|
Zaradis posted:That isn't an assumption, it's self-evident in that we make choices and could have chosen differently had we chosen to do so. Yes, most of the universe is a deterministic, closed system. However, there are mountains of evidence that human consciousness is a separate emergent property of the configuration of the atoms of the brain. This means that most of the universe, including our bodies, is a deterministic machine; but consciousness is a transcendence within that machine which produces legitimate freedom of choice. Ever since I saw the word "headcanon" it keeps being a useful-rear end word.
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:you don't have to understand neurology to game out determinism and free will No, but the evidence for and against both have changed since those books were written. Is there a point to this pedantry?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Read Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller , Heidegger's Being and Time , Sartre's Being and Nothingness , and de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity and then maybe you will understand. If I have to show that moral realism is legitimate then so do you! I honestly do not care if you agree with me or not.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
If the body is a deterministic machine, how can one choose to act in a non-deterministic manner? Even if the mind were somehow free of determinism, that would simply result in you being unable to affect your actions, despite being aware of it. As I assume most people don't go about screaming inside their head because their body is uncontrollable, then either the mind must be deterministic or the body non-deterministic.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Read Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller , Heidegger's Being and Time , Sartre's Being and Nothingness , and de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity and then maybe you will understand. ______________/ 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The antithesis to determinism isn't free will, it's merely random probability and mathematical chaos. Okay. Thanks for stating what we all already know.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:All choices are made in a context, to equivocate them all as 'always legitimate' is to ignore the ways in which they conflict, totally contingent on that context. For example, you are an arrogant, egotistical person, so you are less likely to accept the position of an opponent in debate from logical argumentation, then you are from fulfilling some kind of desire to be seen as superior. But no one else is required to see those same desires or motivations as important - I give no shits about your desire to inflate your ego, that to me is illegitimate, but a position well explained is interesting to consider. These conflict with each other, so if you want to actually be consistent, you have to make some kind of choice about which to accept. Wat? When has any human being in the history of humanity ever made an unbiased decision? I appreciate your passion, but it seems to be a passion for spouting a bunch of words that make little sense when put together.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Awesome namedrop post, great job. Read past the first sentence. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Oh look I asked for a detailed meta ethical position and I got a twelfth grade reading list that predates the Eisenhower administration. What a surprise.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
This is either a troll or the most self-involved person of recent posting memory.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Please don't derail about determinism though. Even if actions are "determined" in some kind of cosmic sense we can still talk about them being free or constrained actions and hence moral responsibility and choice still make sense as pragmatically useful concepts.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is either a troll or the most self-involved person of recent posting memory. Probably a nineteen year old who thinks he's the only person who's ever read philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5J_kao6mwA
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh look I asked for a detailed meta ethical position and I got a twelfth grade reading list that predates the Eisenhower administration. What a surprise. Ogmius815 posted:Probably a nineteen year old who thinks he's the only person who's ever read philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Probably a nineteen year old who thinks he's the only person who's ever read philosophy. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Note the Danish used in the Kierkegaard title! cultured. Just the only person in this thread, with the possible exception of Smudgie, Lotka, and OwlFancier, who has both read and understood it. If you read it you either didn't understand it or didn't take it seriously. I'm erring on the side of not readin or understanding because your replies and "arguments" are almost entirely fallacious. I hope your families make sure you suffer to death for as long as humanly possible before you die. That's the most appropriate death for anyone who claims the right to force the same kind of death on others. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Look guys, you're going to get called out no matter what if you bring philosophy into any D&D thread ever.