I agreed that this syllogism was valid and then challenged its soundness by asserting that all human beings are deserving of compassion. That's where we are. — ZzzoneiroCosm

But, you haven't challenged it's soundness, you've merely proclaimed it's not sound. Now, I'm not a logic Nazi, so you don't have to go in that direction. But, simply stating as much isn't enough.

I can support my view that all human beings are deserving of compassion by asserting that all human beings are suffering creatures and all suffering creatures are deserving of compassion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Suffering does not imply compassion. It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. Especially now if we're actually validating the syllogism by adding another factor besides mental illness. Plus, many, many people suffer because they cause they're own suffering. Some people actually initiate the application of means that induce suffering, or even suffering and death. Not only does suffering not imply compassion, but compassion moves further away as an application as more variables are incorporated. But, let me ask again: does every human deserve to be free from the application of force at all times?

Suffering does not imply compassion. It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. Especially now if we're actually validating the syllogism by adding another factor besides mental illness. Plus, many, many people suffer because they cause they're own suffering. — Garrett Travers

So your position is: some suffering creatures are undeserving of compassion. To which I would say:

It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. — Garrett Travers

To which I would say:

It's simply a conclusion you've drawn due to how you feel. Which is cool, but it doesn't seem to be rationally chosen as a principle. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, and you'd be irrational because this is valid:

If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, then a selective application of compassion is required.
Multiple factors for applying compassion exist.
Therefore, a selective application of compassion is required.

Again, keep your standard. Do humans deserve to be free from the application of force at all times?

Not only does suffering not imply compassion, but compassion moves further away as an application as more variables are incorporated. — Garrett Travers

These variables are your own, and not my variables.

Yes, it's true, as you incorporate more variables you move further and further away from feeling compassion for all suffering creatures.

The only variable in my position is the question of suffering.

These variables are your own, and not my variables.

Yes, it's true, as you incorporate more variables you move further and further away from feeling compassion for all suffering creatures.

The only variable in my position is the question of suffering. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I get that. And it's IRRATIONAL.

If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, — Garrett Travers

In the case of a person like you, multiple variables are incorporated. (It's too strong to say they exist, because to my view they don't exist as variables.)

I get that. And it's IRRATIONAL. — Garrett Travers

This hasn't been established no matter how large and dark your font gets.

Set it out, if you can.

In the case of a person like you, multiple variables are incorporated. (It's too strong to say they exist, because to my view they don't exist as variables.) — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right. So, Putin, Jeff Bezos, and Brionna Taylor. No differentiating factors of compassion application?

Right. So, Putin, Jeff Bezos, and Brionna Taylor. No differentiating factors of compassion application? — Garrett Travers

Right. All are suffering creatures.

Right. All are suffering creatures. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Cool, so we've got compassion for Hitler, Putin, Bezos, and Taylor.

Do all people have a right to be free from the application of force?

Do humans deserve to be free from the application of force at all times? — Garrett Travers

Of course not.

I'm incredibly familiar with him, he's among my favorites. — Garrett Travers

Have you read Man's Search for Meaning? Lots of wisdom in there, if you have a love of wisdom.

Of course not. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unbelievable. I have no words.

Have you read Man's Search for Meaning? Lots of wisdom in there, if you have a love of wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep, love the guy.

Unbelievable. I have no words. — Garrett Travers

Maybe you need to define force. But to my view, arresting and incarcerating a criminal is an application of force.

So while I feel compassion for the criminal as a suffering creature, I would insist he be removed from polite society for obvious reasons.

Yep, love the guy. — Garrett Travers

What do you take to be the central thesis of the book?

It might be interesting to look at how the book is received by two very different personalities. If you're interested, I'll start a thread on it. Might start one anyway.

Maybe you need to define force. But to my view, arresting and incarcerating a criminal is an application of force. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unwelcomed contact between humans and their property.

So while I feel compassion for the criminal as a suffering creature, I would insist he be removed from polite society for obvious reasons. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You see, the only real criminal in the world, is the person who initiates the use of force against other people and their property. Such violates reason, thought, and cognition. The place where compassion comes from, where morality comes from. Applying enough force to stop that violation is the only justufiable application of it.

What do you take to be the central thesis of the book?

It might be interesting to look at how the book is received by two very different personalities. If you're interested, I'll start a thread on it. Might start one anyway. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's a good question, may have to think a bit. I'd say that the core theme is that it isn't pleasure, or happiness, or flourishing that actually keeps you going, keeps you moving forward, especially in the face of imminent death. It's your values, your meaning. We formulate those life saving values through deep, substantial experiences with people and the world. And that's why you haven't killed yourself if you're visiting his office to get psychological help. Small digest there. I'm an enormous proponent for logotherapy. I kind of did it myself, for myself.

