My lecturer told me:

"Values are the dominant behaviours and beliefs of a society or a group" and that values have nothing to do with individuals.

But then on other sites I have read things such as,
"Values are ideals of beliefs that a person holds desirable or undesirable."

I don't have a social science background and am a bit confused by what seems to me conflicting information.

Are values what a society deems to be important or what an individual finds important? Could you also please explain why? — carlacalvert9

I suppose your teacher is trying to make an important point. Of course this will all be conjecture since I do not know the context in which your teacher was saying this, but you can have your own personal values and then you can have values that are created by the society you live in, such as ethics, for instance.

But you can't go on living your life by your own personal values all the time because you might end up breaking a law or saying something rude to someone. On the opposite end you might end up being taken advantage of because you are too innocent or naïve.

It's rare that your personal values will totally line up with the norms of society and this is why you have to be taught the proper way to behave by the culture, ethics, etc. of your society. As a baby you come out of the womb screaming and crying but you soon learn that you cannot scream and cry whenever you do not get your own way.

During adolescence you will find that teens are generally extremely egocentric and concerned with their own feelings, but usually as your brain develops and with further grooming from society you learn that such thinking is immature and juvenile and also does very little to help the society you live in (but of course there are tons of people that never seem to grow out of this stage).

Initiating an act requires a spasm, that is more renown as the internal impulse.

If you carefully examine what happens to start an act, you'll see something similar to a spasm occuring... — Varde

Hmm, well in order to do anything even move your arm for instance, right beforehand your brain will release a tiny amount of dopamine in order to initiate the movement. So this is chemical interaction, more specifically a neurotransmitter mediating the movement.

I would say that an impulse, though vague in the context you are prescribing, generally defines involuntary action, contrary to current biology findings which would show that any intentional movement that is carried out is pre-determined by the brain via the release of dopamine.

...afterward it depends on intellect whether you double-spasm known as one having confidence. — Varde

Confidence is ultimately psychological, but I'm sure there are some mental activities you can do which would strengthen it and then possibly it could become more "intellectual" as you say. But ultimately I think confidence usually comes from internal belief in what you can achieve based solely on past experience of being successful.

For instance, if when you were a baby and your parents encouraged and celebrated you taking your first steps vs. a child who did not receive constant support and nourishment. You will probably find many psychology studies showing that your upbringing greatly shapes your confidence (and of course your experience of being successful). Also having a strong grasp of what you are doing naturally allows one to feel confident as cognitive dissonance will always immediately result in "bewilderment" and it would probably be very difficult to somehow shift that into an affirmative feeling of confidence.

I suppose then we can say that confidence is the combination of positive past experience (reinforcement) with its accompanying ability to foresee a successful outcome, and secondly a lack of disillusion (cognitive dissonance) which would be debilitating to the aforementioned action.

All of this would of course require some modicum of intelligence, but that is neither here nor there.

I would not see the initial "impulse" itself as a cascading process leading up to and including confidence. Ultimately one is biological and the other is psychological development.

On the other hand, not to go on a tangent, but there may be more "shallow" forms of confidence where people practice little tricks, for instance, to help men approach women when asking them out on a date, or to give a speech in front of an audience. I suppose you would have to choose whether you are talking about an innate and natural confidence or one that is superficial and prone to variability.

I think the issue is that most atheists see life as a punishment, therefore unless we can discover what our crimes were, it is logically more feasible to say there is no punishment and there is no God that commanded the punishment, rather life is a random anomaly. Sure, it's an emotional point of view devoid of cold logic, but we are human beings and we do have emotions sometimes. :)

But then we would have to ask, do you see life as a gift or as a punishment? If punishment, what on earth did we do wrong?

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? It's not hard to answer though... — Hillary

Thank you sir, but it is beyond the proof...the issue is that it may be that God is punishing us. :scream:

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven.
— chiknsld

Why would that be? — Jackson

When I figure that one out, I shall let you know. :)

Probably the hardest question in the world.

"Can there be a proof of God?"