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Wat? When has any human being in the history of humanity ever made an unbiased decision? I appreciate your passion, but it seems to be a passion for spouting a bunch of words that make little sense when put together. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Stop wishing death on each other, and post more effortfully in general, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Just the only person in this thread, with the possible exception of Smudgie, Lotka, and OwlFancier, who has both read and understood it. If you read it you either didn't understand it or didn't take it seriously. I was a philosophy major in undergrad and I have an MA in a philosophy-adjacent field for which I read (drumroll) a poo poo ton of philosophy. This is D&D though, we make arguments in here. We don't say "here is a list of books I have read that explain my position which has something to do with existentialism" and then not make some effort to explain those ideas and (more importantly) how they relate to the topic at hand. Believe me I could give you a big reading list that would help you understand why you're being kind of ignorant tool in this thread but that isn't how these discussions go best. Let's try again. Two points. You have to explain yourself because you're the one making big claims about a universal and self-evident morality based on autonomy. 1. You say there are moral facts. I'm skeptical of this (as are many, many prominent moral philosophers I could name). Please explain the nature of these moral facts and how they can be located. 2. Support your policy preferences in this thread by referring to moral facts discussed in 1.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I was a philosophy major in undergrad and I have an MA in a philosophy-adjacent field for which I read (drumroll) a poo poo ton of philosophy. This is D&D though, we make arguments in here. We don't say "here is a list of books I have read that explain my position which has something to do with existentialism" and then not make some effort to explain those ideas and (more importantly) how they relate to the topic at hand. Believe me I could give you a big reading list that would help you understand why you're being kind of ignorant tool in this thread but that isn't how these discussions go best. I was also a philosophy major in both undergraduate and graduate school. There are people who both study philosophy yet still disagree, how novel! That's what all of contemporary philosophy is, our collegiate studies do not give the philosophical theories that we happen to ascribe to any more or less weight. Being such a well read philosopher, you ought to know this. As for not making an effort to explain those existentialist ideas, what do you think this was: Zaradis posted:A very unworthy summary, which will not nullify the need to read and understand the above mentioned books, could be explained thusly; the fact of the matter is that a human beings number of choices is nigh immeasurable in any specific situation and they are free to choose any which they wish. We are nothing more than the choices we make, those choices are absolutely freely made whether or not that is recognized or admitted, and we are therefore fully responsible for every one of those choices. Those choices allow us to provide meaning to our world, and this meaning is made meaningful through distinction with the meaning provided to the world by others. Any and all immoral acts are reducible to attempts to or actual actions taken that limit or prevent a human being from exercising they're freedom. That is the majority of the post in question. Granted, it is the most bare bones explanation, but to get into a deep philosophical explanation of these concepts would take much more room than the maximum post length allows; hence, the reading suggestions. If you can't understand how this answers your questions then you are either: lying about your philosophical studies, have not read the books suggested, or you should go back and work on an English degree to supplement your philosophy degree. Good luck in your "philosophy-adjacent field" (as if not all fields fall into that category). I would predict that it is or will be very difficult for you to find philosophical success , what with your demands of strenuous philosophical argument from opponents while at the same time presenting almost entirely fallacious arguments against those opponents. Unless, of course, your adjacent field is politics, which would mean you'll be very successful because all of politics is arguing fallacies while making unreasonable demands of your opponent. Zaradis fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
So it'll just be the mess of assertions and the reading list then. Got it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Wat? When has any human being in the history of humanity ever made an unbiased decision? I appreciate your passion, but it seems to be a passion for spouting a bunch of words that make little sense when put together. Here's a little experiment for your 'deep' philsophy: Is institutionalizing insane people morally wrong, even if they are able to recover from that insanity because of treatment? Why or why not? rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:23 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So it'll just be the mess of assertions and the reading list then. Got it. So it'll just be a continuation of ignoring relevant points and replying with fallacies then. Got it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I am the Overman. Though I am but a speck of starstuff in the grinding, whirling cosmos, and am bound to that cosmos by the immutable churning of entropy itself, still I have command of the greatest power in the universe: the power to DESTROY MYSELF.