“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." — Elie Wiesel
So, there is no separation of "is" (fact) and "ought" (value), because awareness is both objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-based). Ethical fact and value constitute the two poles of empathy. — Galuchat
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory — Wayfarer
Sort of a painfully obvious question occurred to me that is more of a 'houskeeping' matter: do you think Darwinian ethics included discussing all branches of Philosophy? — 3017amen
It would be an objective measure, at the least. The problem is how we get from an objective descriptive fact to an objective normative rule.
Honestly the search for "objectivity" in moral philosophy is kinda weird. What would it even mean for some moral rule to be "objective"? — Echarmion
There's really only one kind of broad ethical theory that underpins all these questions, and it is utilitarianism. — Wayfarer
I think the ease with which a religious philosophy is categorised and cast off ought to be questioned here. — Wayfarer
I'd like to know what you mean by
If I could, with enough information, tell you which moral principles will tend to develop in which environments (and possibly with what justifications) does that undermine theories of moral relativism?
— JosephS
Does the ability to predict a set of moral values confer objectivity to morality?
I agree that predictability indicates a rationale. I don't follow the step to objectivity?
Also what exactly do you mean by environment? I consider morality to be social being and in my opinion that makes environment synonymous with society itself. If that's the case then doesn't it amount to saying different people/societies develop their own unique morals and that sounds like subjectivity rather than objectivity. Perhaps you have something else in mind when you use the word "environment". Please clarify.
Understanding objectivity as truths, fixed and unchanging, and usually determined through consensus of opinion, I think we'd be better off looking for common moral values that cut across all cultures and peoples. — TheMadFool
The article, "Darwinian Morality" is yet another exercise in infinite regress, as well as a complete misunderstanding as to what "reason" is. Seriously, the author utterly misunderstands formal knowledge. — alcontali
The ‘Ex Post Facto Clause’ states, “[n]o state shall . . . pass any . . . Ex Post Facto law.” 10 The clause only applies to criminal sanctions and “assures that citizens are on notice of criminal statutes so that they can conform their conduct to the requirements of existing laws.”11 As Blackstone stated, “it is impossible that the party could foresee that an action, innocent when it was done, should be afterwards converted to guilt by a subsequent law; he had therefore no cause to abstain from it; and all punishment for not abstaining must of consequence be cruel and unjust.”12 Thus, Ex Post Facto laws are unfair because they deprive individuals of notice of the wrongfulness of their behavior until after the fact. 13 The Clause ensures that legislative acts “give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed.”14 Such notice is vital in the context of criminal law where deprivations are greatest.15
The Supreme Court’s first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause was in Calder v. Bull. 16 Justice Chase described the specific categories encompassed within the clause as follows:
1st. Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.17
In the past, the Supreme Court has focused on two major elements when deciding if a statute violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. First, the Court is guided by the overall purpose of the clause. Second, the Court looks to specific tests and factors developed over time.
As noted in prior commentary, there were few Ex Post Facto cases in the first two hundred years after its enactment.18 However, when the Court did deal with Ex Post Facto Clause challenges, it identified two major purposes: “1) preventing ‘arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation’” and 2) “providing notice to the general public that their actions have been criminalized prior to prosecution.” 19
The goal of preventing vindictive legislation surfaced in the first case to consider the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Calder v. Bull, which contains the classic Supreme Court take on the clause, Justice Chase, speaking of the history of Ex Post Facto Laws, stated, “[w]ith very few exceptions, the advocates of [Ex Post Facto] laws were stimulated by ambition, or personal resentment, and vindictive malice. To prevent such, and similar, acts of violence and injustice, I believe, the Federal and State Legislatures, were prohibited from passing any bill of attainder; or any Ex Post Facto law.” 20 Additionally, in Miller v. Florida, 21 the Court stated that the first historical purpose of the Clause, as derived from Calder v. Bull22 was to “assure that federal and state legislatures were restrained from enacting arbitrary or vindictive legislation . . . [and to] preventing legislative abuses.” 23
The second historical purpose, also derived from Calder and other early sources, is to “‘give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed.’” 24 This is essentially a notice requirement.25 The two historical purposes of the Clause have traditionally been discussed in Court cases as a foundation or a framework for the specific Ex Post Facto analysis.26
