Comments

  • Why be moral?
    Here are two possible worlds:

    1. It is immoral to harm others
    2. It is not immoral to harm others     — Michael
    It is unclear what you mean by "immoral" and therefore that these are "possible worlds".

    Are you saying that if I were to harm others in world (1) then I would be miserable but that if I were to harm others in world (2) then I wouldn't be miserable?
    No.

    How does that work?
    Your false dichotomy doesn't work.

    Also the OP is directed at categorical imperatives, not the kind of hypothetical/pragmatic imperatives that you’re describing.
    I see. My bad, I should have read the first page of this thread at least. A naturalistic hybrid of 'eudaimonism and disutilitarianism' is my position, not deontologism.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪unenlightened
    If you say so ... :roll:
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪mentos987
    :death: :flower:

    A naturalistic, twenty-first century formulation of 'Hillel's principle':
    Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless.

    :sparkle: Merry Solstice & Reason's Greetings :sparkle:
  • Why be moral?
    From an old thread "Why should I be moral? – Does the question even make sense?" ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533345
  • There is No Such Thing as Freedom
    There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers
    Homunculus fallacy – "ego" and "conscience" are constraints on, or conditions of, volition and not agents which can "enslave" (i.e. act as masters). "Freedom" – minimally restricted state-of-affairs or phase-space – is not unconditional and to that degree, at minimum, 'agents are free'. See compatibilism¹.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ¹
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    When are the robots going to start making more land? — unenlightened
    Silly question. Besides generational migration to space habitats, thinning the human herd is much easier and more efficient. :smirk:
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    a scarcity of services provided by humans — RogueAI
    Ubiquitous AI-automation would eliminate that "scarcity" (as it's already incrementally doing now).
  • About definitions and the use of dictionaries in Philosophy
    No. IME, "dictionaries and definitions" are sometimes useful, at best, but not significant for doing philosophy.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪RogueAI
    So what's your point?
  • Meaning of Life
    Suppose (the only) "meaning of life" is to live meaningfully¹ in order to die meaningfully ... :death: :flower:

    (creatively & thoughtfully)¹
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :cool:
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide
    Given that my "ideal society" consists in post-scarcity economic democracy, "wealth" would be measured only as personal reputation acquired by positively contributing to (A) excellence (i.e. singular performances, innovations, inventions, discoveries) in culture and/or (B) positivesum conflict resolutions, such that "the wealthiest person" at any time would be the one who is most esteemed (trusted?), or among a cohort of the most esteemed, by her society for service to the overall well-being (i.e. flourishing, sustainability) of her society.
  • Fascista-Nazista creep?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Are some natural languages more logical than others though? — I like sushi
    If some are, then trivially so.

    As I said with German do you think that is more logical?
    I don't find it so (though I've never been fluent). As far as I can tell, Goethe's verse isn't "more logical" than Shakespeare's and Hegel's metaphysics is far more opague than C.S. Peirce's.
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪hypericin
    Yes, which is why I think "moral judgment is more a matter of habit" and not only or always a matter of habit.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    ↪I like sushi
    Formal languages (i.e. systems of substitution-rules) are "more logical" in structure than natural languages (i.e. conventions of ambiguity-constraints) which, IMO, are more semantic kluges than "logical structures".
  • What are you listening to right now?
    "Reason's Greetings, y'all. And Happy Solstice. :sparkle:

    Men I've been seein'
    Got their soul up on a shelf
    Though they can never love me
    Can't even love himself
    I wanna man to love
    I wanna man
    that can finally understand

    [ ... ]

    They all want me to rock 'em
    Like my back ain't got no bone
    Go ahead & rock me one time, big stuff
    Like my backbone was your own
    (Baby, I'm not foolin' around this time)

    "Love Me Like a Man" (3:56)
    live, 1989
    writer Chris Smither, 1970
    performer Bonnie Raitt
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    'A child older than her parents' is metaphysically impossible and logically possible insofar as there is not a contradiction in terms but an inconsistency in temporal composition, or relation.

    addendum to:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    Either commit this active violation of the child, or passively allow everyone on earth to die. Which do you choose? — hypericin
    Do you think moral judgment in situ is more a matter of habit or "choice"?

    Like Aristotleans, Epicureans, Stoics, Spinozists, Nietzscheans, Peircean-Deweyans et al, I say moral judgments are mostly matters of habit and that so-called "moral choosing" comes ex post facto (or in a speculative exercise / rehearsal).

    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862582

    It might have been interesting to attach a poll to this thread - just "Stay" or "walk away".