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Are you assuming that any bias a person has is always in their own interests? Because that's an unfounded assumption, and one that you must prove. If I have been contradictory, then point it out. If you have any insight, then post it. Because the more you talk, the more it seems you're using excuses of 'deep philosophical explanation' to dodge making an adequate reply. I never said anything about self interest. I said no decision any human has ever made has been free from bias. If there were no bias then a decision necessarily would not be made. No, it isn't wrong, if those people choose to receive treatment. If they don't then it is wrong. This is the simple point I've stated over and over in this thread. It has continually been met with straw men and ad hominem. I'd like to think this is because it's such a solid argument, but even I can come up with sound arguments against my own position. So I must conclude that there is some sort of correlation between wanting to control the lives of other people and not being capable of understanding or forming rational arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I needed to get around to these at some point.Disinterested posted:That is not the only point of origin. Many pre-Christian classical authors expressed deep scepticism for suicidal behaviour, particularly suicide outside of key areas and categories, most of which we don't regard any longer as particularly valid - such as dishonour, or as a form of imparted punishment. I can think of any in particular off the top of my head. Disinterested posted:I don't regard the destruction of a fetus as a destruction of a human life, which is the thing to which I am attaching my test. There is no inconsistency. You're against late trimester abortion? Assigning arbitrary worth to a human being is the first fundamental inconsistency to your beliefs. As I see it, the death penalty, abortions, and assisted suicides are all similar topics in a sense that they are a question of individual rights. Of the three, assisted suicides should be the least controversial of topics since they do involve a heavy degree of consent. rudatron posted:Here's a little experiment for your 'deep' philsophy: Is institutionalizing insane people morally wrong, even if they are able to recover from that insanity because of treatment? Why or why not? As someone who comes from an entire family of chronically depressed people, I can safely say that anyone who even enters treatment with drugs such as anti-depressants is not the same person as they were before. Chronic depression, at least internally, is viewed as a fundamental outlook on life by chronically depressed people.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
But you can use that same argument to argue that drinking alcohol turns you into a different person. Should people therefore not drink? It depends on when you believe a person is seriously different. It's an interesting discussion, but not one that's relevant here. You're still dodging. Do you or do you not admit that a decision may be biased in a way that is not in someone's interests? And if so, how can you then maintain that any choice is a priori free, and that therefore the subject must take full responsibility for it? Are you seriously saying that involuntary committing someone who believes there are bugs under their skin (and therefore self harms) is restraining someone making a free choice, and therefore wrong? rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:So it'll just be a continuation of ignoring relevant points and replying with fallacies then. Got it. Do you think you've explained yourself? You don't think there might be a bit of a gap between "people can make free choices and are defined by those choices" and "therefore there are moral facts and also normative ethics is all about maximizing personal autonomy"? Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 05:16 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But you can use that same argument to argue that drinking alcohol turns you into a different person. Should people therefore not drink? It depends on when you believe a person is seriously different. It's an interesting discussion, but not one that's relevant here. It's relevant in a sense that mental health treatment isn't the end all be all of mental illnesses, as Ghost of Reagan's Past mentioned earlier in this thread. That's part of the reason why legally assisted suicide should be a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:First, you know nothing, Jon Snow. Your lovely appeals to existentialist authors is not actually convincing to anyone, but worse, they all hold contradictory positions (Heidegger is not an existentialist, either, and his views are completely irrelevant to anything you want to say). Kierkegaard's view is quite different from Sartre's, as you may figure out from reading them closely. You have some assumptions about autonomy that are silly and unfounded, but that's okay. I don't have to find problems with your view of autonomy to find problems with your 'arguments,' such as they are. First, autonomy is irrelevant to the question of whether doctors should be able to prescribe drugs to permit you to end your life. At least, your autonomy is irrelevant. Even if you have a farcical view that puts individual autonomy at the center (and not, say, a concept like Pettit and Smith's orthonomy, or well-being, or eudaimonia), doctors have