Generally, the Ex Post Facto Clause prevents Federal or State legislatures from enacting any law “‘which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.’” 27 Therefore, the Court has stated that in order for a criminal law to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause it must “be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” 28
However, it is not always clear whether a law has criminal or civil implications. The court employs a two-part test, what has been called the “intent-effects test,” in order to make this determination.29 According to this test, the court “must initially ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings.”30 This inquiry determines whether the legislature either “expressly or impliedly” desired the statute to carry a criminal or a civil label.31 If a court determines that the legislature wanted the statute to carry a criminal label, then they need not proceed any further and all applicable Constitutional protections will apply. If, however, the court finds that the legislature intended the regulation to be civil, it must then determine whether “the statutory scheme [is] so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention” to deem it “civil.” 32
In order to make this determination, the court uses a multi-factor test, including:whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.33
Each factors is relevant to the inquiry, and as the Court noted they “may often point in differing directions.” 34 In the past, the Court advised that no one factor is dispositive and that this may not be an exclusive list of considerations.35 Additionally, a court will only look at the face of the law, not its enforcement, to see if the Ex Post Facto Clause is implicated. Finally, the Court stated that the legislature’s express or implied intent that the statute be civil in nature will be overcome only by the “clearest proof” that the statute is actually punitive.36 However, as subsequent sections will describe, as the courts have dropped the twin historical aims, the multi factor test is left without a framework or foundation. Additionally, the “clearest proof” has thus far been an impossible standard to meet in federal courts.
Can't the process of judging value be made objective?
So, while a subject values x or not the valuation itself is objective? It would be like someone using an instrument (objective) to do the measurement instead of without one (subjective) — TheMadFool
I haven't thought of dimension like that, but now that you mention it it's sure to be an interesting trip, i'll be checking the link before the day finishes. if you have any other interesting topic like this one feel free to mention me so i can catch up later! — Ariel D'Leon
So, how to address this admittedly relatively minor problem? — T Clark
Consent seems more or less like a red herring to me. The problem is more basic than that: can we even make an argument about what kind of moral subjects should exist? — Echarmion
The special case is creating new moral subjects in the first place. We could apply the same logic to the question of whether or not it is moral to create human-level-intelligence AIs for menial tasks (essentially as slaves). — Echarmion
That's one of those times when someone is so intelligent that they sound stupid. The converse may be true on other occasions. Humanity, it seems, is at the mercy of the bungling idiot and the mad scientist. — TheMadFool
And I’m no Russell fanboy, I disagree with his philosophical outlook in almost all respects. But I still honour him as a teacher, and admire him for joining demonstrations. — Wayfarer
If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o’clock, I say why not one o’clock? — von Neumann
He and Bertrand Russell drafted the Russell-Einstein manifesto, and from memory, Russell was literally arrested protesting against atomic weapons (which is one of the reasons Russell is forever on my Good Guys list.) — Wayfarer
If the whole world outside of Russia were to insist upon international control
of atomic energy to the point of going to war on this issue, it is highly
probable that the Soviet government would give way (...). If it did not, then if
the issue were forced in the next year or two, only one side would have
atomic bombs, and the war might be so short as not to involve utter ruin — Russell, 1947
I should like to see (…) as close a union as possible of these countries who
think it is worthwhile to avoid atomic war. I think that you could get so
powerful an alliance that you could turn to Russia and say: ‘It is open to you
to join this alliance if you will agree to the terms; if you will not join we shall
go to war with you’. I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if
not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war
and emerge with a single government such as the world needs”. — Russell, 1947
Based on their words, Bartricks and his tribe hate the world and they hate people. They write off three billion years of our existence based on their brief, pitiful view of life. They sneer at human emotion, loyalty, community, and love. How can recognizing that not be part of a philosophical response to their positions? — T Clark
