Chugger Off

[ezra]

no, Bitterandtwisted, that's not an answer

if ethical disagreement is just a matter of people discussing their opinions, then there really is no disagreement; it's just people expressing opinions. this simply doesn't match the phenomena. if i claim that killing Jews is wrong, and you claim that it's OK, that's a significant, and substantive, disagreement. it's not just a matter of me saying 'I don't like genocide'.

you failed entirely to address the issue of ethical deliberation. when i sit down and think about various issues, and try to work out, for instance, whether abortion is morally wrong, whether schools should be allowed - or told - to forbid wearing of headscarves, etc., then it seems as if I'm trying to arrive at some kind of answer. whatever I'm doing, I'm not just stating my own opinions; I'm engaging in a process which can change them. What is the nature of that process?

[bananaman]

Quoting ezra from 15:41, 23rd Nov 2005
Bananaman: the problem is that your post didn't mean what you intended.

'I wish the most deserving cases were not automatically those who got the most press' means 'I wish that the most deserving cases . . . didn't get the most press'

c.f.

'I wish the fastest cars were not automatically those which got the most advertising'

Now it couldn't be that advertising makes cars go fast, or that press coverage makes cases deserving.

Ah, I see where you are coming from.

But it did mean what I wanted it to:

Press coverage does make cases 'more deserving', that's my point. it shouldn't but it does.

I probably should have put deserving in apostrophes to clarify the meaning - ie that "most deserving = what the public thinks is most deserving" however I don't think this is required because the whole tone of the rest of the post implies it.

You can take words at face value or you can attempt to read them in conjunction with the paragraph they come in.

And I wager you knew exactly what I was saying, in fact you probably agree with the sentiment.

However I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, and over a point that has little importance and can both be right (depending on whether or not common sense is applied).

I like arguing stuff on the sinner but I think you have fallen into the trap of trying to disagree with everything anyone writes. The result of this is that people start taking less notice of the valid points you make. Drowned out by guff, so to speak.

It happened with Paul .

[ezra]

No, steveo, you're expected - at least - to give a minimal amount. By doing so, you're respecting other people as human beings, and mitigating your selfishness. The 'slippery slope' argument is a poor one: it's better to give a small amount than to give nothing, so if you're not going to give all your drinking money to charity, then choose a small amount, and commit yourself to giving that and no more. Simple.

[ezra]

No, bananaman, in this particular case I was just taking words at face value. I try to do that in all cases, because otherwise communication becomes extremely difficult - precise communication, at any rate. There's a difference between press coverage making issues more deserving and press coverage making issues appear more deserving, or press coverage making issues 'more deserving'. Your failing, not mine.

[bananaman]

No, because my post can be read as meaning that, when taken into consideration with the whole post. Which is what most normal people do.

If you need to know more about this I'll happily point you in the direction of an introductory history class.

[ezra]

wtf?

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting ezra from 15:54, 23rd Nov 2005
no, Bitterandtwisted, that's not an answer

if ethical disagreement is just a matter of people discussing their opinions, then there really is no disagreement; it's just people expressing opinions. this simply doesn't match the phenomena. if i claim that killing Jews is wrong, and you claim that it's OK, that's a significant, and substantive, disagreement. it's not just a matter of me saying 'I don't like genocide'.

you failed entirely to address the issue of ethical deliberation. when i sit down and think about various issues, and try to work out, for instance, whether abortion is morally wrong, whether schools should be allowed - or told - to forbid wearing of headscarves, etc., then it seems as if I'm trying to arrive at some kind of answer. whatever I'm doing, I'm not just stating my own opinions; I'm engaging in a process which can change them. What is the nature of that process?

I still see no evidence to the contrary regarding ethics being opinions(and you sure ain't providing any).

Have you never discussed films?

Have you never discussed books?

Have you never discussed sport?

Have you never discussed music?


Many people discuss these (myself included) and to say that in a debate of opinion "then there really is no disagreement" is really contrary to my experience. It is seldom a case of "I like this", "I don't" and "ok, let's leave it at that". Do you think there are absolute standards for whether Gilbert and Sullivan are humorous/naff and annoying?