EugeneW Is what relativism says "about truth" true or not? — 180 Proof

Neither. Like absolutism it is an approach to truth, not a truth on its own. It just says all objective truths are subjective.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — Hitchen's Razor

So it's wholly arbitrary – "subjective" as you say – whether or not one adopts "relativism as an approach" to truth? :eyes:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. — Ibn Sina

... all objective truths are subjective

An exemplary self-refuting statement. :roll:

When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. — Humpty Dumpty

So it's wholly arbitrary – "subjective" as you say – whether or not one adopts "relativism as an approach" to truth? :eyes: — 180 Proof

It's not wholly arbitrary. Every truth, once adopted, has its own way of proving thing objectively true.

. all objective truths are subjective
An exemplary self-refuting statement — 180 Proof

If you adopt a truth like yours, yes. But outside of it, no. Every truth has is own measure of truth or not true. And I know where you wanna go. But what if some proclaim an obvious fantasy for truth...

Why would one adopt any truth if every truth is "subjective"?

People want objectivity. Even if its subjective. Who is the arbiter? Reality? That's circular.

Why is it so difficult to believe there can be more than one objective reality?

You say that we are our brains. We have no awareness of the neural processes going on in our brains which determine all our thoughts. words and actions. It seems to follow from this deterministic view that we are no more morally responsible for any of our actions than the tiger, the lightning or the tsunami are for theirs.

So, on the physicalist assumption of determinism there is no rational justification for punishing (as opposed to restraining) anyone. whether mentally ill or not, for their actions, any more than there is rational justification for wanting to punish the tiger for killing your family.

I am relating this to the idea that compassion would be the rational realization that no one deserves punishment (on the assumption of your kind of determinism, that is ).

People want objectivity. Even if its subjective. — EugeneW

Objectivity denotes subjectivity / point-of-view/ language / gauge–invarant statements (e.g. "2+2=4" or "At sea-level, water boils @ 212° F (100° C)" ... irregardless of anyone's "subjective beliefs, etc") Whether or not such subjectivity-invariant statements are determined to be true or not true is a matter of experimental or ostensible testing against relevant evidence (facts). When you say, Eugene, in effect that "objective = subjective" you are asserting a contradiction (i.e. necessary falsehood) and therefore spouting nonsense.

objective reality? — EugeneW

The term "objective reality" is, on one hand, redundant and, on the other hand, an unwarranted conflation of epistemology (maps) and ontology (territory). There are many ways to talk about the world. There are many worlds in the universe. There is 'possibly' many universes in the vacuum. Even many vacua ... That is aspect-pluralism (e.g. irrealism ~ N. Goodman), however, not "relativism".

You say that we are our brains. We have no awareness of the neural processes going on in our brains which determine all our thoughts. words and actions. It seems to follow from this deterministic view that we are no more morally responsible for any of our actions than the tiger, the lightning or the tsunami is for theirs. — Janus

A cool thought, interesting. But, no. Human's generate new conceptualizations of their own behavior in accordance with data that is acrrued in a recurrent manner at almost all times. Meaning, not only is your cognition being constantly updated to refined behavior, but the quality of the conceptualizations are as well. So, the only thing that is completely determinant are the processes themselves, not what the processes produce in executive action. Meaning, you are most certainly responsible for your actions. This sort of thing isn't happening in animals that we know of. I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get there, could be an issue.

So, on the physicalist assumption of determinism there is no rational justification for punishing (as opposed to restraining) anyone. whether mentally ill or not, for their actions, any more than there is rational justification for wanting to punish the tiger for killing your family. — Janus

I will say, though, I made no argument for punishing anyone. I made an argument for selective distribution of compassion, and a highly exclusive distribution for the initiation of force. Which included the standard that only enough force is justified to stop the use of force as a violation. Not punishment.

But, no. Human's generate new conceptualizations of their own behavior in accordance with data that is acrrued in a recurrent manner at almost all times. — Garrett Travers

No, on the physicalist presumption those "new conceptualizations" are just further neural processes caused by prior neural processes. The brain is not a moral agent. If the brain is responsible for all thought, speech and action then there is no rationally supportable moral responsibility.

I will say, though, I made no argument for punishing anyone. I made an argument for selective distribution of compassion, — Garrett Travers

Sure, but it is compassion (in this case based on the realization of the determinist than on that view no one is morally culpable) that would lead to refraining from believing that punishment is deserved.

You said you wished there was a hell so that Hitler could get the eternal punishment he deserves. Do you think that sentiment is rationally justified?

When you say, Eugene, in effect that "objective = subjective" you are asserting a contradiction (i.e. necessary falsehood) and therefore spouting nonsense. — 180 Proof

If I would write it like you do, objective=subjective, yes. But I don't. For you there is a contradiction because it contradicts your objective reality. But that's not the only objective reality. The today's temperature is 12 degrees for everyone who adopts that standard. The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it.