Characterizing an argument is not dealing with the argument qua argument. It is placing it in a box so as to not actually tackle the questions it poses head on. However, you somewhat redeem this statement by saying that antinatalism, at the least, allows us to explore how it is that we believe certain foundational ideas such as why we believe having more people is good. I think you cannot go into a philosophy forum and expect all arguments to conform to only mainstream views on foundational beliefs. In fact, that might be going against the spirit of philosophy itself, which in its essence, is about questioning foundational beliefs, whether that be in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and value. — schopenhauer1
My rational intuition tells me that there is not much we can do about this either way, assuming no catastrophic intervention. — T Clark
As you may have seen, I have a strong angry reaction to the anti-natalist argument. — T Clark
The 'resonance' wouldn't be there since there is probably no kept history of the universe; however, all eventualities should still repeat, in their turn, even exactly you if the quantum resolution was fine enough. In this way, the universe is kind of its own history. — PoeticUniverse
OK, carry on talking among yourselves; the philosophy world seems as cliquey as any other. — David Rose
Maybe the true relevance of this discussion relates not to A.I.-produced texts but to the poststructuralist literary Theorists' argument that all literary texts are purely derived from preceding texts, as all linguistic statements are articulated from the pre-existing language; so literary texts might just as well be generated by computer programmes as by writers. That was part of the ideological anti-humanist stance of the poststructuralists, once fashionable although now sliding into the old-fashioned. — David Rose
When did it become art? When the picture was done printing? When it was put in a frame
and hung on a wall? Or my assertion, it became art as soon as the viewer thought of it as art? — ZhouBoTong
Your definition of art seems to include some aspect of sharing that experience with other humans. So I could not create anything just for myself that would be considered art? — ZhouBoTong
But you just said that if the creator did NOT intend to create art it is not art. Couldn't the programmer say they were not trying to create art, they were trying to create a computer program that generated previously unknown pleasant sounding noise? — ZhouBoTong
I think saying that "art" can only be created intentionally, is quite limiting and can result in music, paintings, poetry etc NOT counting as art. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING that is created by humans counts as art IF the person that made it said it is art? This seems problematic. — ZhouBoTong
Ah, but suppose there is something unique to our little sector of the galaxy which makes it the only habitable place for advanced life. In that case, two alien civs bumping into each other wouldn't seem so remote. Is this little patch of the Milky Way we're in that special?
— @RogueAI
No, you've misunderstood how things work on the forum. Here's the way it's supposed to work - You tell me I'm wrong, and then I make up lame excuses why I'm right after all. — T Clark
What has all this got to do with finding life on Mars? Consider the implications of
discovering that life had evolved independently on Mars (or some other planet in our
solar system). That discovery would suggest that the emergence of life is not a very
improbable event. If it happened independently twice here in our own back yard, it
must surely have happened millions times across the galaxy. This would mean that the
Great Filter is less likely to occur in the early life of planets and is therefore more likely
still to come.
If we discovered some very simple life forms on Mars in its soil or under the ice at the
polar caps, it would show that the Great Filter must exist somewhere after that period in
evolution. This would be disturbing, but we might still hope that the Great Filter was
located in our past. If we discovered a more advanced life‐form, such as some kind of
multi‐cellular organism, that would eliminate a much larger stretch of potential locations
where the Great Filter could be. The effect would be to shift the probability more
strongly to the hypothesis that the Great Filter is ahead of us, not behind us. And if we
discovered the fossils of some very complex life form, such as of some vertebrate‐like
creature, we would have to conclude that the probability is very great that the bulk of the
Great Filter is ahead of us. Such a discovery would be a crushing blow. It would be by
far the worst news ever printed on a newspaper cover.
For example, if someone says they love you or that they find a movie really good, how can you ever know they're not lying, since you don't have direct access to their minds? — AnonThinker25
The probability the only two advanced species in the galaxy are near each other is very low. Therefore, it's probable there are more than two advanced species in the galaxy. If you run into a nearby one, you can conclude there are probably a lot, which raises the possibility of one nearby you.
@RogueAI
This doesn't make any sense to me. — T Clark
This is why Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom says that “no news is good news.” The discovery of even simple life on Mars would be devastating, because it would cut out a number of potential Great Filters behind us. And if we were to find fossilized complex life on Mars, Bostrom says “it would be by far the worst news ever printed on a newspaper cover,” because it would mean The Great Filter is almost definitely ahead of us—ultimately dooming the species. Bostrom believes that when it comes to The Fermi Paradox, “the silence of the night sky is golden.”