|
|
#51
09-03-2007, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of knowing what it is, it is that it can't exist for us even if there were some mystical way it could exist in the philostogen stream. If the answers are not in the back of the book, well then I guess we'll just have to solve the problems as best we can. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - and some of us are right and some are wrong. Irrespective of whether a teacher ever gets around to marking it. 
|
|
#52
09-03-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I have the option to shoot someone just before he commits an awful act which will kill five innocent people. You and a friend are trying to persuade me to behave morally. You think I should kill the guy, your friend thinks I should never commit murder. Sure you will both present arguments, try and persuade me, bargain with me, whatever you do. At the end of it all, dont you think I should do whatever I think is right? [/ QUOTE ] Besides the strange circular reasoning in the position of my friend, of course I don't think you should do whatever you think is right. If we thought that way then we would have no reason to object to any action of anybody at any time. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] My apologies, but I cant comprehend your position. I dont see what you think I should do in that case - how do I determine which third party to listen to? What if there's nobody around and I have to make a moral choice, should I sit around hoping you'll happen to pop by and tell me how to act? [/ QUOTE ] Much as I enjoy our exchanges, I find we have a lot of premise problems. I can't follow why a person would think their moral choices are 'right' or why they would want to follow a third party willy-nilly. The best we can do is lay out all the variables in the situation and try to apply some general principles that being a human has exposed us to. Unless we think we are a super-hero from the future, our reasons for the choices we make should stand up to analysis by others. Their disagreement or suggestions should be subject to the same scrutiny of other non-insane people. No, we don't do this for each decision, but that is the basis we have for thinking our decision is on the right track. If we default into "I just wanna" then we may as well gas up the planes for the boys. luckyme
|
|
#53
09-03-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's not a matter of knowing what it is, it is that it can't exist for us even if there were some mystical way it could exist in the philostogen stream. If the answers are not in the back of the book, well then I guess we'll just have to solve the problems as best we can. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - and some of us are right and some are wrong. Irrespective of whether a teacher ever gets around to marking it. [/ QUOTE ] Since 'right' is unattainable or as you note, never marked for, then we need to put our best effort into solving them and without pretending that we have a decoder ring we can rub 3 times and it gives us little beepy clues. luckyme
|
|
#54
09-03-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I have the option to shoot someone just before he commits an awful act which will kill five innocent people. You and a friend are trying to persuade me to behave morally. You think I should kill the guy, your friend thinks I should never commit murder. Sure you will both present arguments, try and persuade me, bargain with me, whatever you do. At the end of it all, dont you think I should do whatever I think is right? [/ QUOTE ] Besides the strange circular reasoning in the position of my friend, of course I don't think you should do whatever you think is right. If we thought that way then we would have no reason to object to any action of anybody at any time. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] My apologies, but I cant comprehend your position. I dont see what you think I should do in that case - how do I determine which third party to listen to? What if there's nobody around and I have to make a moral choice, should I sit around hoping you'll happen to pop by and tell me how to act? [/ QUOTE ] Much as I enjoy our exchanges, I find we have a lot of premise problems. I can't follow why a person would think their moral choices are 'right' or why they would want to follow a third party willy-nilly. The best we can do is lay out all the variables in the situation and try to apply some general principles that being a human has exposed us to. Unless we think we are a super-hero from the future, our reasons for the choices we make should stand up to analysis by others. Their disagreement or suggestions should be subject to the same scrutiny of other non-insane people. No, we don't do this for each decision, but that is the basis we have for thinking our decision is on the right track. If we default into "I just wanna" then we may as well gas up the planes for the boys. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Usually I can get where you're coming from but I confess I'm at a loss in this thread. Thanks for trying anyhow - I'll ponder...
|
|
#55
09-03-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not a matter of knowing what it is, it is that it can't exist for us even if there were some mystical way it could exist in the philostogen stream. If the answers are not in the back of the book, well then I guess we'll just have to solve the problems as best we can. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - and some of us are right and some are wrong. Irrespective of whether a teacher ever gets around to marking it. [/ QUOTE ] Since 'right' is unattainable or as you note, never marked for, then we need to put our best effort into solving them and without pretending that we have a decoder ring we can rub 3 times and it gives us little beepy clues. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] OK - you win on the quirky front but making me laugh doesnt make me agree. I was specifically claiming it was attainable, just that we couldnt prove we'd attained it. The best we can say is that if a teacher did show up, she'd give me a gold star and you a red cross. Now I accept that for practical, making-decisions, purposes we are in the same boat. Nonetheless, I reject your claim that I have no choice but to be a moral relativist. I think I'm groping towards something real - even though I'm destined to never know if I've got there. To change tack slightly. Do you think the same about mathematical proof? To me it makes no difference if someone thinks they've disproved pythagoras' theorem, nor if everyone else agrees with them. They are fundamentally, objectively and absolutely wrong - irrespective of whether anyone notices or not. Does that make any sense? If I claim 347756^32462378-1 is prime isnt it true or false quite apart from any consensus or human determination? (I could make the number even larger so as to make it actually indeterminable to humans even in principle if it would make the point clearer)
|
|
#56