This is an interesting question, but even if we can find a proof that God exists, can we also find a proof of how God was created? What if another God created God? Can we find proofs for all the Gods? What if there is an infinite number of Gods?

I think if we find a proof, we wouldn't call it God anymore. And another thing we call God would appear, because the fact that it cannot be proven is part of the God concept... — Skalidris

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven. :)

...however saying that there is no beginning is logically impossible. — SpaceDweller

Correct. :up:

You are brilliant! Did they say something that I missed? I saw the video of Hawking saying that the universe is eternal and nothing is surrounding it? Goodness, they try so hard don't they? :snicker:

Reason created the world. Yea that makes total sense.

God must have made the world but not for any particular reason, therefore Chance created the world.

Since Chance created the world then there is no reason to worship God, you see, because at first God created the world, but then we figured out that Chance actually created the world.
— chiknsld

Brilliant! :starstruck: — Hillary

Thanks Hillary, but you know it's all due to the glory of Chance. Thank Chance that I was able to come up with that incredible logic. Were it not for the little chance molecules in my brain, I would have definitely made an error. :snicker:

You're truly have the better hand here, chiknsld (chickensalad? chiknslud?)! Keep it coming! :joke: — Hillary

:rofl: :rofl:

Again: that's true and great philosophy! And it's funny also! Keel it comiiiing! :lol: :up: :victory: :ok: , more fingers I aint got! — Hillary

Can you tell how inspired I am? I am reverberating deep, and profound insight!

Let's try to give 180 the credit he deserves...

Reason created the world? Nope, does not make sense.

Chance created the world? Nope, does not make sense.

God is not divine? Non-sequitur.

God is divine or not divine based on the former? Yea that makes total sense.

God must have made the world for a reason and therefore Reason (now objective, hence the capital "R") really created the world, because God did not do it anymore, Reason did it.

Reason created the world. Yea that makes total sense.

God must have made the world but not for any particular reason, therefore Chance created the world.

Since Chance created the world then there is no reason to worship God, you see, because at first God created the world, but then we figured out that Chance actually created the world.

Good job 180 :up:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :snicker:

↪chiknsld Go waste someone else's time. — 180 Proof

me(Me) wasted your (time) but time is divine, therefore I am not worthy of (worship) (DIVINE).
(Divine, worship) time)).

Sorry that probably makes more sense to you right? (right) RIGHT?) :rofl:

I read that U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that philosophy is one of the least proportionate fields in the humanities with respect to gender, with some reports saying philosophy is more overwhelmingly male than mathematics.

Is this due to sexism, socialization, natural interests; or what do you think?

A philosophy book I bought at a local used bookstore as a coffee table piece made the argument that
There is also some suspicion of the male love of precise logic and awe-inspiringly grand concepts, which sweep aside the subtleties of ordinary life
and
Two thousand years of thoroughly masculine philosophy have left their mark on the subject...and explicitly feminist philosophers are now engaged in deconstructing those ideas and theories
and then ends with the (IMO Poorly written sentence)
There seems to be no reason why philosophy in the near future should not become gender-blind — Paulm12

Shhhh, gender differences don't exist. :snicker: Bro do you ever try to talk to women about philosophy? Just be happy that at least there are "people" interested in philosophy.

You got better? Well then smoke 'em if you 'em ... — 180 Proof

Let's just start with that kindergarten logic you're using...

(A) g/G "created" everything for a reason; therefore, Reason is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ... — 180 Proof

Literally just a begging of the question...and are you making "reason" objective? Like so many flaws with this I have no clue what to attack.

g/G "created" everything arbitraily, without reason... — 180 Proof

More begging the question...why do you keep applying "reason" to God and then making a 2-bit logical conclusion off of that very assumption? You'd be better off saying that God exists for a reason and such reason supersedes any of his goal-driven actions lol. Your concept of God is not even ready for reasonable discourse.

...by chance; therefore, Chance (i.e. randomness à la vacuum fluctuation) is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ... — 180 Proof

Okay this is a bit more reasonable because now at least you are talking about concepts...

