 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Whaleboy, you could never train a dog if you believe his natural behavior must be respected and understood.
|
Of course a dog can be trained, but you cannot make a dog heed to society as humans do.
quote:
Whaleboy, if you deem the youths morality respecting the dog to be invalid, you are making unacceptable moral judgments based SOLELY on your belief that your values are superior to their values. Such arrogance can only lead to war and violence as you impose your sense of right and wrong on those who disagree with you.
|
That's the point... I don't deem their morality invalid, and my values don't come into it. If they did, like I said they'd suffer. However, in a society a calculus applies of what is acceptable of nor (variant on society of course  ) whereby their actions are unacceptable.
quote:
In that case, you shouldn't have accepted the term "flaw" in the first place....
|
wtf?
quote:
No, you try me. That's the whole point: If you think that utilitarianism is against "common sense" or can be used to justified eating babies on a daily basis, then by all means, do so.
|
Burden of proof is upon you. I have numerous arguments against utilitarianism, you claimed to have a refutation of anti-utilitarian arguments, or an (essentially) irrefutable position that I was asking for. If you are unable to provide me with such an argument upon this or the previous request, I suggest you retract your original suggestion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
You claimed that you can justify eugenics, mass murder, or whatever, using utilitarianism. The burden of proof is on you....
|
No, I claimed that using utilitarianism, you, or one might, but it would be fallacious. That isn't to say you will... not a strawman... you were my opponent at the time. You'll note how that runs contrary to everything I stand for.
The basic utilitarian justification would run along the lines of a careful action would benefit society by removing malignant elements, be they disease prone genes, or views that would run contrary to the happy running of said society.
An argument more holey than the perforated, necrophiliated body of the pope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
No, I claimed that using utilitarianism, you, or one might, but it would be fallacious. That isn't to say you will... not a strawman... you were my opponent at the time. You'll note how that runs contrary to everything I stand for.
The basic utilitarian justification would run along the lines of a careful action would benefit society by removing malignant elements, be they disease prone genes, or views that would run contrary to the happy running of said society.
An argument more holey than the perforated, necrophiliated body of the pope.
|
Well in that case, one might use any ethical theory to justify anything... And that would make this discussion take a quantum leap from just pointless to pretty goddamn annoying...
Asher:
quote:
It means no such thing. I said "it is now a flaw" earlier, as well. And notice the "if" in there -- I don't think human beings can be flawed, since there is no standard to compare against. I also never implied that they can be flawed...I've said point blank, that they can't. |
No, that's not what you said, you said that
quote:
It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.
|
That means that it's possible that humans can have a flow, under certain sircumstances, that means that you claimed that the "perfect" human was different from my version, not that it didn't exist.....
But nevermind that
quote:
For a human being to have flaws, it must be compared to a perfect human being in order to classify such as flaws. |
You don't have to have a perfect human being, to classify things as flaws, You just have to have a guide to define characteristic as ones that are better, or worse, since a human being isn't just a single variable. There are many human beings. They have many charcteristics, If we compare two humans, we'll usually find that one person is better at some things, and worse, at other things. Doesn't render "better" and "worse" meaningless...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
No, that's not what you said, you said that
quote:
It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.
|
That means that it's possible that humans can have a flow, under certain sircumstances, that means that you claimed that the "perfect" human was different from my version, not that it didn't exist.....
But nevermind that |
You're intentionally leaving out the other line of that post:
quote:
It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.
It is not a flaw, it's quite normal. |
This in no way implies that I think humans can have flaws. I said it is NOT a flaw, and I also said it could only be considered a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational -- which I also do not think is correct.
quote:
You don't have to have a perfect human being, to classify things as flaws, You just have to have a guide to define characteristic as ones that are better, or worse, since a human being isn't just a single variable. There are many human beings. They have many charcteristics, If we compare two humans, we'll usually find that one person is better at some things, and worse, at other things. Doesn't render "better" and "worse" meaningless... |
How do you rate better or worse? It's all subjective, and in the end it, too, is useless.
Flaw is not a good term to use, it can only be correctly used when you can say something is correct and something is not correct. You cannot do that with human beings. It's simple.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-09-2004 23:39
.
. And do you not think that considerations of human nature have implications in the realm of prescription?
|