Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly
— god must be atheist

Oh I responded so ive somehow proved your point that everyone ignores you? I can see that I'm wasting my time arguing with you when your logic seems to be breaking so often. — Mark Dennis

You did not break my logic, and it is not broken. My points get ignored when there is no logically reasonable defence against the logic involved in my posts.

And no, you did not respond. You INADVERTENTLY responded, not directly. You are losing the grip on what actually happens here, man.

And my point was not that I get ignored. My prediction was that that particular post will be ignored. Get a grip, man, get a grip.

So unless what you, I and everyone else is engaged in right now isn't study or inquiry then I really do not know what we are doing right now — Mark Dennis

Precise statement, I concur with this. I don't think I am studying or enquiring what ethics is. I am into disproving that it is possible to objectively study ethics. This is different from STUDYING ethics. Much like it is possible to talk about the Hungarian language using nothing but English terms.

I do claim that moral philosophers who have earned Ph.D.-s in philosophy overcomplicate things, because earlier I showed that morality and ethics are fields that have no scientific backing, and the claims made are all individualistic; no consensus exists on what morality is, and the principle of morality is absolutely absent from human sphere of thought.

556
↪Andrew4Handel
Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality.
— Andrew4Handel

Except it isn't far removed; just expanded upon. Morality is the study of individual value preferences and ethics is the study of external rule systems and their value structures. — Mark Dennis

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study — Mark Dennis

Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly:

Morality is problematic further because people overcomplicate the concepts involved, in order to justify their pet theories about morality. — god must be atheist

The first problems I can see with Pragmatic ethics and Moral ecology is that they make unprovable assertions such as that moral behaviour exists and it evolves and involves progress. — Andrew4Handel

I concur. Progress itself is a term laden with judgment. It is arbitrarily giving some value to change. It is true, and I accept, that progress is possible, but only if you specify the context, and the relativity of its occurrence.

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study if you want it even more simply than I have laid out; you are practicing morality as a field of study by asking the question "What is morality". I can't make this any simpler. — Mark Dennis

Generally, it is accepted that you can't define a concept or a word by using the word itself to describe its meaning.

Morality is not defined, and is not definable. It is like "love" or "life" or "god"; the concept is immediately understood by all humans, but the concept escapes definition.

Therefore there may be a way to study morality, much like there are ways to study life or god or love; but there is no authority on moral philosophy. Studying life or love has biology and psychology as sciences to back up claims. Religion and morals / ethics / morality have no scientific back-up as their practices and theories lead to self-contradictory claims (as per, for the instance of morality / ethics, the Baby Hitler example that precedes this post.)

↪god must be atheist
I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize.
— god must be atheist

No you shouldnt have thought that because that would be wrong. There is a difference which I have already described. Ethics and morals are not synonomous with each other but are both studies of the same thing which is value. This is 101 level stuff here you can't really make this stuff up, it is free knowledge you can easily find Here and Here. — Mark Dennis

I checked your references. Some say potato, some say potahto.

Please consider:

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[8]

You know that the peer review process of publishing is exactly the author of a paper having to defend it against criticism from other people, right? It is a limited board of highly-educated other people (hence "peers"), not the general public, but still it's not a matter of just writing something and then walking away and letting others defend it for you. You have to defend it yourself, to at least the gatekeepers of the journal you want to publish in, otherwise you don't get published. — Pfhorrest

My understanding is that for every philosopher whom we study at great detail and pain in educational institutions, there is a great number (please don't force me to say what that number is; I haven't counted them) of philosophers who were ignored in their lifetime, and by posterity, because they did not pass the peer review if I may call it that. Such philosophers may have been Janoska Laszlo, Graf Otto von Urbanek, Denise Harris, Phyrne Parker, Selwyn Firth and many others. Not to mention Laszlo Gyura, Janos von Hunyadi, and Socrates -- Kostas Socrates, not the other one.

The benefit of a forum for a philosopher is the immediate criticism. One can gauge from what angles his own ideas can be attacked and work to strengthen those areas of his philosophy and principles, or even abandon them altogether. I suspect that serious philosophers would enjoy such an opportunity no matter the reputation he is given. — NOS4A2

A lot of my philosophy, or arguments, if not all, are ignored. When people face an argument they can't face, but they are still in love with their pet theories, then they ignore dissent.