The subject of killing Jews is exactly the same, except one might expect the debators to be more heated (although there are some very big G+S fans out there).


Yet again, I humbly implore you, tell me where absolute morality may be found, if not in the mind. I wish to bottle it and sell it as a new fragrance.

[hr]

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

[bananaman]

History helps teach people how to interpret points using the sentiment of the overall paragraph.

Other subjects teach this as well.

Apparently not philosophy.

If I said "I am a dinosaur" I clearly don't mean that I actually am an extinct lizard.

[suigeneris]

Quoting ezra from 02:26, 23rd Nov 2005

suigeneris:

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.

You bigoted, racist, arrogant, selfish, benighted cunt. Sorry for resorting to abuse, but that doesn't even merit a response.

Well if nothing earlier constituted an ad hominem attack, then I think that makes the grade... How you divine from the above (if I say, fairly accurate parody of a tea-time charity advert) that I exist in a shroud of moral and intellectual darkness escapes me, but would you care to address the point?

You have an astonishing ability to lambast and lampoon anyone who disagrees with you and loose swathes of pharisaical moralistic BS at the least provocation, but when it comes to simple points of fact you either deflect attention to some dubious point of morality or just conveniently ignore the offending inquiry.

May I ask again - Are you seriously contending that it is in some way aberrant to care more (that is, more than none) for kith and kin than for people whose very existence is literally outwith our own notice?

[ezra]

tell me where absolute morality may be found

Kant, 'Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals'

provides the basic idea. I'm working up from it. I won't quote the entire book; if you're genuinely interested, read it.

suigeneris:

May I ask again - Are you seriously contending that it is in some way aberrant to care more (that is, more than none) for kith and kin than for people whose very existence is literally outwith our own notice?

No, of course I'm not, and nor have I ever claimed that it is (re-read my posts and quote me if you can find evidence to the contrary). It's perfectly normal, and it may even be justified. What I'm contending is that there is no justification for not caring at all for people 'whose very existence is . . outwith our own notice'. Incidentally, their existence isn't exactly outwith our notice; we know that there are people suffering in Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, even if we haven't met them, but I'll leave that to one side. Some degree of partiality - sure, I'll grant you that. But I take issue with people who simply don't give a shit about those outside of some arbitrary dividing line, whether it be kin, friends, country, etc. That is unjustifiable, and unconscionable.

[suigeneris]

Quoting ezra from 15:06, 22nd Nov 2005
steveo:

I don't care about saving lives on the other side of the world when people in my county are dying

Why? Are the lives of people in this country worth more than the lives of people on the other side of the world? Is it better to save one person in Britain or twenty people in Pakistan?

And some others besides. To answer your question to Steveo, Yes - from my point of view the lives of my family and/or friends and/or countrymen have greater value than the lives of people who will never impact my life in any way.

Quoting ezra from 16:43, 23rd Nov 2005
But I take issue with people who simply don't give a shit about those outside of some arbitrary dividing line, whether it be kin, friends, country, etc. That is unjustifiable, and unconscionable.

Well that's just silly. For someone who claims to be grounded in logic and rational thought you disappoint me on that count. If you really want to spend your entire life wallowing in depression at the plight of people on the other side of the world you can't help in a material way (and even if everyone in the country, or even the western world gave up their drinking money it wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference - to believe otherwise smacks of utter economic ignorance) then go ahead. I'm content to know my contributions have made a material difference to my surroundings and the needy who inhabit them.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting ezra from 16:43, 23rd Nov 2005

tell me where absolute morality may be found

Kant, 'Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals'

provides the basic idea. I'm working up from it. I won't quote the entire book; if you're genuinely interested, read it.

Could you give me the gist of his argument, please? In short sentences with small words?

[hr]

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

[Cain]

The moral of this story is:

Every time somebody disagrees with a point that you make it is a personal insult against you

Is it wrong of me to miss Paul? He also had principles, ethics and somesuch that were also categorical. He invoked them at every opportunity too...