"Divine" :snicker: This is bad on so many levels, just gonna skip that part.

So you don't wanna worship chance? Why not? :rofl:

So reason and chance made the world, both are divine and God is not worthy of worship...so bad :rofl:

Btw this is YOUR logic! I quoted it so you would never forget it, but since you wanted a better response...

What is the takeaway of this article? How can subjective things be measured? — TiredThinker

It's their job to try and discover a material consciousness, hopefully they do because that would be super cool, alas, it will probably never happen however.

Just a thought:

Either

(A) g/G "created" everything for a reason; therefore, Reason is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ...

or

(B) g/G "created" everything arbitraily, without reason, by chance; therefore, Chance (i.e. randomness à la vacuum fluctuation) is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ...

So what does this "prove"? Nothing but the obvious – (whether or not it exists) g/G is superfluous and does not itself explain or justify anything. — 180 Proof

:snicker: Is that the best you got buddy?

The point of comparison would only apply to the topics these two disciplines have in common. For example, philosophy also discusses what logic is, there is also a philosophy of the mind, etc. My question is, for those topics, which method do you think would work best? (by best, I mean having a greater potential of being useful in other disciplines, or in the society). — Skalidris

Scientific information is important but at a certain point that information ends and you will be required to philosophize without experimentation. If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science.

Do we reach absolute truths, or are all truths we say just circumstantial? — Cidat

There are absolute truths that help to explain existence itself. Without these truths we would not be here.

First, by wise, I mean the ability to have a vision of the world that’s the least contradictive as possible, based on the current knowledge of the world we have. Someone who could “answer” philosophical questions by fitting the problematics into their theories/concepts and that, all these together would logically make sense. And of course, they would also include uncertainties and questions unanswered because of the lack of knowledge, which could also be part of their theories. So, the wisest person would have the most knowledge with the least contradiction.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic).

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom?

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

The smartest philosophers are probably in academia because usually very smart people want to get an education. But if you did want to find a very smart philosopher not in academia, it would be difficult because he would probably keep most of his work a secret, not because he didn't want to share it but rather because he knows that no one would understand the information.

The interaction problem is a problem for Dualism, the view of the mind that humans have two parts, an immaterial mind and the body — Solaris

If you disagree, then point us to the material of the mind? :snicker:

That's not the reason gods created the raw material for the universe. I was recently informed that the eternal divine heaven became victim of an existential void and paralyzing boredom. The only thing left to to was to collectively engage in a research program to develop the universe's fundamental ingredients and in deed create it. The life evolving after the act serves to fill the void, that so unfortunate fate.

:snicker: Hope they discover something interesting!

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

What are you talking about, every woman alive today was made from a man. That's the most fallacious argument I have ever seen.

Not to mention you say that evolution only cares about procreation whilst making value statements on behalf of "evolution" (women are more important)...

So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And then go on to tell others that value statements cannot be made about evolution...

Evolution itself is not intelligent — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

So are you picking and choosing what value statements get created about evolution? lol

"they somehow have to have", lmaooo totally half-assed attempt here buddy...if evolution understands that women are more important than men (because they take 9 months to reproduce whereas men do not), then I would say that is highly "intelligent".

In any case the term Artificial for me is a bit of a strange notion as humans are organic and natural and one would ask where exactly something stops being a “natural progression” and becomes “artificial”. Artificial things come from the natural world and natural things also come from the natural world — Benj96

I think you're pettifogging a bit here, I was just saying that money is not real. Whereas you speak about God, to whom many people do think is quite real. Belief in God is belief in something real. Belief in money is merely a social contract (just my opinion at least).

Furthermore I agree money is “artificial” but if a god existed based on exchange of belief by us - sentient beings what’s the difference- would a god that depends on our faith for potency/ existence not be artificial also? — Benj96

I think that God exists for some and not for others. And before humans came along, God still existed. But let's say that God needs us in order to exist, for instance, the greater our belief then the greater God's power, then you would still have a problem comparing such an idea to money. As I already said, money cannot categorize itself, whereas God can.