autonomy, and their autonomy is not in service of yours. Codes of medical ethics basically prohibit doctors from offering you suicide drugs, and you might think this problematic, but that's the reality. Sorry, you can't kill yourself within the domain of medicine. But doctors are under no obligation to prescribe you suicide drugs just because you are a free autonomous agent and want them. I'd say it conflicts with the aims of medicine, but that's irrelevant, since they have autonomy and so aren't infringing on your autonomy by not prescribing you suicide drugs. Whoops, turns out your cherished autonomy doesn't guarantee a right to medical suicide. Second, the right to autonomy only exists in competent adults. It does not exist in children, and it does not exist in the person in a coma attached to a bunch of machines to keep them alive. It also doesn't exist in the person who, for whatever reason, cannot grasp reasons. The person who arbitrarily decides to shoot themselves for no reason whatsoever is not grasping reasons because their actions are not connected in the right kind of way to their thoughts (because they aren't connected at all). The suicidal person, who is clinically depressed? It depends. But the rest of us are under no obligation to make it easy for them to kill themselves, even if their belief is rational and autonomous. In fact, I'm well within my rights to try and stop them, and to try and write laws so that people don't have easy access to tools to kill themselves (I'll namedrop, because I'm a dick tonight: go read Rawls). Hell, that someone wants to kill themselves is defeasible evidence they are incompetent. Now, you could think there are some principles that prohibit me from doing this, but the mere fact that you're autonomous is absolutely not an argument against my regulating your autonomous behavior. Go on, embrace self-ownership. Do it. That someone is autonomous doesn't give them a moral right to anything unless you adopt some extra principles. Now I bet you're going to mention fallacies but you apparently don't know that 'fallacy' doesn't mean 'disagrees with you.'
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But you can use that same argument to argue that drinking alcohol turns you into a different person. Should people therefore not drink? It depends on when you believe a person is seriously different. It's an interesting discussion, but not one that's relevant here. People should have the right to choose whether they drink or not.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:No, it isn't wrong, if those people choose to receive treatment. If they don't then it is wrong. This is the simple point I've stated over and over in this thread. It has continually been met with straw men and ad hominem. I'd like to think this is because it's such a solid argument, but even I can come up with sound arguments against my own position. So I must conclude that there is some sort of correlation between wanting to control the lives of other people and not being capable of understanding or forming rational arguments. If you have ebola and I have a long stick, and I poke you with the stick to ward you off, am I then an insane person and a fascist because I sought to control others?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Codes of medical ethics basically prohibit doctors from offering you suicide drugs, and you might think this problematic, but that's the reality. Sorry, you can't kill yourself within the domain of medicine. But doctors are under no obligation to prescribe you suicide drugs just because you are a free autonomous agent and want them. I'd say it conflicts with the aims of medicine, but that's irrelevant, since they have autonomy and so aren't infringing on your autonomy by not prescribing you suicide drugs. Whoops, turns out your cherished autonomy doesn't guarantee a right to medical suicide. Don't trust American doctors. They run for profit institutions and can ethically gently caress you with the hospital administration every time you walk into a hospital. You essentially are arguing, by default, that exploiting someone for their condition is more ethical than killing them by their consent. Let me rephrase: It costs a lot money to seek mental health treatment. A lot and a lot of money. Especially in the case of modern therapy, the new norm is prescribing you expensive drugs that you take that may or may not statistically increase your chances chances of committing suicide. Doctors in the field of mental health are especially culpable for delivering the patients medicine that don't work, and that's especially true for neurological symptoms. Why do people think this is okay? Why do people think this is more ethical than anything I've suggested in this thread?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Just the only person in this thread, with the possible exception of Smudgie, Lotka, and OwlFancier, who has both read and understood it. If you read it you either didn't understand it or didn't take it seriously. As chance has it, I actually am a doctoral candidate in philosophy. Ghost of Reagan Past is too, if I remember right, unless of course he's already been awarded his PhD. It's been a while since I read de Beauvoir or Sartre, admittedly, but I'm more than familiar enough with those four texts to know that mere reference to them is not a sufficient argument for the moral realism you're unnecessarily insisting on espousing here. While we may be on the same side of the issue that is the subject of this particular thread, my meta-ethics are vastly different to yours, and I can't say I have a lot of