What is an ought really? — TheMadFool
Doesn't it express a desire/wish/hope that things could be, well, different but different from what exactly? Well, different from what is of course. It appears from what I've just said that the is-ought relationship is not in any sense a logical deduction and therefore Hume's objection is N/A. The ought isn't deduced from an is, rather an ought is desired from an is. — TheMadFool
That is all within the domain of what I mean. Hedonism can be far-sighted or short-sighted. If the long-term consequences you’re concerned about are still all about whether you will be suffering or enjoying life in the future, then that’s still a focus on feeling good or bad, pleasure or pain, etc; it’s just a smart way to do so, that doesn’t shoot itself in the foot. — Pfhorrest
What strikes me as odd is that moral theories are precisely the systems of values that bridge the is/ought gap and Hume, for some reason, seems to have ignored/overlooked/dismissed that as inadequate. — TheMadFool
It doesn't include our impressions/feelings of/about the facts of nature and only refers to the facts of nature minus our impressions/feelings with respect to them. — TheMadFool
The is/ought problem arises out of the absence of an inferential link betwixt descriptive statements (is) and normative claims (ought) but our feelings/impressions about/of deeds/actions provide the missing link, bridges this gap. — TheMadFool
In short, an ought/ought not is never obtained/inferred/deduced from an is but from our feelings/impressions towards/of an is. I'm surprised Hume failed to notice this. — TheMadFool
Have you thought about songs or lyrics you would have at your funeral ? — Amity
It's a fact that it is afternoon here. Soon it will be evening. It will no longer be a fact that it is afternoon, but it will be a fact that it is evening. — Banno
The Bishop example is a neat case in point, and there are plenty of others. Maths provides ample. — Banno
The world changes, facts change, which statements are true changes. If that bothers you, add a few indexicals. — Banno
I don't assume that facts are "absolute, universal, and static". — Banno
But there are facts. Such as that this post is a reply to your post, which was in turn a reply to a previous post. Or that this sentence ends in a full stop. — Banno
Because consistency is non-contradiction, and contradiction occurs in language. — Banno
Calling reason into question is self-defeating; any argument against rationality presupposes rationality. — Banno
But yes, reason is not infallible — Banno
↪180 Proof showed how we change our descriptions to understand things we find strange. — Banno
Doubt requires a background of certainty. — Banno
Descartes took the language in which he formulated his meditations for granted. — Banno
You cannot be wrong about the bishop always remaining on the same colour, you can only stop playing chess. — Banno
Randomness is subject to precise statistical analysis, and is not directly related to cause. — Banno
If you feel like your life can't be better, you become depressed. — I don't get it
If you feel like your life can be better, you can't rest until you improve it. — I don't get it
Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it
Again, it's descriptions that are consistent, not worlds. — Banno
On the contrary, chaos and randomness have quite sophisticated mathematical descriptions - they need to be complex in order to accommodate what they are describing. — Banno
Because that's how language works. The question is not "is the world consistent?" but "is that a consistent description?" - and if it is not, then we re-think the description. — Banno
We find a description that is consistent - quantum mechanics and special relativity. — Banno
An apparent contradiction means that our description is wrong, not that the world is inconsistent. — Banno
Is it? A contradiction is when one statement is the negation of another, yet both are asserted.
Is nature is made up of statements? That's what you seem to be asserting. How else could it be that "contradictions can exist in nature"? — Banno
Throwing reason away because someone disagrees with you seems an overreaction, Pinprick. — Banno
Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable and everyone has differing beliefs (on this site and elsewhere). So by definition some of these beliefs would be unreasonable. — khaled
Doesn't lead to contradictions, has supporting evidence, is the simplest alternative for explaining things, etc.. — khaled
The question is: What degree of doubt is reasonable? How do you know if you're doubting too much or too little? — khaled
Not to say that I don't pay taxes but I have no clue about taxes by which I mean I haven't read up on the rationale of taxation as a government policy. — TheMadFool
All that I can say is that to oppose taxes seems to be irrational. What happens to all the tax revenue a government accumulates? It goes into essentials such as infrastructure development, maintenance, revamping, paying government employees, financing activities of national importance and so on. In other words, taxes are spent on the taxpayers and the "best" part is the tax-funded projects outlined above not only benefit the individual but also society as a whole and that too for generations to come. — TheMadFool
By doing instead of (over)-thinking, we are able to transcend the mistakes made by human misinterpretation and miscalculation (normal thinking) and live a better life without ever asking, "What's next?" — synthesis
Worth noting here that in the Roman era a "genius" was a kind of spirit (in the modern sense of a magical non-corporeal being) that a person had, not something that a person was. — Pfhorrest
(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." — Gospel of Thomas
Why don't we just rob, kill and rape each other? I hope it's moral intuition, and not just because we're scared to. — counterpunch