Interesting however could a concept of a god not be conducive to a productive or cooperative society and has it not done so before historically- leaving out all the war and bloodshed done in the name of religions. In that people felt their bad behaviour would be punished in some form - be it by a deity or karma or whatever regardless of whether societal justice systems noticed and reprimanded them or not. — Benj96

I think that God is conducive to society but some people would disagree. It depends on if you think this gigantic world is some sort of artificial anomaly or if you see this world as a miracle from a transcendent source of power. Some people have a desperate need to believe in up and down black and white logic and get all their information from other people who do their thinking for them (such as scientists), because they are too scared to do their own thinking.

But its possible some of these people have some sort of integrity and actually become one of the scientists whom they depend on for all of their knowledge. I am willing to bet there is at least one scientist who realized that he was pathetically dependent upon other people to do his thinking for him and so he actually became a scientist in order to see if his beliefs stayed the same or not.

I cannot have respect for someone who lets others do his thinking for him and I probably will not become a scientist anytime soon, but I largely do my own thinking, and do not base my worldview on what other people say. I do not believe in giving any strange person authority and I decide if I believe something with my own mind.

For instance, I have the vaccine after spending an entire year saying that I would not get it. Then after all the covid stuff died down, I went to Walgreens and got the vaccine and my entire family who does not have the vaccine were bewildered. I simply do not base what I believe on what others say, I refuse to have my worldview thought by someone else. If I see that a bunch of scientists do not believe in God, I could literally care less. And If I had any respect for those people I probably would stop believing in God too. But again, I do not look up to authority. I am not a weasel.

And as far as God needing people to believe in him, this seems contradictory to what you say here...

There was and still is for many a moralistic imperative to not “piss off” some all knowing entity or in a non anthropomorphised way not to tip the fine balance, the equilibrium that nature demands of it’s systems.

So God created people so that they could believe in him so that he could exist? Or there is a balance that is needed in nature that has to do with said God? Whom also coincidentally needs us in order to exist? And this is similar to money? Give me a break buddy, try a little harder. :)

But let’s apply this to the notion of “god” Because of the importance of “faith” or “belief” in religious texts. Suppose hypothetically that god only exists if everyone believes unanimously by some defined doctrine describing such a god. And in the same sense god does not exist if everyone rejects a posited doctrine. — Benj96

I always feel that God exists to believers and does not exist to atheists. I do not hold that God must exist to atheists, for example.

Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value? — Benj96

I saw where you mentioned money, but I would say that belief in God is categorized by God whereas money cannot categorize itself and it is merely an artificial belief that only holds value insofar as it is productive and conducive to society. It just so happens that money works for society and to me this has little to do with belief and more to do with social contracts.

Yea, why not? If that's what God wants to do.

A shame you write insults. Not responding. — Jackson

That's an accusation. :rage:

Aristotle's ethics are not teleological. Sometimes called virtue ethics, it is just about better ways to act. It is empirical or observable in that we look at other people who seem happy and model their behaviors.
Greedy, petty, people like Trump are not happy and power mad. — Jackson

:snicker: Have you ever taken a basic ethics course? Lol.

Aristotle is commonly considered the inventor of teleology, although the precise term originated in the eighteenth century. But if teleology means the use of ends or goals in natural science, then Aristotle was rather a critical innovator of teleological explanation.

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199285306.001.0001/acprof-9780199285303

:snicker: lol

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

What's this little idea you always seem to be alluding to about points Agent Smith?

:lol:

Which ethical theory do you find most plausible, even if you are not completely convinced of it? — spirit-salamander

I actually completely disagree with Kant's deontological ethics and take the completely opposite side with Aristotle's teleological ethics.

I think that duty and intention no matter how good one may think their intention is, can result in terrible consequences for someone else (victim) and therefore I think that what is important is that the consequences of any action be good. If you always make sure that the consequences of your actions are good I do not think it matters if you are a bad person on the inside.

