Rationality in this context allows us to set a measure, and draw conclusions from it, but outside of that context, it is meaningless or impotent. There is nothing forcing me or anyone else to adopt whatever measure you happen to present to us. I don't think you're capable of demonstrating a measure that's some sort of super measure that's absolute. The holy grail of all measures! — S

Wow. OK. How then is the quality of sapience in any way rational to uphold? Or is sapience an irrational concept?

----

Remember, you've already said that it hods a factual referent. Best I can interpret your former reply, at least.

Wow. OK. How then is the quality of sapience in any way rational to uphold? Or is sapience an irrational concept? — javra

It has nothing to do with sapience, it has to do with aesthetic value.

You must of not read my initial post on this thread, then.

You must of not read my initial post on this thread, then. — javra

Are you, or are you not, saying that if something is more sapience-oriented, then it is of better value, or greater aesthetic value?

That's all I need to know, because that won't ever work for the reasons I've explained.

Wow. OK. How then is the quality of sapience in any way rational to uphold? Or is sapience an irrational concept? — javra

It has nothing to do with sapience, it has to do with aesthetic value. — S

At any rate, the question still stands: Is "sapience" an irrational concept on grounds that is it not measurable?

At any rate, the question still stands: Is "sapience" an irrational concept on grounds that is it not measurable? — javra

The question remains beside the point.

Are you, or are you not, saying that if something is more sapience-oriented, then it is of better value, or greater aesthetic value? — S

Yes. To recap:

P: We as sapient beings value sapience
C: Artwork that is of greater sapience is therefore of greater aesthetic value to us

an argument, that's all

That's all I need to know, because that won't ever work for the reasons I've explained. — S

Ah, but the reasons you've explained are pivoted around the rationality of using sapience as a measure. Hence:

The question remains beside the point. — S

... is completely fallacious.

Is "sapience" a rational concept despite not being measurable via a metric stick or some such?

Yes. To recap:

P: We as sapient beings value sapience
C: Artwork that is of greater sapience is therefore of greater aesthetic value to us

an argument, that's all — javra

An argument that fails for reasons I've explained. Do you need me to go back over the reasons?

Ah, but the reasons you've explained are pivoted around the rationality of using sapience as a measure. Hence:

The question remains beside the point.
— S

... is completely fallacious.

Is "sapience" a rational concept despite not being measurable via a metric stick or some such? — javra

Your question was poorly worded. There is no rationality for using sapience as a measure in any way that will make your argument work, and a test for that is whether or not the response of, "If that's your measure, then good for you", is appropriate. And it is in your case, as it is in other failed attempts.

Yea, you know, if you're one to believe that an elephant's painting is as aesthetically valuable as is a human's, to each their own.

Yea, you know, if you're one to believe that an elephant's painting is as aesthetically valuable as is a human's, to each their own. — javra

And this is what @ZhouBoTong was talking about, which is why it's probably a waste of my time to read fifteen pages of that discussion.

But does originality equate to better, I would say so — Merkwurdichliebe

I would say that that's naive, unless you just mean to express an opinion.

beauty and emotional power are not "measurable" because they are not quantities. — Janus

some works embody them more powerfully, more subtly, more intelligently, more authentically and so on, than others. — Janus

Somewhere we are struggling with language. If they cannot be measured, how can they be "more"? Prove it? and I don't mean empirically, I mean how would you even begin?

To say this is not sophistry, but to express something I know from experience. — Janus

Indeed. But my experience tells me that Shakespeare was not that clever (the greeks made much more clever use of prophecy - the prophecies in macbeth are pointless - well I only remember 2 out of 3) and that I only like Beethoven's 9th plus a few seconds of the 5th (that scene in the Simpson's where the whole town gets up to leave the symphony after 5 seconds of Da Da da Daaaa nails it). Mozart will make an elevator ride more pleasant but am I going to be emotionally moved? rarely. Not that others won't be, but that is the point.

plus a few seconds of the 5th (that scene in the Simpson's where the whole town gets up to leave the symphony after 5 seconds of Da Da da Daaaa nails it). — ZhouBoTong

Haha, that's brilliant. I didn't know of that scene.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the morality of illegal drug use.

As long as one can handle one’s responsibilities, then I feel like illegal drug use is not a matter of morality, but there are other considerations such as damaging the health of the body and giving money to evil drug cartels. That said, wouldn’t a better healthcare system and legalizing drugs help assuage these issues?

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the morality of illegal drug use. — Noah Te Stroete

It's about Pokémon now. I like Jigglypuff. That Pokémon was definitely on drugs. I think a lot of them were.

As long as one can handle one’s responsibilities, then I feel like illegal drug use is not a matter of morality, but there are other considerations such as damaging the health of the body and giving money to evil drug cartels. That said, wouldn’t a better healthcare system and legalizing drugs help assuage these issues? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes.