Socrates, Aristotle, Voltarschmagurchakofski, Sartre, and literally every major philosopher we studied, liked or hated, would get completely ignored, and we'd still gather around and ponder such imponderables as the hard problem of morality, the hard problem of existence, the hard problem of determinism, the hard problem of the self, and the hard problem of the hard problem.

However ethics is the study of external values whilst morality is the study of internal principles. — Mark Dennis

I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize.

Good is an appraisal of value. — Mark Dennis

Aha. So insurance appraisers and home valuators, as well as antique clock experts are the most ethical people of all people. According to the quoted definition.

Good is an appraisal of value. — Mark Dennis

Aha. "This table is worth five dollars." I've done my good deed for the day, so I can go out and spend money recklessly on tables with no regard to their inherent value.

Morality is problematic because it depends on creating good, and good can't be defined, only conceptualized. Morality is problematic furthermore because one man's good is another man's bad. Morality is furthermore problematic because just doing good is not moral, just doing good is not more than doing good. Morality is problematic further because people overcomplicate the concepts involved, in order to justify their pet theories about morality. Morality is further problematic because one man's morality is another man's immorality. Morality is furthermore problematic because people invoke "morality" instead of morality, when they want to justify their actions or a set of actions they want to support. Morality is further complicated and problematic because there is not one underlying basic and unchallengeable moral principle that one can invoke and truly and unabashedly say "This is the bread and butter of morality".

If you need more causes why morality is problematic, please put a dagger through my throat before I left this post.

I FULLY expect all moral experts who are patting each other and themselves on the shoulder to completely ignore this post.

What about those amazing individuals we all know who seem to not only want but need to put other peoples wants ahead of their own? — Mark Dennis

Did you want to say this? That (some) people put their wants before other people's wants in order to satisfy other people's wants?

I know you said they put other people's wants ahead their own, but since this is their most importantly wanted thing, their wants to satisfy other people's wants takes precedence over wanting to want their own wants satisfied before other people's.

I want you to please peel this layer of wants and make a hierarchy of wants in a non-recursive not self-contradictory order.

I proposed to ask a question which presents a challenge to Dr. Prof. Pigliucci.

My proposal was based solely on his presentation of what Stoicism is. No outside theory or consideration was pulled in. My question concerned the very idea of schools of Stoicism by Stoics being a self-defeating institution.

Nobody else has posted a question so far, unless of course I missed reading that post.

In order that you guys and gals don't have to seek for my earlier post, I repeat my question, heavily paraphrased, here:

1. Stoicism relies on 1.1. Human nature, 1.2. and on the two pillars of Stoicisim, which are 1.2.1. Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom and 1.2.2. being satisfied to control those things which one can, and not be affected by those things which one can't control.

2. Human nature, as such, is static with each human, as it is "the nature" not "the nurtured qualities" of humans.

3. Human nature is diverse, and do not necessarily comprise the values, or actions, or considerations, of justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom for any given individual. Human nature is diverse, and do not necessarily comprise the attitude of being satisfied with controlling those things which one can, and not being affected by those things which one can't control.

4. Teaching Stoicism in Stoic schools is to teach those non-Stoics to live how to live as Stoics. If someone is already is a Stoic, he or she needs no school to learn how to live like a Stoic.

5. Teaching Stoicism to non-Stoics presumes they are either lacking in any one of the following: Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom, and/or lacking in attitude of being satisfied with controlling those things which one can, and not being affected by controlling those which one can't control. Let's call the teaching of these as "teaching the Stoic goals".

6. But teaching Stoic goals to those who already don't have Stoic goals requires that their nature be changed.

7. But nature can't be changed, as nature is not an acquired quality, but an innate, inborn quality. Otherwise it would be called "nurtured human qualities" and it would not be called "human nature".

8. Therefore the Stoic schools are a complete waste of time, as their goal is futile; they can't change those who are not Stoics by nature, and there is no reason to teach Stoicism to those who are Stoics.

9. Therefore my question to Dr. Prof. Pigliucci is this: "Dear Dr. Proferssor Pigliucci, in light of the contents of the previous 8 points, how do you reconcile the drive to teach Stoicism when it can't be taught at all to human beings?"

I respectfully submit my question to ask Dr. Prof. Massimo Pigliucci. I hope it's of reasonable length and will be found worthwhile to ask. This question may answer why Epictetus got punched in the nose. I figure the puncher did not fancy getting the control of his motivation away from himself.

"Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom. To thrive for applying these in life is the goal of Stoicism. What if someone is not naturally motivated to thrive for these? Then to make them thrive for these is to control their motivation by altering it; which is equivalent to taking the control of their motivation away from them. This is not to be done by Stoic philosophy, yet Stoic philosophy needs to do the very thing in Stoic schools.

My conclusion is that Stoic philosophy suits beautifully those who are by nature Stoic, but it is not compatible with Stoic philosophy to make those who are not Stoics into Stoics.

Dr. Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, I ask you: how do you reconcile Stoicism, which holds that motivation is in one's own complete control, with Stoic schools, which try to alter the motivation of people? If you say that control can be changed by a person other than the self, without passing ownership of control, by the influence of one person over the other, then we have problems with how we use the word "control"."

Thanks, I am stupid.

What time is love? — Chris Hughes

Apparently all males have an erection at 4 in the morning. Ruth told me that. They are asleep at the time, so it's all wasted. I don't know if this applies to men with ED.

Whoa... @DingoJones makes in the OP as if he had started the sentient computer thread. And now we have @Zelebg take ownership of the topic.

Is it possible to have two monikers and two different identities to be possessed by the same one person on this site?

Or maybe I am missing some big and important information... like that @Zelebg has contributed to the by now deleted thread big time, although it had been started by @DingoJones. Or the other way around.

At any rate, I don't know what the upset is about. The thread is alive and well and is generating responses as we speak on philosophy now. The site.

I think maybe if you would have linked it to artificial intelligence, which is an emerging topic, you would have had more success. You know, robots, driverless cars/trucks/commerce... . — 3017amen

Or connect it to love... or Love. What is Love? How does it differ from a computer keyboard? THAT's what would have made an interesting question.

My observation is that the only threads that may not generate discussion are those with a very narrow focus, such as concerning a specific philosophical work - and those can actually be high-quality posts. — SophistiCat

Is there a metric for quality of posts? I think not.

So Banno, claims "I like vanilla" is unjustifiable. But that doesn't prevent me from asking for justification. Prove to me that you like vanilla by showing me when you have eaten it, and describing to me what it is about it which you like. It is false that the claim "I like vanilla" is unjustifiable, and false to claim that it ought not be doubted because it is unjustifiable. If Banno insists that it is unjustifiable, this is just a ploy to avoid having to justify it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know if you're right, @Metaphysician Undercover. One can cite "there is no accounting for taste". Maybe taste is justifiable (by saying it's unavoidable); but our knowledge of how taste develops is scanty, it is only in the early theoretical stage. We justify the differntness in preference for ice cream taste with the same blanket justification that explains all differentness: the different mutations in DNA.

Beyond that, I would be really hard pressed to state if Banno ate the ice cream because he wanted to perform a just, moral, ethical and correct act. He ate it because he likes it, is my opinion, and I think justification of it may be available (by DNA analysis) but it certainly is a modern development in the history of justification theory.

Yet my unjustified predilection justifies my purchase — Banno

It explains your purchase, but it does not justify it. Explaining and justifying are not the same. To explain is to make something clear by providing further information. To justify is to demonstrate the correctness of something. If buying vanilla is considered to be a bad thing, unethical for some reason, then explaining that you buy it because you like it, does not justify buying it. — Metaphysician Undercover

1. Buying vanilla instead of Rocky Road is not a sin, or an unethical act.
2. It is the taste that is unexplained-- and hence, unjustified. To buy something to satisfy one's taste preference I see as justified, because it prevents the person's suffering. Minor suffering, such as one that would present, should the person buy chocolate flavoured ice cream instead of vanilla, when both are equally available with no moral restriction. So the avoidance of minor suffering is a cause that renders the selection justified.

"I like vanilla" does not demonstrate that it is correct for you to purchase vanilla — Metaphysician Undercover

I think correctness is a superfluous, unnecessary and irrelevant aspect of the preference that one has for an ice cream flavour. Your demand that it have some correctness, is meaningless, or unjustified.

@Metaphisical Undercover, it is true that it is not justified why @Banno likes vanilla ice cream. But it is also conceivable, that not everything needs justification.

There are situations where justification is needed, but is not possible to give. (I.e. cohesion of ideals and concepts as per the Bible.)
There are situations where justification is needed, and it is given. (I.e. evolutionary theory.)
There are situations where justification is not needed. (I.e. personal preference or taste.)

As I said, there is no such thing as "the world fits to these words", we make the words fit to the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

A religious person certainly has the world fit the words of the bible. Hence, bible scholars.