I do not care if you are a good person on the inside and your intentions are good but you cause negative consequences for others. To me, I would feel like a bad person because the consequences were negative.

For instance, I myself might not be a great person on the inside, but If I keep it to myself and instead make sure that my actions help others, then that is all that matters.

And I just really can't stand people that always have the best intentions but constantly cause problems for other people unintentionally. In other words, I do not like when people are clumsy, get into accidents, are not careful with their words, etc. Consequences are all that matter to me, not intention or internal duty.

Aristotle's virtues modify behavior directly, whereas Kant's virtues modify behavior indirectly by creating moral feeling which, in turn, represses the temptations of the natural inclination.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/MPsy/MPsyCox.htm

Not a Cartesian Dualist. Rather something like a property dualist, or Aristotelian form-matter dualism. Here is what Prauss thinks about this, though the word subject could be swapped with the dynamic mental (Stream of Consciousness): — spirit-salamander

Nice :)

"The subject is an entity and yet not a “res . . . ,” because it is the complete dynamism of that substrate-less absolute change. “. . . extensa” is the entity of the subject only as “. . . temporaliter extensa,” which Descartes did not take into consideration. “. . . extensa” to him means directly “. . . spatialiter extensa,” and with that immediately “res spatialiter extensa” as well. And precisely in that is the reason that a “res . . .” cannot be comprehensible as “. . . cogitans.” However, as one that is only “. . . temporaliter extensa,” an entity can perhaps still be comprehensible as a “. . . temporaliter extensa cogitans” as well. As such, this entity could be related to a “res spatialiter extensa” as the body of a subject in a way in which, according to Aristotle, the anima behaves toward the corpus: as forma corporis. As an entity of time it would then be precisely the form of motion of a body. For as the subject in a form of one, namely, its own body, the subject would be exactly that which through itself as that completely special type of constant motion would place its body in motion or at rest: already as a cognizing, and thus first and truly as an acting subject." (Gerold Prauss - The Problem of Time in Kant)

Basically, Prauss is a transcendental idealist in the sense of Kant. But that would lead too far here. — spirit-salamander

:sparkle: :sparkle: :clap:

According to Prauss, you are obligated despite laziness. You must not make your laziness as a driving force the goal of your intention. To live out laziness would indeed be evil according to this ethical system. I think here's where you're disagreeing. Prauss stands on the shoulders of Kant with his ethics of duty (with the corresponding connection and hierarchy of feeling and will). And you have to find this ethics halfway convincing. — spirit-salamander

Hmmm, and what is the weight of evil acts? Is there a punishment for evil and a reward for good? Where does evil come from? What makes something evil or "good" or "bad"? What if you think that life is "bad"? What makes life "good"?

Evil = Not doing in this case

Evil = Not Feeling to do

It is only about the actions and deeds or inaction and neglect: Not about feelings. — spirit-salamander

k, gotcha

Why? Because the person is an end in itself. You intrinsically want to do justice to ends in themselves. — spirit-salamander

Ah, you are saying that kinship or commonality creates an "ought". It's teamwork. Very interesting. :)

there is no morality possible between persons in need, since they have nothing to offer — spirit-salamander

Okay but all suffering is not equal. Some people think they are always in pain or suffering and their life is considerably better than other people who are suffering terribly but make sure to try and be happy and make the best out of life. How can you truly determine who is suffering more than you are? Unless they are about to lose a limb or something drastic, considering two healthy normal people, it would be impossible to tell who is suffering more.