    My money would be on "Walk away".     — Banno
    :up:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    :victory: :mask:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    The one I gave ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Mathematics and logic seem "better" (for deeply rather than shallowly adapting to nature) than natural languages.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    In this context, "person" connotes subject which suffices for my example.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    I agree, which is why I say person and not "human".
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. — javra
    If the person can't comprehend what has been said clearly (i.e. supported by the context), then that person certainly can't understand its justification.

    Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.
    Same as the concept "infinite person". Finally, we agree. :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Ah yes, the dominoes keep falling ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment :victory: :cool:

    This ruling will force SCOTUS to decide the issue for all 50 states ... soon after they decide Putin's neoNazi Bitch – Joe Biden, Barack Obama & George W. Bush does not – have "absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution".
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    The goal has never been to defeat the state and claim sovereign authority but rather to change the world without taking power. — Antonio Negri, d. 2023
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If I was a criminal I would still consider it "harmful" to me if you locked me up, If I was a murderer I would consider it harmful/hateful if you killed me in retaliation. — mentos987
    So what? Most criminals 'believe' they are not guilty of their crimes. Moral reasoning and judgment is preventative, or proactive, not an in media res reaction. Hillel's principle is not subjectivist or relativist. Read Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotle, Spinoza ...

    religious commandments
    Don't shift the goalposts. The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory".

    ↪Joshs
    If you say so ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Without warrant you ascribe the property of being "finite" to "person" which is not intrinsic to the concept. Also, circles (or spheres) are both infinite and finite simultaneously ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Yes, metaphysiically, not logically.
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    Can you distinguish between politics (or jurisprudence) and ethics, Joshs? Hillel's principle, as I call it, concerns moral encounters with others (M. Buber, H. Arendt, P. Foot), not some instrumental, or ideological, calculus.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    "Infinite person" is one person that is infinite in extent, not "more than one" person. The concept is no more contradiction in logic than "pegasus" or "chocolate fudge mountain".
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    I can't follow you.

    You can help victims by locking the criminal up; this does not change the fact that this action also "harms" the criminal, thus invalidating this action if you follow this "moral conduct" in any literal way. — mentos987
    Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment.

    It is hateful [harmful] to me to be amputated unless it is medically necessary to prevent more amputations or worse. Likewise, it is hateful [harmful] to be imprisoned except as the only way to (temporarily) prevent me from continuing doing to others what is hateful [harmful] to them/me.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    Elaborate on what?
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If locking someone up is "hateful" then we can't imprison criminals, if it isn't then anyone can imprison anyone. So many loopholes here. — mentos987
    The above misses the point. You are talking about 'public policy"' and Hillel is talking about moral conduct. No "loopholes" when comparing apples and oranges.

    Notice in my prior post I interpret "hateful" also as harmful (footnote¹), emphasizing dysfunction of a person rather than merely negative preference. Hillel the Elder proposes a way of responding to others (i.e. a heuristic, a principle), not a mere calculus (i.e. an algorithm, a formula). Also consider your example, mentos: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so.

    In sum: that there are limits to a general prescription, or rule, does not entail a (legalistic) "loophole" but instead indicates an edge case that requires moral reasoning and judgment. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robots" is a fantastic cautionary tale about "perfect commandment"-misconception of ethics like yours (& Kant's).

    Shouldn’t that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? — Joshs
    No. "That which is hateful [harmful] to you" does not "blame" or has anything to do with whether or not the thing is "unjustly". For example, being deprived of food and water, under any circumstances, is hateful/harmful to each one of us, so Hillel suggests that therefore one should not (by action or inaction) intentionally deprive another of food and water.
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    ↪javi2541997
    I still don't know why I bother. I've been scribbling incessantly since preschool. Why do it? Like for most who write, putting down 500 words of prose daily, along with obsessive note taking & marginalia, collecting specimens of unusual wordplay & quotations, reams of memos-to-self-cum-essays, etc is the best way I've found of keeping my own company. "Sanity"? That's saying too much. About twenty years ago I told myself I write to correct, or clarify, my younger selves; I still believe that, even more so now. But why bother go on when not one of those younger selves will ever read me. I can't go on, but I go on anyway, out of spite, or kicks, because at this age I've forgotten how to do anything else. :death: :flower:
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations. — Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
    Welcome to the forum! :up:

    IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...
    That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE

    i.e. harmful¹
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪L'éléphant
    :up: :up:

    Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross
    IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) which I'd sketched out in this old post mentioning Le Guin's "Omelas":

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/365307
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    A metaphysical impossibility such as 'an infinite person' is logically possible, no?
Home » 180 Proof