 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
as with all proofs, You'll have to start with some axiom, or some definition.
(1)The ethical thing to do is to the one that meets the general desires and needs of humans ( not the stated ones, but the ones that truly drive them ).
Another axiom:
(2)All people are equal in the improtance of their desires, when taken out of social context- by this I mean that while it is true that at times the happiness level, or the anxiety level, or the level of the feeling of freedom or whatever of a certain person affects his interaction with others, while counting his desires we account for the result of his feelings and desires separately.
Now come the "theoremes":
(3)The thing that drives the general desires and needs of humans is happiness - this is supported by the simple fact that when people are truly happy - not superficially, or seem to be happy, or any other quasihappiness, but I mean the true state of happiness, as defined by levels of that happy drug inside one's body - when people are truly happy, they won't change that, and won't ever knowingly do anything to harm it.
||
V
We'll define the total happiness level of a social system of humans as it's utility function.
from (3) and (2) We learn that we must maximize Utility, over time, that is that the we must strive to have as many people as happy as possible for as much time as possible, while reaching an optimum on the last 3 values.
This is my short, not deeply formulated version of utilitarianism.
Why killing, again, taken out of context, is wrong, flows out of it quite obviously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:16
|
|
btw, here are the synonyms for absolute at dictionary.com
Synonyms: pure, absolute, sheer, 2simple, unadulterated
These adjectives mean free of extraneous elements: pure gold; absolute oxygen; sheer alcohol; a simple substance; unadulterated coffee.
"Objective" aint in there.
Last edited by Kidicious on 26-04-2005 at 07:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
In that context it means that I haven't proven anything to Ramo that meets his criteria. It just so happens that that crtiteria is just beyond what I am able show. Isn't that something.
|
From what I've read he's not being unreasonable, his criteria is you providing something objective, thus far you have only been able to speak of the arbitrary. You can't cry foul because logic prevents you from turning an "is" into an "ought". It's the very problem with your argument, you should be looking at resolving it instead of attacking Ramo's perfectly good criteria.
He wants you to be able to show an irrational foundation atop an arbitrary structure, whereas all you are doing is proving my point that the irrational foundation is the source of the arbitrary which separates morality from science and demonstrates emotivism -> moral relativism  .
quote:
I understand the consistency of your argument. So your conclusion is just as ridiculous as your assumptions.
|
And, pray tell, how are my assumptions ridiculous?
quote:
The contradiction is that one person thinks that murder is immoral and the other doesn't so they are both right. I understand that asking the question "Is murder immoral" can not be answered, but the above is still a contractiction. It still can not be both moral and immoral if morality exists at all.
|
But again you're looking for an absolute where one cannot be shown which takes you back to my first point in this post. You're trying to find out which one is "right", whereas that very question is nonsensical once you accept no moral absolute, and as a sidenote I would very much like to see how you would show this absolutism upon which you are depending (yet you seem to be rejecting it also ).
quote:
edit: Specifically, but not limited to, that "objective" is a proper synonym with "absolute" in this context, and that deciding what is morally correct is like deciding whether or not to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
|
No. Any idiot can see that my use of objective and absolute is not synonymous, since objective is contextual (i.e. science is objective to human context "truths" whereas absolute is a kind of god's eye view... though for the social context they are both absolute).
That "morally correct" is more an aesthetic choice is not an assumption but the very conclusion! . And you cannot claim that someone's conclusion is ridiculous when you provide no argument to counter it's reasoning and premises.
As for custom-made definitions, again with the self-pwnage, since you are the one who is using the words "absolute" and "objective" inaccurately, and seemingly not understanding Wittgenstein's use of context to differentiate between them.
quote:
"Objective" aint in there.
|
As I said in a previous post, objective exists as opposed only to the "subject and predicate" of an arbitrary statement, where morality is the subjective and the predicate is the beholder.
quote:
There's a whole wide world out there that hasn't been proven to exist by Kuciwalker believe it or not. You aren't quite as significant to the universe as you are in your own mind.
|
Kuci was raising a very valid point about Occam's razor, or the Schroedinger's cat problem. That something's positive existence cannot be proved |= equal it's non existence for sure, but rather it's meaningless existence, so you need proof to make a proposition +1 or -1, without it the proposition is 0, like god, pink unicorns and moral absolutes  . That is to say, I could talk about God or absolute morality and it would have the same value as me talking about my 12th finger, or the giant pixie on the moon.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2005 02:28
|