The main reason here is that you can never tell how much someone is sacrificing to live the life they live. Someone with incredible potential will have to tremendously sacrifice to live a menial life. They will be constantly sacrificing every waking minute and yet you expect that person to decide that other people are suffering more than he is somehow? Again, taking out the drastic measures such as someone dying of pain. But even then, hehe just kidding. :)

An ethics that is universal. Self-knowledge is the highest thing a living being can be capable of, and this ability makes ethics and morality possible. — spirit-salamander

Hmm, maybe for humans but if there are other lifeforms they could achieve something higher than self-knowledge. Ahh, you are saying that because I can know that I am suffering then I can recognize suffering in others therefore making me reciprocally responsible to help others. As if to say, if I do not like the suffering in me then I should not want others to suffer as well. That's an ethics about love! :heart:

Prauss definitely has the claim to support every step in his ethics argumentatively, i.e. to really derive everything instead of just giving mere assertions and posits. Kant, for example, simply postulates a moral ought. Prauss explains how such an ought comes about.

I admit that one can have reservations about Prauss. It is best to compare him with another ethical system, with any one, and so you may see his strength. In the end, I agree with Schopenhauer: "Preaching morals is easy, grounding morals hard". Personally, I still find Prauss' grounding the most successful — spirit-salamander

How did you find out about him? I see most of his books are in German?

That is a good question. To answer it, I would have to read Prauss in more detail. As far as I know, Prauss says that one cannot derive an ought from a natural (static somatic or physical etc.) being. But one can do this from a certain mental being. Nature is, for Prauss the empirical, and the mental would be something like a non-empirical apriori given dynamic "culture". — spirit-salamander

This is superb reasoning! An "ought" may not come from the body. So Prauss is a dualist. Very interesting.

Prauss wants to say, I think, that morality is not anchored in unconscious nature, but is a (potential) positing of reflective consciousness, which nevertheless has an objective validity... — spirit-salamander

:clap: :cheer:

...because the moral scheme: only as means, both as means and as end, and only as end is logical and unambiguous. — spirit-salamander

Now this is really starting to make more sense. My initial point was that he cannot prove any of this, but now I see that he would not care about proving this in the first place. He rationalizes a dualistic perspective and assigns "duty" or an "ought" as a mental construct separate from body.

Now what I would like a better understanding of, is how do you treat other people as an end without sacrificing for basically your entire life? You mentioned earlier that his ethics would require pretty much just that -a lifelong sacrificing. And so, again, if one does not care or for lack of a better word, one is just "lazy" and does not feel like devoting such effort to the cause, does that make the person "evil"?

And how are we defining evil here? Simply that they do not feel like doing something? Surely being lazy cannot make you evil right? Or simply not caring? What if a person wants to commit suicide? Are they evil for not staying alive to help someone else? What if they are on their deathbed? Should they be setting their priorities to try to live and help others at the same time? A 50/50 notion of trying to survive whilst trying to serve others? Is any form of selfishness evil?

But perhaps these are all mere semantic stipulations and one could therefore speak of a kind of natural law, though Prauss would probably prefer the term mental law. — spirit-salamander

Yes, and I think you are right. That makes a lot of sense.

But what about a mental or psychological "injury" that weighs heavily on one, such as a nervous breakdown, trauma, or depression? — spirit-salamander

Exactly! How do we create a barometer for identifying someone in need of help? Every single person on this planet needs help. No one is a true winner. We are all failures.

Nevertheless, of all ethical theories I know so far, Prauss's is, in my opinion, the best out there, because, above all, the normativity necessary for ethics is derived most plausibly. — spirit-salamander

Okay, but what are you searching for? An ethics that is universal or an ethics that only applies to humans? Or I should say, do you think that a human ethics can be universal?

↪chiknsld Motion is the fundamental process. A baby moves to a teenager--continuous movement. There is no past or future, only the moment. Mozart is recorded in our memory and elsewhere. — val p miranda

Wrong. Space is part of existence. Stop acting like existence is only comprised of matter.

To appreciate Prauss' idea, one must acknowledge the Kantian idea of man as an end in himself. — spirit-salamander

That's very interesting, but I do believe that I always treat myself as a means, trying to gain small goals all of the time. :)

Would you admit that Prauss is at least a scintilla more convincing here than Kant? Or what do you think of Kant's idea of the universalizability of maxims as a moral criterion? — spirit-salamander

Unfortunately I do not think that a categorical imperative exists, at least not in an objective sense. For me, an objective morality would be the same as "natural law". What do you think makes it different from "natural law"?

