A better approach might be to do feminist things but not call them feminist... — Banno

Yeah, but if we were to start a campaign or a group of activists or a movement or something, we'd probably need some sort of naming, wouldn't we? What kind of names would we use? Something to do with equality, I'd say, without wording relating to one specific gender and not the other.

Sure, if you like. Not an easy thing to do. — Banno

True. Especially when people deliberately exploit it. It seems to me that it was probably a better name historically than in modern times.

How do you move from accessibility ramps to gendered Parliamentary ramps? — VagabondSpectre

Even ramps have a gender now? What's the world coming to?

We ought relate this back to the title.

In so far as feminism is about the improper use of gender in determining eligibility for social roles, it is as much an advantage to males as to females. — Banno

So it's a misnomer? That was a serious comment. I think a name change would help the cause of which you speak.

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.

I don't believe that biology and neuroscience are advanced enough. No neuroscientist or biologist could examine human tissues and determine why some people are, for example, conservative and others are liberal. — praxis

I don't think we're that advanced, either. But the quote above is an example of the fallacy of moving the goalposts. I never suggested, or never meant to suggest, that. It's not all or nothing, and an explanation which goes some way towards explaining the source of morality is better than no explanation at all, or a bad explanation.

I stand by my claim that your objection to what you see as a problem with my explanation, namely your assertion that it doesn't explain the divergence of moral judgements, is a faux-problem. It's not a problem with my explanation, it's a problem you have with it. You haven't justified your assertion that my explanation doesn't account for what you assert it doesn't account for, and I've said enough on the matter to have resolved the problem you're having. But you've persisted in your assertions regardless, and our exchange broke down when you made what I consider to be false claims that I hadn't explained something, and you then tried to get me to go back and quote myself or repeat myself, which I objected to doing on the basis that it's unnecessary, and because I judge it to be an evasion of responsibility on your part, or, at worst, just a debate tactic.

No one here can provide a perfect or complete explanation, so that's no kind of objection. And pointing to very specific things that my explanation can't account for in detail, and never claimed to be able to account for, doesn't justify rejecting what I have actually said.

What I have actually said is that moral judgement is founded in emotion, and emotion can be explained (not perfectly!) through neuroscience. The person who judges cannibalism to be wrong would have experienced negative emotions about cannibalism which swayed his moral judgement, and the person who judges nothing to be wrong with cannibalism would not have had that experience. Whether or not they're clones is irrelevant. The clone thing was a result of a misunderstanding you had about what my position entails. They would feel differently about it, and would have different moral judgements as a result, and this can be explained (not perfectly!) through neuroscience.

I don't have a burden to repeat these explanations endlessly to someone who denies that I've made them, and I don't have a burden to justify claims that I've never made.

What's a Easter?

at around post 7600 — Hanover

:smirk:

Maybe move locked threads like these into a "humor"-section of the forum? :lol: — Christoffer

I thought the humour section of the forum was here.

What's a troll?

I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that? — praxis

I'm still waiting for you to address what I've actually said, and to properly respond to my criticism. Why can't this be explained through biology, of which evolution and neuroscience are a part?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist? — praxis

Using the term "natural" just opens up a can of worms. It doesn't seem helpful.

Conversely, are you a cannibal or do you have the potential to be someone who genuinely feels that cannibalism is not immoral, and can happily munch away? — praxis

However I answer that question, I don't think that it would demonstrate anything of logical relevance to your line of argument. The dots don't connect.

Ooh, that was a really good one. :up:

Going back to the cloned baby S scenario, the cloned S would have no choice in what moral order was imparted to him. Depending on the culture, it might impart an order where cannibalism is acceptable or an order where it’s not. — praxis

It's a complete myth that, in that scenario, my clone couldn't reach a different judgement about cannibalism than that of his culture.

lol, I believe they call this project. — praxis

You mean "projection". Another highly amusing example of your lack of attention.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m interested in your response to what I wrote. — praxis

I don't believe you, because you aren't doing anything about that, except try to manipulate me. And I have little toleration for that. If you're interested, then help yourself. You don't need me for that. You just need to put more effort in.

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.

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.

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 that you're capable of demonstrating a measure that's some sort of super measure that's absolute. The holy grail of all measures!

I don't think that you're capable. I don't think that Janus is capable. I don't think that NKBJ is capable. I don't think that Merkwhatevershisname is capable. I don't think that anyone is capable. I think that that's naive.

So your saying that the term "sapience" has no factual, hence impartial, hence objective referent? — javra

No, I'm saying what I said. Do you need me to repeat it?

I get that we're subjective about what is factually ontic. This to me, however, does not negate the presence of facts ... such as that of sapient beings (e.g., humans at large) being distinct from non-sapient, but yet sentient, beings (e.g. ameba; yes amebas can sense their environments). If I need to clarity: this by incremental gradations, as per biological evolution. (different topic, though). — javra

I've clearly made no indication that I'm disputing that, so I don't know where you'd get that idea from. I'm disputing the reasoning. The argument won't ever work, so you're just wasting your time. You'll never get your, "Therefore, it's better", in any significant way. The appropriate response will just be, "If you go by that measure, then good for you".

