, "Why be moral?" is an infelicitous question - being moral is what you ought to do. Hence the answer to "ought you be moral?" is "yes!" — Banno
    :up:
  • Why be moral?
    Assuming ethical non-naturalism — Michael
    Ah, okay, I assume ethical naturalism (as suggested by my reference to 'eusociality' and 'culture' in my old post linked above).
  • Why be moral?
    Here are two possible worlds:

    1. It is immoral to harm others
    2. It is not immoral to harm others     — Michael
    It is unclear what you mean by "immoral" and therefore that these are "possible worlds".

    Are you saying that if I were to harm others in world (1) then I would be miserable but that if I were to harm others in world (2) then I wouldn't be miserable?
    No.

    How does that work?
    Your false dichotomy doesn't work.

    Also the OP is directed at categorical imperatives, not the kind of hypothetical/pragmatic imperatives that you’re describing.
    I see. My bad, I should have read the first page of this thread at least. A naturalistic hybrid of 'eudaimonism and disutilitarianism' is my position, not deontologism.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪unenlightened
    If you say so ... :roll:
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪mentos987
    :death: :flower:

    A naturalistic, twenty-first century formulation of 'Hillel's principle':
    Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless.

    :sparkle: Merry Solstice & Reason's Greetings :sparkle:
  • Why be moral?
    From an old thread "Why should I be moral? – Does the question even make sense?" ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533345
  • There is No Such Thing as Freedom
    There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers
    Homunculus fallacy – "ego" and "conscience" are constraints on, or conditions of, volition and not agents which can "enslave" (i.e. act as masters). "Freedom" – minimally restricted state-of-affairs or phase-space – is not unconditional and to that degree, at minimum, 'agents are free'. See compatibilism¹.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ¹
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    When are the robots going to start making more land? — unenlightened
    Silly question. Besides generational migration to space habitats, thinning the human herd is much easier and more efficient. :smirk:
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    a scarcity of services provided by humans — RogueAI
    Ubiquitous AI-automation would eliminate that "scarcity" (as it's already incrementally doing now).
  • About definitions and the use of dictionaries in Philosophy
    No. IME, "dictionaries and definitions" are sometimes useful, at best, but not significant for doing philosophy.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪RogueAI
    So what's your point?
  • Meaning of Life
    Suppose (the only) "meaning of life" is to live meaningfully¹ in order to die meaningfully ... :death: :flower:

    (creatively & thoughtfully)¹
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :cool:
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide
    Given that my "ideal society" consists in post-scarcity economic democracy, "wealth" would be measured only as personal reputation acquired by positively contributing to (A) excellence (i.e. singular performances, innovations, inventions, discoveries) in culture and/or (B) positivesum conflict resolutions, such that "the wealthiest person" at any time would be the one who is most esteemed (trusted?), or among a cohort of the most esteemed, by her society for service to the overall well-being (i.e. flourishing, sustainability) of her society.
  • Fascista-Nazista creep?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Are some natural languages more logical than others though? — I like sushi
    If some are, then trivially so.

    As I said with German do you think that is more logical?
    I don't find it so (though I've never been fluent). As far as I can tell, Goethe's verse isn't "more logical" than Shakespeare's and Hegel's metaphysics is far more opague than C.S. Peirce's.
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪hypericin
    Yes, which is why I think "moral judgment is more a matter of habit" and not only or always a matter of habit.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    ↪I like sushi
    Formal languages (i.e. systems of substitution-rules) are "more logical" in structure than natural languages (i.e. conventions of ambiguity-constraints) which, IMO, are more semantic kluges than "logical structures".
  • What are you listening to right now?
    "Reason's Greetings, y'all. And Happy Solstice. :sparkle:

    Men I've been seein'
    Got their soul up on a shelf
    Though they can never love me
    Can't even love himself
    I wanna man to love
    I wanna man
    that can finally understand

    [ ... ]

    They all want me to rock 'em
    Like my back ain't got no bone
    Go ahead & rock me one time, big stuff
    Like my backbone was your own
    (Baby, I'm not foolin' around this time)

    "Love Me Like a Man" (3:56)
    live, 1989
    writer Chris Smither, 1970
    performer Bonnie Raitt
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    'A child older than her parents' is metaphysically impossible and logically possible insofar as there is not a contradiction in terms but an inconsistency in temporal composition, or relation.

    addendum to:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    Either commit this active violation of the child, or passively allow everyone on earth to die. Which do you choose? — hypericin
    Do you think moral judgment in situ is more a matter of habit or "choice"?

    Like Aristotleans, Epicureans, Stoics, Spinozists, Nietzscheans, Peircean-Deweyans et al, I say moral judgments are mostly matters of habit and that so-called "moral choosing" comes ex post facto (or in a speculative exercise / rehearsal).

    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862582

    It might have been interesting to attach a poll to this thread - just "Stay" or "walk away".

    My money would be on "Walk away".     — Banno
    :up:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    :victory: :mask:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    The one I gave ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Mathematics and logic seem "better" (for deeply rather than shallowly adapting to nature) than natural languages.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    In this context, "person" connotes subject which suffices for my example.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    I agree, which is why I say person and not "human".
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. — javra
    If the person can't comprehend what has been said clearly (i.e. supported by the context), then that person certainly can't understand its justification.

    Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.
    Same as the concept "infinite person". Finally, we agree. :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Ah yes, the dominoes keep falling ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment :victory: :cool:

    This ruling will force SCOTUS to decide the issue for all 50 states ... soon after they decide Putin's neoNazi Bitch – Joe Biden, Barack Obama & George W. Bush does not – have "absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution".
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    The goal has never been to defeat the state and claim sovereign authority but rather to change the world without taking power. — Antonio Negri, d. 2023
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If I was a criminal I would still consider it "harmful" to me if you locked me up, If I was a murderer I would consider it harmful/hateful if you killed me in retaliation. — mentos987
    So what? Most criminals 'believe' they are not guilty of their crimes. Moral reasoning and judgment is preventative, or proactive, not an in media res reaction. Hillel's principle is not subjectivist or relativist. Read Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotle, Spinoza ...

    religious commandments
    Don't shift the goalposts. The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory".

    ↪Joshs
    If you say so ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Without warrant you ascribe the property of being "finite" to "person" which is not intrinsic to the concept. Also, circles (or spheres) are both infinite and finite simultaneously ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Yes, metaphysiically, not logically.
Home » 180 Proof