As long as one can handle one’s responsibilities, — Noah Te Stroete

But what are they, exactly. I know, it's pain to call for exactitude, here, but it's the correct standard. Are you associated in any way with anyone who may suffer because of you drug use? Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? And if you fail, who pays your bills?

Many things in this western life are licentious and harmful. It is the better course to know them for what they are and control them, both personally and as a community. The history of many illegal drugs is that they destroy. Why go there?

Somewhere we are struggling with language. If they cannot be measured, how can they be "more"? Prove it? and I don't mean empirically, I mean how would you even begin? — ZhouBoTong

Do we love some things more than others? Of course! How will you measure the difference? If you reduce life to what is measurable, what will be left?

Asking for measure in ethics or aesthetics, or asking for deductive or unequivocal inductive arguments in ethics or aesthetics is a category error.

So what if you show there are no such unequivocal arguments to support ethical or aesthetic judgements? All you have shown is that such judgements are not analytic or empirical judgements, but that is trivially obvious to anyone who has given it any thought.

It doesn't follow that artworks and ethical judgements do not embody more or less understanding of the human condition, or that such understanding is not what is near universally valued above all else by those who value human intelligence and the compassion and sensitivity that come with it over mere entertainment or self-serving pleasure seeking.

People come to see these ethical and aesthetic truths because they develop and transform their ability to see them, not because they could be convinced by some deductive argument or undeniable empirical observation or theory.

This is off-topic but I think it is relevant. If people take drugs whether legal or illegal just for kicks then it is unethical in the sense that they are doing both themselves and their community a disservice. If on the other hand taking drugs expands their consciousness and helps to attain greater connection with self and other and greater compassion and understanding of self and other then it is ethical. It's easy enough to see that even if it cannot be measured, deductively proven or directly and definitively empirically demonstrated.

Exploitation or wanton destruction of self or other is both aesthetically ugly and morally wrong because it is anti-life; it clearly shows a psychological problem and/ or a lack of intelligence; you can't get much simpler than that.

But what are they, exactly. I know, it's pain to call for exactitude, here, but it's the correct standard. Are you associated in any way with anyone who may suffer because of you drug use? Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? And if you fail, who pays your bills? — tim wood

Well, for me personally, the legal drugs that my psychiatrist prescribes make me so lethargic, drained, drowsy, and lazy, that I cannot handle much responsibility. So, drugs can be bad whether legal or illegal.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the morality of illegal drug use. — Noah Te Stroete

my fault (I think I started it anyway) :grimace: I will start responding to the off-topic stuff in the other thread.

So, drugs can be bad whether legal or illegal. — Noah Te Stroete

I buy this. And you may care to investigate alternative therapies. "Drooling idiot" was the sel-descriptive phrase of choice of a person in a similar position. With some help he found it was not his only option, and he was able to make the change. Maybe a mental health professional? Psychiatrists are MDs that have evolved to function as drug prescribers for the real mental-health professionals who are not licensed to prescribe.

(That's right, I hold psychiatrists to be MDs and not real mental-health professionals. Certainly some can be, but for psychiatrists it's an uphill fight in part because of their basic medical training, and in part because of the kind of people many doctors are and have to be, to be doctors. The medical training emphasizes the "medical model," which in simplest terms means that you're a patient; you're a problem; and it's the doctor's business to solve problems, i.e., you.) So if you've been legally drugged in a bad way, and you have even the slightest hope and suspicion that life can be better, then go for it! Because it can be!)

I buy this. And you may care to investigate alternative therapies. "Drooling idiot" was the sel-descriptive phrase of choice of a person in a similar position. With some help he found it was not his only option, and he was able to make the change. Maybe a mental health professional? Psychiatrists are MDs that have evolved to function as drug prescribers for the real mental-health professionals who are not licensed to prescribe.

(That's right, I hold psychiatrists to be MDs and not real mental-health professionals. Certainly some can be, but for psychiatrists it's an uphill fight in part because of their basic medical training, and in part because of the kind of people many doctors are and have to be, to be doctors. The medical training emphasizes the "medical model," which in simplest terms means that you're a patient; you're a problem; and it's the doctor's business to solve problems, i.e., you.) So if you've been legally drugged in a bad way, and you have even the slightest hope and suspicion that life can be better, then go for it! Because it can be!) — tim wood

My wife says she won’t stay with me if I don’t take my medications. I love her.

I would say that that's naive, unless you just mean to express an opinion. — S

I'm just expressing opinion, its not necessarily true, it's just one perspective amongst a vast web of perspectives, hopefully with the effect of inciting more useless debate.

If you happen to feel that doing something illegal is necessarily immoral then I’m afraid my moral inclination would be to belittle your position, strip you of public integrity, and even have you slain; be it by my hand or another’s!

If that isn’t clear enough to lock and bolt the facile idea of “illegal” being “immoral” then I don’t know what would do it.