I think the idea is that you have to help to the best of your ability. There is a personal assessment where self-deception must be avoided. So to the best of our knowledge and conscience. And a phone call may be the only sensible thing to do. — spirit-salamander

Ah, I see. I think this is quite reasonable.

For Prauss, it's all about the very rough and simple basic idea for the time being. You have, I think, complicated the matter, and so I don't know exactly how to respond to that. But anyway, thanks for your participation in the discussion. It seems that only a few people are interested in it so far. — spirit-salamander

I find it interesting. Thank you for starting the discussion. :)

To avoid misunderstanding. I mean this, that one literally dies for the other, as in martyrdom. Because in a certain sense, one certainly has to sacrifice something of oneself with Prauss. Namely, your own lifetime. — spirit-salamander

How do you decide what is worth the sacrificing of your own life for? Certainly you would first have to care about other people. If you did not care about other people then how could a categorical imperative apply to you? Would that just make the person evil?

I think you're basically right here. I knew a wizard's daughter, Kika (she was the daughter of Ti-Ta-wizard whose objective in life was to change strawberries into camels, but never succeeded), who could stop time. If she clapped her hands, everything stood still. — Haglund

Indeed. :)

If you choose to act out your boredom when someone is in need, and therefore do not help, then that is an immoral, evil act or omission. — spirit-salamander

So if you help a billion women for a billion days in a row you are not allowed to eventually get tired and simply not care. I suppose that's an interesting ethics that you have. I would argue that eventually just by understanding basic human psychology that eventually you will become completely indifferent and with an infinite tolerance. In other words, the sight of suffering will no longer be a stimulus.

You also taking no consideration to the feelings of that person and the history of them helping a billion people for a billion days in a row is extremely insensitive and judgmental. But if you want to have a black and white ethics then you can't have all these conveniences that you constantly espouse. I will label it with a (C) for convenience when they come up.

The imperative I am talking about would "demand" that the money go back to the bank and that the children be saved from starvation. Both. — spirit-salamander

"Both" is a convenience. The dilemma automatically assumes that you only have two options. That is the very premise that makes it a dilemma and you cannot change the premises or else it becomes C.

The question is, of course, legitimate as to who is now called upon to help the children. — spirit-salamander

Convenience.

You cannot deny that imperatives exist in general. If I ask you to go for a walk or whatnot, I have created an imperative addressed to you. You won't deny that, right? — spirit-salamander

Hmm, no I honestly do not see how this is the same as a moral obligation existing objectively. Such as natural law. Maybe you are saying that it exists by way of rationalization? This would be subjective.

Ahh, that's why you use all these conveniences, you are rationalizing a subjective moral imperative. I always looked at the word "categorical" in Kant's categorical imperative as implying an objective deontology; deontos meaning "duty".

I mean if it's not objective then of course you can rationalize anything that is subjective, hehe. :)
And I have no issues with that, which is what I said from the beginning, it's merely a rationalization. I think that's at the heart of the issue here, but I will continue just to complete the response.

This is not yet a challenge to Prauss' ethics. After all, it's enough if I always call the ambulance or emergency services, and that's no big deal. — spirit-salamander

Convenience? I suppose that if there is going to be a woman there everyday then you could just let the hospital know ahead of time. Or at the very least the news will find out about this strange paradox of women needing help everyday in this particular region of town, on the side of the road. :)

I thought the premise was that no one else could help, you have to help her. Basic stuff. Get down on your knees, pick her up. Bring her to the hospital or wait for an ambulance with her. Show empathy towards her, console her, etc. The basic stuff. Not just make a phone call and go about your day. Again, you might just want to let the hospital know this will be occurring on a daily basis.

If this is just a one shot scenario, then it is not enough to establish a categorical imperative (that's just basic statistics). Which is why you need to do this over a period of time, thus time would be the independent variable (IV).