I met a bible scholar who said, when reading the line from his version of the bible, "there will be no women", that it does not mean there will be no women. He said his interpretation was derived from reading other parts of the bible.

How can you trust a narrative if it is misleading or irreconcilable with itself? By declaring that some parts of it did not mean what it actually said. Instead of admitting to a mistake, you make up an intricate set of reinterpretations, which necessitates the alteration of the normative meaning of the text. The problem with this approach is that others may take the same parts, and draw different conclusions with the same premises. Which they do, hence the sectarianism in Evangelist Christianity. The alternative, that is, to not take this approach, is impossible for a Christian, since normative understanding of the text leads to discrepancies, which the bible critics with the persuasion of secular atheism thrive on.

To make order between perceived reality, the bible's teaching, and the inner model of the world the person has, one has to fit one or the other of these three worlds to some of the extant worlds of these three. Surprisingly, the religious will not only fit the existing world to an inner model erroneously, but also in ways that are incompatible with all logic and reason. Yet they fight for the rightness of this fit.

A secular atheist will look at the world, and form an inner model of it; and from then on, will work with the model, that is, fit the world to his mental model, until a discrepancy alerts him that his model is not a good fit with the world.

You don't need to read Anscomb, Aristotle, Astute, or Augustine, (or Austin for short) to see that. (In alphabetical order of appearance.)

I mean, that can be your personal opinion as well. — Artemis

Except it is not. It is not a personal opinion of mine that you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see.

But of course you were making impossible and simultaneously illogical demands for proof. — Artemis

I asked for a single occurrence that would have served as a disproof of my claim. You failed to provide it.

If you KNEW what you were talking about, you would have easily provided it. Your ignorance is a proof to me that you yourself are not on sure footing that ethics exist. You may fight for it, but you don't know what you are fighting for.

Have you watched the video?

Where am I dismissing anything you arrogant fool? — Mark Dennis

Here, you haughty "better than thou":

By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. — Mark Dennis

I never made an impossible prejudgment, I asked a question of the community? — Mark Dennis

You're pushing your own blunder's onus on the community? Pfuy.

other comments you would know that I have actually made the distinction to others raising similar issues as yourself. — Mark Dennis

Other comments in this thread or elsewhere?

I never read all your other comments in this thread but the general ones, the ones directed at me, and some (but not all) of the comments directed at others.

I plead quilty to that charge.

Is it a site rule, or just your unnamed requirement by you which you spring on me now?

I you read the reply I made to you properly you would also read that I agree with the overall premise that pessimism or optimism alone and even outlook alone is insufficient. — Mark Dennis

I read that, in a paraphrase form, and I think not only are they insufficient, but superfluous and immaterial. That also includes insufficient, but insufficient can mean also that it is necessary. I say optimism and pessimism are neither sufficient, nor necessary in this instance.

My stance has shifted somewhat; We should absolutely feel pessimistic about the future, but should be optimistic in our ability to act now in the present to at least mitigate the damage climate change will invariably cause even if we figure out how to start reversing it within the next decade or two. — Mark Dennis

What about "doing everything in our power, to avoid catastrophy and at the same time not make an impossible pre-judgement whether our efforts will be fruitful and work, or not, by being pessimistic or optimistic."

Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.

By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. — Mark Dennis

No, no, no. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. You said, "any" and meaning all, "measuers are ridiculous." You show impoverished thought by equating "optimism or pessimism" to all.

Optimism and pessimism are not all.

You ignorantly dismiss all scientific, techological and social influences. Because they are also part of all, but you include them in "pessimism and optimism" as to you pessimism and optimism are all.

Then I’d say this is unjustified optimism — Mark Dennis

You made no distinction between unjustified optimism and general optimism. You are moving the goal posts now.OPTIMISM encompasses all optimism. That's what you have been talking about for two days.

If you want to single out "unjustified optimism" and drop all other optimism in this thread, say so now.

If it didn’t make sense then how did you understand what I meant? — Mark Dennis

I did not claim I understood what you meant. I said what makes sense and what does not make sense. I even gave all the qualifiers, and stated my opinion, independently of your nonsensical quote. Read my response, and you will see.

At this point I'm really not sure where the conversation is going, because from my vantage point (and I'm sorry if this isn't true from your vantage point) your answers/questions are becoming more and more silly. — Artemis

If that's how you feel, fine. I accept that. It is your personal opinion and I can't fight personal opinions on a philosophical vein.