I'm just expressing opinion, its not necessarily true, it's just one perspective amongst a vast web of perspectives, hopefully with the effect of inciting more useless debate. — Merkwurdichliebe

It may well have that effect if you don't make it clear that you're just expressing an opinion, given the context, because some people on this forum seem to think that those sort of statements indicate something more than just an opinion. In your opinion, originality equates to better, and I might share that opinion, or I might have a different opinion, but there's nothing more to it than an exchange of opinions.

wouldn’t a better healthcare system and legalizing drugs help assuage these issues? — Noah Te Stroete

You're offering logic and common sense? What are you thinking? :wink:

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

Fair question. And the topic specifically addresses illegal drugs, but are you accounting for legal drugs? Alcohol is the obvious example. If your question also applies to substances whose effects are similar (or worse, in the case of alcohol), then fair enough. :up:

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

The obvious question in response to that would be: to what extent? Complete control in every situation where a recreational drug has been taken is both physically and practically impossible. To the extent that it accords with my sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and my liberalism? I can try my best, and that's all you can justifiably expect of me. You might have a different sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and you might be more of a conservative, but you're not right by default.

You offered us once a personal account where you got wasted and belligerent to the point the police were involved. Obviously your belligerence was immoral, but wouldn't you say your decision to get wasted by itself was as well, even had you not become belligerent, just due to the fact that you recklessly exposed the public to a wild eyed S with no rational self control? Or do you maintain even your belligerence was excusable, as it was not really S doing those things, but a Mr. Hyde occupying your body?

You offered us once a personal account where you got wasted and belligerent to the point the police were involved. Obviously your belligerence was immoral, but wouldn't you say your decision to get wasted by itself was as well, even had you not become belligerent, just due to the fact that you recklessly exposed the public to a wild eyed S with no rational self control? Or do you maintain even your belligerence was excusable, as it was not really S doing those things, but a Mr. Hyde occupying your body? — Hanover

I don't excuse my belligerence, I accept proportional responsibility, then I make light of it and move on, because otherwise it would eat me up inside and I would be at great risk of doing something even more self-destructive.

Whether the decision to take drugs itself was immoral is complicated. Is it reckless to go to the pub and drink enough to get drunk? Is that immoral? Should that be illegal?

The obvious question in response to that would be: to what extent? Complete control in every situation where a recreational drug has been taken is both physically and practically impossible. To the extent that it accords with my sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and my liberalism? I can try my best, and that's all you can justifiably expect of me. You might have a different sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and you might be more of a conservative, but you're not right by default. — S

Last first: what does "right by default mean"? And why am I not right by default?

Subject to your acceptance/correction, let's start by supposing two kinds of responsibility. No doubt there are many, but just these two for a start. 1) Personal responsibility, 2) Social/community responsibility.

I have to resort to example to be clear. I live in Massachusetts, USA. If you're on a motorcycle in Massachusetts, there had better be an approved helmet on your head. When green in thought and understanding I complained, once, that the helmet I had to wear seemed like a lot of helmet for the motorcycle I was driving. It was explained to me that the helmet was for my head, not the bike. Simple lesson; sometimes that's what's needed. Anyway, compliance in Massachusetts is 100%.

New Hampshire borders Massachusetts, and in New Hampshire there is no requirement to wear a helmet. Many, maybe most, motorcyclists in New Hampshire don't wear a helmet. New Hampshire's state motto is, "Live free or die," and the state's motorcyclists fought for the right to "live free" and not wear motorcycle helmets. (Frankly, those without look like the fools they are! Anyway....)

In so arguing, the bikers thought they were within the ambit of personal responsibility. Their choice, their personal responsibility, and none of your business! Except that motorcycles are involved in accidents, and drivers and their passengers get injured. Those without helmets can expect to receive serious head injuries. Guess who pays. Guess how expensive medical and rehabilitative care for brain injured accident victims is. And in the case of a family breadwinner, who pays for the family?

Accordance with your personal sense of things, such that you do the best you can? I'd call that the price of admission. To play, however, requires - should require - an appropriate objective assessment of potential cost and who pays it - and certainly not in just a monetary sense.

Perhaps New Hampshire should have argued, "Fine, if you want to break your skull and damage your brain, your business. But your cost as well - the price of being what you call 'free,' and that your family and estate will pay as well, if they can!"

Is there a morality derivable from issues of personal and social responsibility? I think there is. And it's not just a matter of financial accounting. It is a matter of ultimate responsibility, a regard of all relevant concerns taken and weighed together, yielding a responsible decision.

Does this mean we all need to wimps? Not at all. It just means we each have to take appropriate care. For example, I think it's reasonable for some people - not me - to race motorcycles on the Isle of Man. It's insanely dangerous, but their decision to race is taken within a larger set of decisions that themselves both recognize the danger and try to minimize it.

I think alcohol sits on the border. Apparently responsible use is possible for most people, but not for some people. As to illegal so-called hard drugs, it appears it's really difficult to be a "responsible" user. For that, then, control, and the recognition that use of what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral.