One major difference between religious systems and non-religious ones is that faith in non-religious systems is more easily justified by their utility at helping to provide useful strategies... — Isaac
I don't really see how it could possibly be less useful than intuition, since intuition is where you start from and then try to improve upon it. — Pfhorrest
it's just a matter of getting people to have a common base of experiences that, they can all confirm for themselves, sure enough seem good or bad at least, — Pfhorrest
and then from that common base working out what states of affairs avoid the experiences that seem bad and only leave ones that seem good (or minimize/maximize at least), and then the hard work of figuring out how to bring about those good(-seeming) states of affairs while avoiding bad(-seeming) ones. — Pfhorrest
2. I don't see anything there about judging hyperbolic discounting (future possible hedonic gains are worth less than current definate ones). — Isaac
I'm not sure what you mean here, you'll need to elaborate. — Pfhorrest
That is the problem with your claim that faith in non-religious systems is more easily justified, the justification referred to here is just an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Increase awareness, connection and collaboration — Possibility
I would really like to see what Mark Dennis and @Artemis have to say about the proposition the video makes. — god must be atheist
I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about? — Artemis
As for the kittens, you still haven't disproven the wrongness of drowning kittens in burlap sacks. All you're saying is that it can't be the only principle you follow. It's not exhaustive in scope. But neither is 2+2=4. — Artemis
What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises? — Possibility
If you asked me what two plus two is, and I gave the answer ‘two plus two is NOT five’, the statement would be correct in itself, but its function as a statement of what two plus two is would be inadequate. — Artemis
I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about?
— Artemis
What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises — Possibility
How so? We can't continue to justify a system by logical measures (like non-contradiction). At some point it's just a faith and the justification is utility. — Isaac
:up:That X is good, because it is efficient for bringing about the desired effect Y, is not a real justification, it's an illusion of justification. It is required that Y be demonstrated as good, in order for the justification to be real. That utility is justification is an illusion, because utility is relative to the goal, or end which grants the thing its usefulness, and this goal must itself be justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ethics and math share this striking resemblance: it's of equal importance to figure out when something is wrong as it is to figure out when something is right. — Artemis
Just as I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover
- Why not? You haven't explained your main objection. Why is utility not a justification for adopting a system? All you've done so far is asserted that it isn't, not provided any explanation as to why....is not a real justification, it's an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
- Required by whom or what?It is required that... — Metaphysician Undercover
- Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way?...this goal must itself be justified — Metaphysician Undercover
- So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much?So your claim that non-religious systems are more easily justified is false because the 'justification' you are referring to is not justification at all, but an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
You're right. It is not a code of ethics. It is a CHARACTERISTIC OR PROPERTY OF ETHICS. But it is also a characteristic or property of many things."As if you had anticipated my question, you say "don't cause unnecessary suffering" is the ultimate code of ethics."
— god must be atheist
Interesting choice of paraphrasing. I did not say "ultimate." I suggested that it is one example of an underlying principle that I believe to exist in most cultures across the world. Now, I haven't exhaustively studied all world religions/ethics, but I have yet to come across one that actually contradicts the wrongness of unnecessary suffering. Though people might disagree on what things are necessary or are suffering, generally all ethics seeks to reduce the sum total of suffering.
Or can you give me a good counter example? — Artemis
That's why Wayfarer referred to the need for a "summum bonum". So your claim that non-religious systems are more easily justified is false because the 'justification' you are referring to is not justification at all, but an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
I hope I have made my argument a little clearer — Possibility
My point is that such principle does not exist. Your point is that it exists. — god must be atheist
Good is wholly undefinable. That something is good or not is a subjective judgment, and therefore to justify X as good because it leads to Y where Y is also good, is only justifiable by personal subjective means. — god must be atheist
You haven't 'explained', you've asserted. There's a difference. — Isaac
Why not? You haven't explained your main objection. Why is utility not a justification for adopting a system? All you've done so far is asserted that it isn't, not provided any explanation as to why. — Isaac
Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way? — Isaac
So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much? — Isaac
Is there a philosophy of good, such as the epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, and ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morals, and aesthetics is the branch that deals with beauty. — god must be atheist
Good is wholly undefinable. That something is good or not is a subjective judgment, and therefore to justify X as good because it leads to Y where Y is also good, is only justifiable by personal subjective means. — god must be atheist
If you or anyone else justifies moral actions on whether they are good or not in intention or in final result, then you or anyone else is walking on thin ice. — god must be atheist
I asked before and you evaded the question, but I'll ask again: how broad or narrow does an ethical principle have to be to fit your definition thereof? — Artemis
As broad as you can make it. — Possibility
just how many different principles do you think there are? — Possibility
I will have to get back to you later about the video. — Artemis
Why does it have to be exclusive to ethics? I don't understand that criterion. — Artemis
However, if you can't find even one, then I rest my case, and feel satisfied that you failed to show me that ethics exist. — god must be atheist
And I already stated a common ethical principle: avoid causing unnecessary suffering. — Artemis
Maybe we cross-posted. — god must be atheist
Right, but it does not apply exclusively to ethics. Please read my car seat example as a support of my claim in this matter. — god must be atheist
You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle. — Artemis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.