Message boards should have a transfer market...

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[suigeneris]

Quoting Cain from 16:55, 23rd Nov 2005
Is it wrong of me to miss Paul? He also had principles, ethics and somesuch that were also categorical. He invoked them at every opportunity too...
[hr]

Didn't he end up goin nuts and claiming the aliens were coming to reveal God's master plan? Roll on the day...

[donkey]

Quoting ezra from 16:43, 23rd Nov 2005

tell me where absolute morality may be found

Kant, 'Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals'

provides the basic idea. I'm working up from it. I won't quote the entire book; if you're genuinely interested, read it.

I'm interested, and I've read it. can you paraphrase though, and give us an idea of where Kant thinks morals reside, if not the mind?

I'd also like to see an answer to:

Have you never discussed films?
Have you never discussed books?
Have you never discussed sport?
Have you never discussed music?


Many people discuss these (myself included) and to say that in a debate of opinion "then there really is no disagreement" is really contrary to my experience. It is seldom a case of "I like this", "I don't" and "ok, let's leave it at that". Do you think there are absolute standards for whether Gilbert and Sullivan are humorous/naff and annoying?

I think this might be one of those cases where you aren't following up the points that might make you move beyond seond year metaethics.

[ezra]

bitterandtwisted: no. it's too complex. it's a pretty short book, though. give it a try.

[ezra]

second year metaethics *cough* phd thesis *cough* any chance you can tell the difference?

Kant doesn't think that morals 'reside' anywhere; why should they? They're not physical objects. The good will is the only unconditioned good; maxims (i.e. 'subjective principles of volition', which specify actions and reasons) are the objects of moral appraisal; testing is carried out via one of the formulations of the Categorical Imperative, which in its purest form is:

'act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law'

ok, so let's respond to the film/book/music analogy

if you think that there is genuine disagreement in the case of films, music, books, then you must also think that the points of view being adduced must be truth-apt; that is, able to be true or false (else how could there be a disagreement?). for example:

I say: 'G&S are annoying'
You say: 'No, they aren't annoying'

There are two options; either we hold that there is no genuine disagreement - both parties are expressing opinions, G&S genuinely is annoying to me, but it isn't to you, for instance - or we hold that there *is* genuine disagreement. In that case, we've got to give some sense to the notion of what it would be for the claim: 'G&S are annoying' to be true, or indeed false. In order for the disagreement to be genuine, and not collapse into the first case, we've got to maintain that there is some objective matter of fact, or some 'absolute' truth-condition, which determines whether G&S are annoying.

Insofar as we can make sense of there being a genuine disagreement, there must be absolute standards. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether disagreements over G&S are genuine (I suspect that they probably are, at least to some extent), but the point stands. Which is it to be?

[flarewearer]

Have you ever stopped to consider that 99% of people ARE NOT PHILOSPHERS, so, to you, I say;



YER MAW




(philosophise your way out of that one)

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Rennie]

Also, Ezra, have you not yet realised that NO ONE GIVES A FUCKING TOSS WHAT YOU THINK?

Jesus, I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading your drivel. Some people give to charity. Some don't. Some choose to give it to local ones. Some choose to donate to world causes. Some people don't give a toss about strangers. Some do.

People are different. You are not God. Accept it. You are so far up your own arse it's unbelieveable. phd thesis? I hope your computer crashes as you type the last word, you boring, self righteous cunt.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Ezra,

Are you saying the difference between a discussion of differing opinions and "genuine dissagreement" is: "genuine dissagreement" exists only where some "absolute truth-condition" can be found?

That does not seem to answer the question, just shift the goalposts. We are left asking whether there is such a thing as an absolute truth condition. How would we recognise one?

If I've understood you properly (and please correct me if I haven't), then , based on your definintion, there are no "genuine dissagreements" - just differences of opinion discussed at length.

.

.

.

Unless and until we can find an "absolute truth" that is indisputably NOT a mere opinion.

[hr]

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