Chugger Off

[Planet Telex]

Quoting ezra from 19:29, 22nd Nov 2005

ii. but so do other kinds of beliefs, e.g. scientific ones

What's a scientific belief?

[hr]

IMAGE:www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/emilio.saturnini/bear.gif

[ezra]

a belief whose content is a scientific claim, e.g. 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light', or 'fire is phlogiston leaving the candle'

[Senethro]

a belief whose content is a scientific claim, e.g. 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light', or 'fire is phlogiston leaving the candle'

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting ezra from 19:38, 22nd Nov 2005
a belief whose content is a scientific claim, e.g. 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light', or 'fire is phlogiston leaving the candle'

Science works out the truth of the natural world using evidence. Ethics is stuff we make up. Countless experriments have backed up the theory of relativity (for example, measuring the mass increase of particles accelerated to near light speed). What experiment could determine whether pro-life or pro-choice is ethical? It isn't something with momentum or position that we can measure.

iii. all this shows is that different people have different beliefs; it does not mean that rape is OK if your culture says so.

Why not? Where can the Gold Standard of morality be found? Other than cultural pressures, how can morality be decided? Sex between men and boys was fine in Spartan society but not in ours. What makes us right and them wrong? Homosexuality is fine now but not a cantury ago. Again, what makes us so right? What, apart from cultural pressures, changed?

exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany. Culturally permitted, but morally reprehensible

Again: says you.

Morality only exists in our minds.


[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[ezra]

What experiment could determine whether pi is a transcendental number? What experiment could determine the result of multiplying two complex numbers? What experiment could determine whether there is a God? Or which system of logic we should be using?

Just because you can't measure it with some kind of scientific experiment doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.

Where can the Gold Standard be found? How can morality be decided? I dunno - but it's what I'm writing my thesis on. I'll let you know when I have the answer.

What I find completely unbelievable is that you feel able to make assertions like this:

exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany. Culturally permitted, but morally reprehensible

Again: says you.

I mean, honestly. Are you trying to tell me that it's just my opinion that genocide is grossly immoral?

You seem happy to simply assert that morality 'exists only in our minds'. What makes you so sure? I suggest you try Googling 'freshman relativist', and see what happens.

in other news, everyone should read this:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/pu ... iving|high

go on - read it and then tell me that we don't have obligations to strangers in other countries. i dare you.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Are you trying to tell me that it's just my opinion that genocide is grossly immoral?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's my opinion, too, but I don't consider it more than that.

You seem happy to simply assert that morality 'exists only in our minds'. What makes you so sure?

Where else would it reside?

What experiment could determine whether pi is a transcendental number? What experiment could determine the result of multiplying two complex numbers? What experiment could determine whether there is a God? Or which system of logic we should be using?

Not how science works. Think of the simplest solution to a problem, then try to disprove it. If you can't, it'll do as an explanation for now.

Just because you can't measure it with some kind of scientific experiment doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.

Other than scientificaly, how can we find answers that doesn't boil down to "making it up"?

Eddited due to my inability to spell "quote"
[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[Planet Telex]

Quoting ezra from 20:10, 22nd Nov 2005

Just because you can't measure it with some kind of scientific experiment doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.

Conversely, because you can measure it with some kind of scientific experiment means that there is an answer. That's why "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" is not a belief. It's true whether you choose to believe it or not.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/emilio.saturnini/bear.gif

[suigeneris]

Quoting ezra from 17:26, 22nd Nov 2005

Firstly, self-interest does not provide ethical justifications. The point is precisely that if people act solely in their own interests, many will suffer, and people will as a whole be worse-off (c.f. prisoner's dilemma cases). If you don't give a shit about anyone else, then that provides reason to change your behaviour, not to maintain it.

Actually I've always gone with the "rat on the accomplice" approach - it's just silly to gamble on the scruples of another person. But then I suppose I'm ruthless and morally bankrupt from your enlightened point of view...