09-03-2007, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not a matter of knowing what it is, it is that it can't exist for us even if there were some mystical way it could exist in the philostogen stream. If the answers are not in the back of the book, well then I guess we'll just have to solve the problems as best we can. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - and some of us are right and some are wrong. Irrespective of whether a teacher ever gets around to marking it. [/ QUOTE ] Since 'right' is unattainable or as you note, never marked for, then we need to put our best effort into solving them and without pretending that we have a decoder ring we can rub 3 times and it gives us little beepy clues. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] OK - you win on the quirky front but making me laugh doesnt make me agree. I was specifically claiming it was attainable, just that we couldnt prove we'd attained it. The best we can say is that if a teacher did show up, she'd give me a gold star and you a red cross. Now I accept that for practical, making-decisions, purposes we are in the same boat. Nonetheless, I reject your claim that I have no choice but to be a moral relativist. I think I'm groping towards something real - even though I'm destined to never know if I've got there. To change tack slightly. Do you think the same about mathematical proof? To me it makes no difference if someone thinks they've disproved pythagoras' theorem, nor if everyone else agrees with them. They are fundamentally, objectively and absolutely wrong - irrespective of whether anyone notices or not. Does that make any sense? If I claim 347756^32462378-1 is prime isnt it true or false quite apart from any consensus or human determination? (I could make the number even larger so as to make it actually indeterminable to humans even in principle if it would make the point clearer) [/ QUOTE ] I think that pigs can fly but they only do it when we're not looking. Isn't that on par with your claim that you think you're groping...etc. Neither would seem to have anything to do with the reality of porcine aerodynamics or bunnigropes. A teacher that can make choices cannot be operating on some absolute plane either ...else what's to choose? Since we can't have more than a trickle of the information we would need to make a universal moral choice, the best we can do is gather what we can and take our best shot. The 'right' answer would have all the variables known and we run into the same problem as Schrodinger's Cat. On your math question. I think the moon is there whether I look or not. Your prime is a very simple closed-system question. Moral 'right' operates in a universe where time,space and quantum effects operate in several directions simultaneously and non-simultaneously ...at the same time:-) There is no moral-choice snapshot to take and say "there, at this point in time, Choice X is correct". sorry for digging so far, luckyme
|
|
#57
09-03-2007, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
I think that pigs can fly but they only do it when we're not looking. Isn't that on par with your claim that you think you're groping...etc. Neither would seem to have anything to do with the reality of porcine aerodynamics or bunnigropes. [/ QUOTE ] I dont think it is, no and I think the difference is one of mental objects vs physical objects (so again - if I'm disabused of dualism, I would expect to change tack on this also.) [ QUOTE ] A teacher that can make choices cannot be operating on some absolute plane either ...else what's to choose? [/ QUOTE ] The danger of analogy again - I dont know if it looked like I was talking God here (I didnt mean to). The trait I was ascribing to the teacher was the ability to look up the answer book - something we cant do. I didnt mean to imply that there must be some chooser who defines absolute morality. [ QUOTE ] Since we can't have more than a trickle of the information we would need to make a universal moral choice, the best we can do is gather what we can and take our best shot. The 'right' answer would have all the variables known and we run into the same problem as Schrodinger's Cat. On your math question. I think the moon is there whether I look or not. Your prime is a very simple closed-system question. Moral 'right' operates in a universe where time,space and quantum effects operate in several directions simultaneously and non-simultaneously ...at the same time:-) There is no moral-choice snapshot to take and say "there, at this point in time, Choice X is correct". [/ QUOTE ] OK - that's at least a disagreement I can comprehend. [ QUOTE ] sorry for digging so far, luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Dont be silly.
|
|
#58
09-03-2007, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
The Buddha said that people who are ready for the Dharma will find it and there is no use trying to convert. And monks were even instructed to not teach disrespectful people. Quite the opposite from Christianity.
|
|
#59
09-03-2007, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
OK - that's at least a disagreement I can comprehend. [/ QUOTE ] Well, let's go a step further down that path. Putting the Carrot Top in a Box is immoral if we will cause him pain, but since we can't know the result, there is no way for us or the teacher to know whether Box A or Box B is the moral choice. That illustrates why morality concerns Intent at the last fork point and why there is no difference other than spelling between omission and commission when the 'last fork' is the same in both cases. Leaving CarrotTop in A rather than transferring him to B is morally the same as putting him A from B. I've tried to approach this from more than one angle to illustrate the non-existence of an AM, not expecting to convince anyone with the powers to will one into existence but hoping to point out the obstacles to merely claiming there to be one ( the flying pig problem). To get Back to Earth, with morality existing at the "Based on all the information I can gather and all the reasoning I can apply" level, it makes no sense to refer to an Absolute Morality to judge it by...what would that mean? luckyme
|
|
#60
09-03-2007, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strangers who want to discuss your lack of \"faith\"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OK - that's at least a disagreement I can comprehend. [/ QUOTE ] Well, let's go a step further down that path. Putting the Carrot Top in a Box is immoral if we will cause him pain, but since we can't know the result, there is no way for us or the teacher to know whether Box A or Box B is the moral choice. That illustrates why morality concerns Intent at the last fork point and why there is no difference other than spelling between omission and commission when the 'last fork' is the same in both cases. Leaving CarrotTop in A rather than transferring him to B is morally the same as putting him A from B. I've tried to approach this from more than one angle to illustrate the non-existence of an AM, not expecting to convince anyone with the powers to will one into existence but hoping to point out the obstacles to merely claiming there to be one ( the flying pig problem). To get Back to Earth, with morality existing at the "Based on all the information I can gather and all the reasoning I can apply" level, it makes no sense to refer to an Absolute Morality to judge it by...what would that mean? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Thanks again - I'm gonna think about it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