I don't think that any argument would work, because they'll all be based on an unwarranted premise of the form that if something is more this or that, then it is better, when that's actually just a subjective judgement trying to pretend to be something else.

If you go by that measure, then good for you.

Fifteen pages of wasted discussion trying to overcome the impossible.

I can’t review what doesn’t exist. — praxis

You can review what does. So are you going to do so or not? Do you derive pleasure from dancing around the issue?

There is one version of logic, and you're not very good at it.

It's probably for the best for you give to up on this conversion if you're just going to repeat your rigid and narrow-minded stance over and over again without addressing any of the underlying problems. You're known for doing this. Doesn't that reputation bother you?

'People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit' - IE they get some form of pleasure from them. — Devans99

No, not in other words. That's not an acceptable use of that abbreviation. This isn't the first time that you've made that mistake, either.

Also, how come you get everything wrong? It's especially galling as you always assume you have everything right.

It is a form of pleasure else people would not be inclined towards doing it; we do things that are pleasurable to us (in the widest possible sense). — Devans99

No, you can call it a form of pleasure as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit. Whether that gives them pleasure is beside the point.

And the pleasure machine needs to replicate this form of pleasure else its not doing its job. — Devans99

You don't understand what it needs to do to be doing its job. You don't understand what maximum pleasure means.

Then everyone excepting the very stupid would get in. — Devans99

You are very stupid to think that.

White middle aged middle class cis straight able males tend to call themselves egalitarian. — Banno

What an irrelevant comment. It also seems to be an implicit ad hominem.

Valuing reality is a form of pleasure. — Devans99

No it isn't. And even if it was, that would be irrelevant.

If the pleasure machine cannot give that then the pleasure machine is not working according to specification. — Devans99

No, the pleasure machine just needs to give maximum pleasure. Do you understand what maximum pleasure is? Because you don't seem to.

If it was going to give someone everything you could possibly want then we can say only stupid people making the wrong decision would get not get in.

So pleasure/pain (in all its emotional/physical guises) really is all there is to happiness for right thinking people. — Devans99

Lots of people wouldn't want to be strapped into a pleasure machine, because they value reality over maximum pleasure. That doesn't make them stupid people making the wrong decision, and it doesn't make the rest right thinking people. But that argument does indicate your own stupidity.

I missed where you property [sic] responded to the following, btw.

It is inadequate to say that the mind or limbic system is the source of morals because it cannot account for vast differences in moral frameworks. Saying "we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently" isn't explaining or accounting for the differences.
— praxis — praxis

Then pay closer attention. I don't see why I should repeat myself. Just go back and properly address what I've said about that.

If anyone refuses to get it, then it cannot be maximising their pleasure. For example, the machine would have to give the occupant the illusion that they are a successful member of society, rather than strapped into a pleasure machine. — Devans99

Yes, that's obvious, and is of no logical relevance, so I don't know why you're saying that.

Then everyone would get in — Devans99

That's astoundingly ignorant. You've asked everyone in the world about this, and they've all answered in the affirmative?

Most of your criticisms have little to do with the subject so I have no interest in responding to them, properly or otherwise. — praxis

You haven't a clue, so suit yourself.

I’m not refuting it, I’ve only repeatedly pointed out its inadequacy. — praxis

You mean you've repeatedly asserted that without properly responding to my criticism.

Ok, then, I'll give you a chance to convince me. Tell me, how does the limbic system directly and immediately cause the emotional experience of love.

My prediction, you will completely dodge the question like you do every time. — Merkwurdichliebe

My prediction is that you will mistake a reasonable objection to the wording or logical relevance of the question as a "dodge".

You seem to have pulled that question out of thin air, so you must first explain how it is of logical relevance to what I've actually said. You don't get to just make up a position and act like I'm responsible for justifying it. Here's a tip: don't try to put what you think my position is in your own words, because you've proven incompetent at doing so accurately. Stick to my wording.

And you must also accept that I'm not a neuroscientist.

And also, you're a hypocrite, because you dodged my question and the related points which followed.

But the pleasure machine cannot maximise pleasure because it cannot give me a role in society which I value above all.

So the thought experiment is contradictory. — Devans99

No, the pleasure machine isn't contradictory. Once again, the pleasure machine is machine which gives maximum pleasure. If you're talking about a machine which doesn't do this, then you're talking about something else.

It can't be more pleasurable outside the pleasure machine. That violates the thought experiment. The pleasure machine is a machine which gives maximum pleasure. People would still turn it down, which shows that your theory is bunk. They judge that it would be better outside of it, even if less pleasurable.

Doing the right thing takes willpower because the right thing is often painful in the short term. Exercise, eating healthy, helping others are examples. — Devans99

They're only examples of things you judge to be good, and that's clearly not the topic.