Quoting ezra from 17:26, 22nd Nov 2005
Secondly, you admit that there can be 'debts of gratitude' between you and, for instance, WW1 veterans, even though you didn't exist at the time when they were fighting. So your ethic isn't entirely self-interested; you accept that we can be under obligations to other people. Now I'm not disputing that we owe those people a debt of gratitude; what I want to know is, given this, why do you think that we don't have any obligations to people in other countries?

Perhaps because the veterans of this (my) country fought in a horrendous war and as a consequence of their sacrifice I can live in a shiny democratic country where every pillock can spout bilge without fear of censure, and in English too....

I agree it's terribly sad at tea-time to hear that Mbegwe and her ludicrous number of children have to walk for five hours a day to find water and have to live on $0.12 per day, but I really don't see how her situation is in any way of my making, or how her selfless and dignified slog through such an arduous life has benefit to anyone.

Quoting ezra from 17:26, 22nd Nov 2005
Thirdly - and this is a more general point - distance isn't a morally salient feature, and nor is lack of kinship an excuse. Suppose that your sister is travelling in Asia, and badly needs some money in order to purchase medication; the simple fact that she's in Asia doesn't mean that you don't have obligations to her. That's the first claim. For the second, suppose that you pass a child drowning in a pool; you can save the child simply by reaching out. In that case, you are under an obligation to help the child; it doesn't matter whether they are your neighbour's child, or a child on holiday from Devon, or someone who has recently immigrated, or a foreigner who has wound up here by mistake. Like I say, lack of kinship doesn't defuse obligations. So why should you think that you don't have obligations to the distant suffering?

You see that again is just it. For my sister (though it's a brother in my case) I'd happily cross the Himalayas and a major river or two to help. For someone whose existence I'm not even aware of? And yes, absolutely, passing a drowning child is a great opportunity to become a local hero (at very little inconvenience - clothes dry very quickly after all) but as your (demented king of the bleeding hearts) Mr Unger tells us, to raise the poor and needy to what we would consider a comfortable life would gobble up a terrific percentage of the west's resources. Now perhaps I'm just a cold, cynical and bitter husk of humanity but I don't really see why there is any onus upon me and my country to improve the lot of some people who never reached the agricultural revolution - while of course respecting their time proven cultures (you know, the ones that led them into this mess in the first place).

[ezra]

ok, so you think that moral beliefs are just opinions. so what happens when:

i. people engage in an ethical dispute?

- on your view, they are just stating opinions, and there is no disagreement; rather, one person is saying 'my opinion is X', the other is saying 'my opinion is Y'.

ii. people engage in ethical deliberation?

- what are they deliberating about, if morality is just a matter of opinion?

//

You misunderstand my set of examples. I'm not saying that science works by investigating the transcendentality of pi; I'm pointing out that there are true statements which can be tested, argued for, or proven, which are not scientific claims. There are plenty of ways of finding answers which don't boil down to 'making it up' (what do you think goes on in philosophy departments, for instance? perhaps a bad example, from your point of view. what about mathematics departments?)

//

Telex: you misread my post. I wasn't claiming that the statement 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light' depends for its truth on our beliefs. I was claiming that such a statement gives the content of a scientific belief. For instance, you can believe that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. You can believe that things can travel faster than the speed of light. In the second case, you'd be wrong. The disagreement doesn't show anything about the truth - or falsity, or otherwise - of the beliefs.

[exnihilo]

Ethics, ethics, ethics. Sometimes conversations aren't about ethics. Scary, I know.

You must be a wow at dinner parties.

[Planet Telex]

Quoting ezra from 21:06, 22nd Nov 2005
Telex: you misread my post. I wasn't claiming that the statement 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light' depends for its truth on our beliefs. I was claiming that such a statement gives the content of a scientific belief. For instance, you can believe that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. You can believe that things can travel faster than the speed of light. In the second case, you'd be wrong. The disagreement doesn't show anything about the truth - or falsity, or otherwise - of the beliefs.

Ah, I think I've got it now. With scientific beliefs (like the speed of light thing) one belief is correct, and you think that the same goes for moral beliefs. That people have different beliefs but there exists a correct belief.