I rest satisfied, however, that you were unable to show one single unique and pervasive trait or quality, which may be a combinaition of qualities, that applies to what you call ethics.

And I rest satisfied, that you can't define ethics, or its fundamental principles.

This is fine with me.

noun
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive rulingopinion:
principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
an adopted rule or method for application in action:

The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition that fits your own position, but that's not how I have employed it throughout this discussion.

And a principle is a feature of ethics. Calling something either of those terms is not mutually exclusive. — Artemis

The bolded ones are personal opinions.

The italicised ones are principles that are not defined, and have no definitons anywhere.

(You): "The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition"

(I, in response): NO! Not at all. I ask you for an INSTANCE, for a single quality, which is not ALL ENCOMPASSING, but PERVASIVE and UNIQUE to ethics. That's what I asked, and I asked that precisely because you DEFENDED that you can't make an all-encompassing definition.

Fine. Don't make a definition, I can accept that. But do state a quality or aspect of ethics that is unique to and pervasive over, all ehtical acitons.

After all, you claim that there is one, and if you don't claim it, you don't claim that ethics is pervasive and it is of unique considerations.

If there is no single such quality (which can be a combination of some other qualities), then:

1. Your idea of ethics does not exist, if no quality can be unique to all ethical acts.

2. Your idea of ethics does not exist, if no quality can be pervaseive to all ethical considerations.

Please see the video I begged you to see. It answers your dilemma perfectly, I think.

Does an apple only exist because it is different from everything else? And here I thought all fruit share various qualities and aspects. — Artemis

Ay-vey. You are going at it from an angle you ought not to.

Apples exist. But to show it to a person who denies the existence of apples, you have to show him an apple.

If you can't show him an apple, from his point of view he won't accept that apples exist.

------------

You have allegedly seen ethical deeds. Show me one. If you can't, I can not only say I am not convinced, but I can also say that you yourself have not seen one. It is not an apple; it can be described in philosophical terms. A person does not need to taste, smell, touch ethics like he would an apple to believe it exists.

So if you can't show a man an apple, he won't believe apples exist.

If you can't show an ethical action, then you show not only to me, but to yourself too, that you don't know what ethics is, and I claim it is so because it is your personal opinion only that ethics exist.

LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken. — Duane Meehan

That is simply not true. Many people don't rob banks because they know they will get caught and get severely punished by law. Many people would kill if they hadn't considered the legal consequences of their actions.

In fact, everyone who breaks a law is either in the illusion that they will get away with it, despite the knowledge of what the law says and the applicable punishment, or else in a state where breaking the law and getting punished for it is less torturous than not breaking the law.

Eg. a man will steal a loaf of bread if he needs to feed his starving children or himself.

Eg. a waiter will not declare all his tip income in his tax return.

BUT

not all people who want fame and fortune quickly and without working for it rob a bank

not all people who hate living in their marriage or who hate their boss will kill their spouses or bosses.

Because we are not capable of effecting change, nor do we desire it.

I think, if we stop categorically stating that “we can’t change” and instead ask ourselves “how do we change?” at least our mind is open to realistic possibilities and opportunities as opposed to disbelieving and missing them all. Once we have an answer to that question, we need to act on it and enter a conflict with ourselves for change. Sometimes you will fail, but you can always adapt both your tactics and strategy until you succeed.

People that say they can’t change are only correct until they stop believing that, at the point they stop believing that it becomes much more open for debate at the very least.

Chin up my friend. Outcomes might look grim but unless we are bound, chained and gagged we can always be optimistic in our ability to act in some way. Even speaking is an action, as is writing. — Mark Dennis

You can change people's behaviour to recycle paper and plastic bottles, and to even eat less, or to breathe and exhale carbon dioxide only 17 times every minute.

But you can't change them to not having children, to not nurturing their children, to not bringing their children to maturity.

I say that when somebody says "we are not capable of effecting change" he may only mean change that brings on sufficiently satisfactory results toward our aim.

If we keep on having children, then no change you make will make a materially satisfactory change.

Agreed. So if realism dictates after a dispassionate assessment; Optimism in the face of adversity. — Mark Dennis

Aside from the quote not making any grammatical / semantic sense, it is nonsense to think that optimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity, and it is a nonsense to think that pessimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity. They both, optimims and pessimims, play no role in dispassionate assessments. Remember, optimism and pessimism are both reflections of passions; dispassionate excludes the role of passion; therefore it excludes optimism and pessimism.