Why should I be obliged to leave my house the next day? Why should I assume that another person needs help? There are no obligations. I do not see the objection. There would have to be, as I already mentioned, a reason that again and again people are in need. I would have to counteract this reason, as good as I can and as far as the possibilities are given to me therefore. — spirit-salamander

Right, you're using conveniences to avoid the statistical test. This is all subjective rationalization for you. I got it. :)

This is not correct. I have to know that someone is in need, and that was the case the first day I left the house. But why should I assume that on the 21st day I have to leave the house to help. That people were in need was a fortuitous and random circumstance. — spirit-salamander

That's correct, but the point of the statistical test is to eliminate randomness, so that (in this case) a categorical imperative can be established.

You're absolutely right, you're trying to take a random occurrence and establish an objective rule with zero testing.

I don't know what you mean exactly by rationalization. — spirit-salamander

It means that your premises are subjective. Wherever you choose you will subjectively input conveniences, thus moving the goalposts. Rationalization is never-ending. Which again, is perfectly fine just don't expect to ever have the work published in an soft sciences journal.

This was really my error, because I didn't realize just how scientifically I think, and you can blame academia for that. I have nothing against rationalization. But it is the reason why things like capital punishment and abortion will never be resolved. Natural law would settle such disputes, but natural law does not exist.

The ethics I start from do not take into account feelings such as caring and boredom. It is only a matter of bare duties. — spirit-salamander

Actually you do. Once you bring labels such as "evil" into the mix then you are addressing such things as "intention" and "self-autonomy". Unless that is, you think for instance, an advanced robot smarter than human beings, is capable of being "evil" (moral agency does not belong only to humans). If that's the case then I would view that as another convenience, haha! Sorry! :)

If any entity can be a moral agent then this entire scenario falls to shambles. But that's just my rationalization! :) Objectivity is at this point, out the window.

I suppose that at least in this scenario, my views are that moral agency, human moral culpability, is thus dependent upon human rationalization. A robot could theoretically behave morally according to human morality, but I suppose the robot would have "robot" culpability? Rather than human, culpability. In other words, I view "human" essence as preceding our "categorical" objective imperative.

And if it is certain that there are always people in need, then they cannot demand that I sacrifice myself for them like a saint and lay down my life for them. Because holiness goes beyond what Prauss understands by morality. — spirit-salamander

Exactly! That has been my entire point! But what you do not realize is this applies to the very first "fortuitous and random circumstance". :)

Again, this is all just rationalization at this point. But I would argue that anything approaching an infinite series of "fortuitous and random circumstances" proves that there is no moral obligation, hence, no categorical imperative. Oh yea, and moral dilemmas, hehe.

Sure, I think it sucks that there are rotten people out there, but we can't prove that they are rotten. We can only rationalize that they are rotten.

If you choose to act out your boredom when someone is in need, and therefore do not help, then that is an immoral, evil act or omission. — spirit-salamander

I think there are other cases where it is more obvious that someone is "evil". If you are desensitized to people in need of help I do not think that makes you evil. Not caring does not make you evil, in my opinion.

This is an inaccuracy on my part. For Prauss, feelings such as empathy play only a subordinate role in ethics: — spirit-salamander

I don't know, I'd have to talk to him, hehe. :)

Dont think I said that. The formation of a black hole is rather tricky. The formation of the event horizon, I mean. Once it's there, does it grow? How can a small hole, seen from the outside, evolve into a massive one? This question has implications for the supermassive black holes in galaxies. Primordial bh are lately seen to be dark matter. An idea already proposed by Hawking way back. I think he was right. — Haglund

Ah, I see, very interesting. :)

↪chiknsld Please define time — val p miranda

Time is movement.

But of course that would go against Physics which coincides with your view that it is a measurement.

The nice thing about them is that they cant form a singularity, like in a black hole. They all fit in one another, like you can squeeze tiny circles on a tiny long tube or cylinder. If gravity pulls them together no point can form. — Haglund

Oh wow, you're saying that a blackhole would cause an infinite chain-reaction of more blackholes were it not for these properties of the particle?