I'd like to think there's some prohibition from empathy, — counterpunch
It's remarkably similar to all peoples because the relationship of the human organism to the reality of the environment is remarkably similar for all peoples. — counterpunch
Just as all human cultures invented art, music, pottery, agriculture, architecture, jewellery - albeit in culturally specific ways, they all have a moral sense expressed in culturally specific ways; because otherwise, the human organism could not have survived. — counterpunch
Morality isn't just an opinion. Any particular expression of the moral sense is an opinion. But the moral sense predates intellectual intelligence - if chimpanzees are anything to go by, and so is a behaviourally intelligent adaptation, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe made up of moral individuals. — counterpunch
Political allegiances are complex. They are not a simple matter that can be boiled down to some obvious exercise of moral intuition, so it's not a good example. — counterpunch
The moral sense isn't dictatorial of human behaviour. — counterpunch
When we talk about similar moral intuitions, I take that to mean we don't go around killing, robbing and raping each other. — counterpunch
How do you know what half the people in the US think? — counterpunch
No, it's not - because you cannot possibly know why people voted the way they did. — counterpunch
You are imposing your moral judgement on their choice. — counterpunch
You are a clear demonstration of tribalism and herd mentality; if that's what you were seeking to show, job done! — counterpunch
I agree, that people's moral intuitions are remarkably similar. — counterpunch
and it is the latter in which we inform ethics. — Cobra
It's not increasing your overall well-being just because you enjoy it. — Cobra
I suppose you're right but what if the relaxed criteria for the capacity to give consent, i.e. not having to be as rational as philosophical standards demand, is used for nefarious ends by unscrupulous parties. This, I believe, is the modus operandi of con-artists who lure people into seemingly lucrative deals, all with full consent, only to defraud them on the basis of some loophole that only the con-artist was aware of. — TheMadFool
Given these circumstances we must assume, to err on the side of caution, that people are, as of now, completely out of their depths on most matters that require their informed consent. — TheMadFool
I'm saying that malicious intent (moral blindness) is typically what distinguishes between the boxer and a perpetrator. — Cobra
Just like rape roleplay is a vice, not necessarily a wrong conduct, but it's not consent that distinguishes the two. — Cobra
The former involves no defenseless agents or victims — Cobra
There are "willing victims," and we see these people often. Children, Stockholm Syndrome, psychological traumas, abuse, date rape, etc. — Cobra
It is not the fact that he agreed that would make this action right or wrong. — Cobra
You are not forced nor coerced to do anything. — Cobra
Whatever the case, laws should not be confused with morals. While the two can be informative to each other, your reasoning for being jailed is exclusive to the rules of the law and justice system in which you breached. There is a process for overruling bad law and changing laws. — Cobra
Boxing is a sport that is practiced ethically — Cobra
it involves close medical treatment/examination, rules/regulations, and physical conditions that must be met — Cobra
but what makes the practices ethical are not determined by what the boxers "agree" or disagree to. — Cobra
It is a fact that constantly getting punched in the head has long-term effects, but this is not the same of being a victim of useless and reckless killing (i.e. murder, assaults, etc..). — Cobra
We also have "ethical killing" with humans, it is called euthanasia, but it was not consent that distinguished this from being harmful or unharmful, or "right killing" and "wrongful killing". — Cobra
It was the fact that denying this persons' right to die caused more harm than forcing them to live. — Cobra
Some guy that consents to be cannibalized as a science experiment is not euthanizing himself. The act is unreasonable and senseless, so just an infliction of unnecessary harm on themselves. — Cobra
It is why we do not amputate the limbs of people with body integrity identity disorder. — Cobra
Professional fighting occurs in structured and organized environments where both parties engage in fighting under rules and regulations. The intent is not malicious, nor done to a defenseless agent or necessarily to cause harm. — Cobra
A malicious act is so because the agent is either indifferent to - or - willing disregards the others' lack of desire to be harmed/brutalized i.e., rendering them defenseless, thus 'victimizing' them. — Cobra
Furthermore, what determines what harms another person is not a matter of consent, agreement or consensus. — Cobra
For example, "consent to be a beaten 3 inches of their life" is completely independent of the fact that these acts can/do cause psychological affects overtime - either (depleting) the quality of the agent and their well-being or increasing it, although the latter is doubtful. Even boxers for instance, have left over remains of demonstrable harm and impact done to their bodies. It is a fact that disregard for their regulations and properly learning to fight will cause some problems in the end. — Cobra
Whether or not "boxing is wrong to participating in," now that we know this does not apply to the above, because boxing is regulated with intent to minimize as much long-term damage as possible, therefore, can be done ethically. — Cobra
so why has humanity torn itself apart over and over again to define what is what and who is who? And for what? — Anopheles