time for the idea that categories like "rights" are anything but very useful fictions, much less real things to which some human behaviours can be indexed with any accuracy. I don't believe I understand these texts any less well than you, yet we have very different approaches this issue, and you ought to know as well as anybody that it's both fallacious and insulting to imply that a response to a text other than your own is an indication of the other not having understood it. So, in short, you gotta stop with this hosed-up "I've read more philosophy than you" garbage. If it counted for anything, we'd be running this whole show (thank god we're not). Also, you know how a lot of people, sometimes very smart people who you genuinely want to take you seriously, think engaging with philosophy grads is tedious as all hell? This is pretty much why. Just to clarify my position: while I have no objection, for obvious reasons, to being treated for or resuscitated from a hypothetical suicide attempt that I've hosed up and not executed properly or been unluckily found in the process of carrying out, I am viciously opposed to anybody making any policy decisions or moral judgements about when my decision to check out is a valid one. My reasons for this aren't particularly deep, either. They pretty much boil down to my inclination to defend my autonomy absent a (subjectively) good reason to compromise it and a fundamental feeling that my life is my own to dispose of. I also agree with this: Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Doctors are under no obligation to prescribe you suicide drugs just because you are a free autonomous agent and want them. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I haven't read any Kierkegaard in years and I'll never be a PhD candidate in Phil but I'm pretty sure if there was a conclusive argument that rights are some kind of spooky ontologically extant part of nature you could explain it to me if you understood it rather than trying to hand out book reports.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Don't trust American doctors. They run for profit institutions and can ethically gently caress you with the hospital administration every time you walk into a hospital. You essentially are arguing, by default, that exploiting someone for their condition is more ethical than killing them by their consent. Let me rephrase: It costs a lot money to seek mental health treatment. A lot and a lot of money. Especially in the case of modern therapy, the new norm is prescribing you expensive drugs that you take that may or may not statistically increase your chances chances of committing suicide. Doctors in the field of mental health are especially culpable for delivering the patients medicine that don't work, and that's especially true for neurological symptoms. Why do people think this is okay? Why do people think this is more ethical than anything I've suggested in this thread? (Personally I think the codes deserve at least some respect, but I still think PAS is acceptable in some circumstances, and that the codes aren't a good argument against it).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
To anyone who is still skeptical about this please, please, please just type in anti-depressant controversy into google and you'll run into journals and that blanket FDA statement made ~10 years ago real quick. The fact that doctors and pharmaceutical companies actually get away with this poo poo is maddening.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you or do you not admit that a decision may be biased in a way that is not in someone's interests? And if so, how can you then maintain that any choice is a priori free, and that therefore the subject must take full responsibility for it? Are you saying a choice is only free if it is biased toward the self-interest of the one doing the choosing? Because that's what it sounds like, and I'm going to need some pretty good arguments to agree that dying to save the life of a loved one isn't possibly a free act. Ogmius815 posted:you explain yourself first! No, you! Just kidding, I'm not trying with you anymore. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Heidegger is not an existentialist, either, and his views are completely irrelevant to anything you want to say. Heidegger claimed he was not an existentialist, which is fine, but Being and Time is blatantly existentialist as 98% of the secondary literature from Heidegger scholars agrees. Further, the Dasein analytic is very much existentialist and relevant to my argument. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Kierkegaard's view is quite different from Sartre's I never equated the two. Of course they differ, otherwise Sartre's view would simply be redundant. But Kierkegaard's influence is clear in Sartre's philosophy. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:First, autonomy is irrelevant to the question of whether doctors should be able to prescribe drugs to permit you to end your life. At least, your autonomy is irrelevant. Correct. And I never claimed otherwise. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Sorry, you can't kill yourself within the domain of medicine. I can go to the drug store right now and buy many different over the counter medicines that will kill me when a sufficient amount have been ingested. So this simply isn't true. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:But doctors are under no obligation to prescribe you suicide drugs just because you are a free autonomous agent and want them. Again, correct. I never claimed otherwise and would argue against forcing a doctor to do so. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Whoops, turns out your cherished autonomy doesn't guarantee a right to medical suicide. Wrong. It does, as I said before. What my autonomy cannot provide me with is medically assisted suicide. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Second, the right to autonomy only exists in competent adults. It does not exist in children, and it does not exist in the person in a coma attached to a bunch of machines to keep them alive. It also doesn't exist in the person who, for whatever reason, cannot grasp reasons. On what grounds is this claim made? Ghost of Reagan Past posted:But the rest of us are under no obligation to make it easy for them to kill themselves, even if their belief is rational and autonomous. Correct. And, again, I never argued otherwise. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:In fact, I'm well within my rights to try and stop them, and to try and write laws so that people don't have easy access to tools to kill themselves (I'll namedrop, because I'm a dick tonight: go read Rawls). I've read Rawls a number of times. I understand his argument. However, I disagree with it because I believe that the individual has more of a right to their life than does the state. My beginning premise is Kantian; namely, that the individual is an end in themselves and it is immoral to treat them as a means to an end. The preservation of life is important, but secondary. Many people in this thread seem to want to make it primary based on the will (tyranny) of the majority. This seems to be the hump that some of us will never get over. Which is fine, I'm willing to agree to disagree as long as you are never put in a position to make decisions for me. Also, apparently I'm a pariah for dropping four names and then extremely briefly explaining their positions; so I'll be sure to keep it to the maximum of three next time, since your post (with Rawls, Pettit, and Smith) is legitimate. Thanks for making this arbitrary nonsense clear. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Now, you could think there are some principles that prohibit me from doing this, but the mere fact that you're autonomous is absolutely not an argument against my regulating your autonomous behavior. I never made an argument that it was. I said that human beings have a right to their autonomy and that right is what keeps that autonomy from being regulated (unless that autonomy is used to infringe on another's autonomy, which is a logical conclusion of the initial premises). That right comes from the beginning principle stated earlier; that human beings are ends in themselves and it is immoral to treat them as means to an end. If this is not agreed upon then all our words are for nothing. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Go on, embrace self-ownership. Do it. That someone is autonomous doesn't give them a moral right to anything unless you adopt some extra principles. Agreed. I have just enumerated those principles above for at least the second time in this thread, using different language that will hopefully clarify. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Now I bet you're going to mention fallacies but you apparently don't know that 'fallacy' doesn't mean 'disagrees with you.' Fallacies are flaws in the logic of an argument, of which there have been many in this thread. I hope someone points out when and/or if I make them so that I can correct my thinking and argument. Getting upset about it being pointed out makes no sense. Everyone makes mistakes and that is okay. Also, I am not an objective moral realist. Meaning and values are projected onto the world subjectively by each of us. However, without other subjectivities, against which our individual subjective values are distinguished, there is no meaning in any sense. If my subjective values and meaning were the only ones how would I recognize them as valuable or meaningful? If everything were the same shade of green there would be no such thing as green or any other color because there would be no other colors against which to distinguish them. Zaradis fucked around with this message at 07:11 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Are you saying a choice is only free if it is biased toward the self-interest of the one doing the choosing? Because that's what it sounds like, and I'm going to need some pretty good arguments to agree that dying to save the life of a loved one isn't possibly a free act. I'll ask again: Do you or do you not admit that a decision may be biased in a way that is not in someone's interests? Job Truniht posted:It's relevant in a sense that mental health treatment isn't the end all be all of mental illnesses, as Ghost of Reagan's Past mentioned earlier in this thread. That's part of the reason why legally assisted suicide should be a thing. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:04 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Hey guys I once heard that those people who are skeptical of novel claims have the burden of defending their skepticism before the novel claims are adequately defined and explained. That's how it goes right? From now on when I want to win an argument in D&D I'm just going to assert a bunch of moral principles, imply they're derivable logically from vaguely defined axioms in ways that I refuse to explain, list a bunch of books I've read, and then act like a self-important tool. Apparently that's cool and good debating now. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 09:21 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 09:14
|
|