Sorry, I'm a bit slow with this philosophy stuff.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/emilio.saturnini/bear.gif

[ezra]

Quoting exnihilo from 21:14, 22nd Nov 2005
Ethics, ethics, ethics. Sometimes conversations aren't about ethics. Scary, I know.

You must be a wow at dinner parties.

Oh, stop being obtuse. A thread about 'chugging' and you complain when it turns to discussion of ethics? Jesus, what next? I suppose you'd get upset if people mentioned political philosophy in a debate on government . . .

[jequirity]

I think i'd be a lot happier with a scientific proof of what defines ethics and morality, otherwise its just someones opinion against another. Debates about philosophy generally end up in unnecessary waffle and tedious shite, no offense, just my opinion.

[hr]

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Andrew W K Day 9th of May

[Bitterandtwisted]

ok, so you think that moral beliefs are just opinions. so what happens when:

i. people engage in an ethical dispute?

- on your view, they are just stating opinions, and there is no disagreement; rather, one person is saying 'my opinion is X', the other is saying 'my opinion is Y'.

ii. people engage in ethical deliberation?

- what are they deliberating about, if morality is just a matter of opinion?

Opinions are not nessasarily pointless. I discus things like music or films. Would you say some films are genuinely better than others, or does it just boil down to taste? I would say the latter. I still enjoy arguing over them.

As far as "'my opinion is X', the other is saying 'my opinion is Y'." goes, that is not a debate. It's two statements. People have reasons for their opinions. Two people from similar backgrounds will likely have similar reasons behind their varying opinions, so a dialog on how they reached their conclusions is possible.

there are true statements which can be tested, argued for, or proven, which are not scientific claims. There are plenty of ways of finding answers which don't boil down to 'making it up' (what do you think goes on in philosophy departments, for instance? perhaps a bad example, from your point of view. what about mathematics departments?)

Philosophy maybe is a bad example. I did one ten credit module as a "filler" for my time-table. The single essay (on justifications for "The State") I needed to do took me all of two hours. It was self-indulgent over-opinionated dross, but they lapped it up. They do seem to just "make it up" there.

Maths is a science.




[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[Senethro]

Quoting exnihilo from 21:14, 22nd Nov 2005
Ethics, ethics, ethics. Sometimes conversations aren't about ethics. Scary, I know.

You must be a wow at dinner parties.

GOGO GADGET AD HOMINEM!

[Cain]

Quoting Haunted from 14:55, 22nd Nov 2005
As a consequence its almost become a competition to see who can donate the most money, wear the most wrist bands, stand silent in 'respect' for the longest, get the first signature in a book of condolences, leave the most flowers, shed the most tears, etc.

Glad i'm not the only person who's thought that. There's a definite grief culture in the world and especially britain as we fight to be the most compassionate about the most causes. Why do you need a two minute silence for events? Why will a one minute silence not suffice?

I like giving to charity, and if there's a jar on a shop counter, that's where my change goes. Becuase i choose to. I don't like being told or pressurised into doing it.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting exnihilo from 21:14, 22nd Nov 2005
Ethics, ethics, ethics. Sometimes conversations aren't about ethics. Scary, I know.

You must be a wow at dinner parties.

I think conversations on charity may be, though.

[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[exnihilo]

Oh sorry! I'm frustrated that every single thread on here is hijacked to an ethical discussion in which everyone who is not ezra is a moron, and that makes me a bad person. He actually does it, and that's ok.

Well, fine. I'm delighted you hold the ethical truth for all the world, ezra, may it serve you well. But tell me I'm the only one it frustrates, and I'll call you a liar.

[Cain]

Quoting exnihilo from 22:29, 22nd Nov 2005
Well, fine. I'm delighted you hold the ethical truth for all the world, ezra, may it serve you well. But tell me I'm the only one it frustrates, and I'll call you a liar.

I'll save Ezra the trouble and join Exnihilo - everybody has their own hobby horses, or special interests, but that doesn't mean we ride them around the forum again and again and again.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Rose]

sorry to go off the point and to interrupt this heated discussion, but that guy in the photo... he´s from St A right?