|
As a pragmatist what is the actual result of your argument? Because it does seem that if you can prove truth of your statement then what the gently caress are you doing here. Why aren't you a world leader some where ,because in order to win your argument you have to prove something that's pretty much never been proven. None of this seems to have any actual practical use so it can be dismissed. When actual application of a persons morals and general morality is examined most people actually are utilitarian in practice.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, the world isn't really in the practice of making people leaders on the basis of their philosophical work. Anyway, as I've already mentioned in this thread, over half of philosophy faculty are moral realists and fewer than a third are outright anti-realists. Most of what I've said in this thread has just been a defense of (professional) philosophical majority views. Your insistence that if I'm right the discovery is earth-shattering is based on a prejudice you have about what normative facts ought to be like if they're to exist at all. I encourage you to let go of this belief. The kinds of things I'm talking about aren't magic; they're real, tangible, relatively mundane things. A moral truth cannot be observed and is not tangible as the world changes so do these "truths" as you describe them. What's the observable outcome of your argument? What is its practicality?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:As the world changes, so do facts about the world? That seems obvious, and doesn't really sound like a problem. Show me a picture of a moral truth without words or any description beyond the image itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Oh, well, I don't think that. I don't think 'S wants P' and 'P is in the interest of S' are interchangeable salva veritate. I've been pretty clear (I thought) that I think people can (and often do) want things that aren't in their interest. Show me a token value fact that exists without a subjective opinion. You can't it's a impossibility. There is no such image you can show that in of itself represents a moral truth. It's unobservable. Moral truth does not exist because as society evolves so these " truths" evolve Your metaphysical fancy talk means nothing because you cannot demonstrate it's actual application.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Show me an image of Beethoven's ninth symphony. If you can't, does that mean it does not exist? Insert image off sheet music, video of performance, sound of performance, etc... You're welcome to show me anything that shows or demonstrates a moral truth. Words are not in a sense tangible to proving truth as they reflect thought. Morality is absolutely subjective and requires context.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
A tangible consequence or observable phenomena. Thought is intangible and you are claiming infallibility, while I am claiming fallibility,but only in instances of observance of phenomena. You are literally claiming on faith that your statement is infallible and absolute. I am saying this argument is inconsequential because you cannot present evidence that it has any actual observable effect.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
"Homosexuality is wrong and this is a moral truth." I don't have any evidence but if you look at these token moral values you will see blah blah.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I already did you claim to have evidence that there is a moral truth in the world, but you have no evidence. Moral Truth is a beach house for fascists.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I'm saying the argument that there are moral facts , truths tokens whatever lead basically to fascism. That's a cornerstone of a fascist government is to know a moral truth above all others. Not recognizing that your argument is fallible, has no evidence, and that there exists a truth beyond ourselves but you know it and your argument in of itself is the proof is kind of not great. You've been arguing for several pages with nothing but your own words and no evidence. I can demonstrate with evidence murder of some types are wrong, but still conclude this isn't always the case and it's only my subjective fallible values that I believe this.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
This is like the sovereign citizen thread of ethics, no combination of magical words are going to prove moral truth. That's my argument you cannot have the argument be evidence in of itself. You are writing a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Everything is that because you've offered no evidence only testimony.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
My opinion is that as a pragmatist without evidence, consequences, or any observable phenomena that morality is not otherwise subjective then morality is subjective.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
I don't experience morals as a spiritual experience or phenomena I don't know where you got that. I can observe actions and then make a subjective opinion on whether they are good or bad , but I don't and no one does "feel" murder other than the physical actions associated with the act itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
No, I believe murder is wrong just that you don't have to experience murder to know it is wrong. Just because the action is observable doesn't mean that it has to be broken down like a analytical computer. As a pragmatist though I believe that my morals are based on subjective lessons I've learned from my enviroment and my families upbringing. What I don't see the point of is the metaphysical argument of breaking down actual subjective moral questions and somehow revealing that these values can equal a token of morality and that through doing so we can reach a moral truth or moral fact. My other point is that people generally are utilitarian when it comes to certain philosophical questions. It differs from solipsism by the virtue that value is subjective and can come from outside oneself. I value life, others value life, this gives it its subjective value. The taking of life is wrong because of the value I place on life. That's my completely subjective view.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Like just in general how many times do you think people actually have to make a ethical decision ? In like day to day life? That interests me more. I honestly can't think of a situation that I've had in the last month where there was a moral question of what I was doing. Like just in general how often do you think people make what you would consider are moral decisions?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Stickman posted:What are your definitions of "moral" and "ethical" decisions? What ever yours are , just like when was the last time you actually made a decision where you questioned whether you thought it was unethical.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
No, seriously when was the last time that any one has made a conscious decision over something they would consider a ethical dilemma? Like a legitimate issue where you were like " Is this ethical for me to do this?" Not like a hypothetical but a actual decision that you had to actually think about and question whether what you were doing was right or wrong?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yeah, I would have thought moral decisions are a normal part of everyday life for almost everyone. Do... do you not consider whether your actions are right or wrong that often? Referring to Hollismason and Rudatron here. What was the last actual what you would consider ethical decision where you were conflicted as to the correct course of action I work as a paralegal and I was previously a paramedic so yes I have made ethical decisions and debated the correctness of my options. Most people don't I mean that implies people in their day to day lives make multiple ethically debatable decisions and for a majority that's just not the case. My point though is that there is a practicality to ethics and as a pragmatist this is what I'm concerned with.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is abundant room for this in normal interpersonal relationships. Ethics should inform a great deal of your interaction with others. You're going to have to explain on this one. For example, I went to a barbecue with my family at no point in my interactions with them was their a question of a ethical decisions that needed to be made in this interaction.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Most of my interaction with people involves topics or situations whereby ethics come into play. Yesterday for example I had to decide whether and how to intervene with a friend who is having some difficulty. Similarly there's a complex set of obligations towards most of the people I know which I have to decide whether I am able to fulfil at any given time. Yes and how did you make those actual decisions? Like what was the thought process behind it? Did you sit down and write a pros and cons, did you discuss in depth the nature of good and evil? Or was there a intrinsic decision making process. Was it a complex process?How are you defining ethical dilemma? Why would you think about whether you should intervene with your friend who was having trouble? That's what I am asking because how does this view of values come into a practical application of ethics. If it has no practicality then why do we need to prove or disprove it? Here's a example from my life as a paramedic and it was something I would do often. I would mislead/lie/misconstrue facts to parents of dead children. One of the most common codes we ran where it was a cardiac event was on newborns. Now in my professional career I had never seen a newborn in the field resuscitation. Generally this was because of SID or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Now when we arrive on scene regardless of our actual medical knowledge we always worked the code. Whether the child was blue or not we worked it. Why? The infant was dead. There was nothing medically to be done. When parents would ask me whether their child was going to be okay I would have to say " We're going to do the best we can" then we would transport the child to the hospital. Where the child would be of course declared dead. Was I wrong for doing this? No, in my view I was not. In fact this is a "unwritten" code in EMS. You always work children and transport. It would have been far crueler to show up and then tell the parents that there was nothing we could do to help, then leave them with their dead child, and then have them deal with the disposal of the body. Now which would you do? Would you tell them their child is dead? Even when the child has what's termed lividity ( this is a sign that absolutely means death) So in your opinion why is this not unethical? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Do you think that the fact that Sacramento is the capital of California is not reducible to any set of physical facts? That what makes it true is a non-physical state of affairs? That seems extremely strange. You keep moving the goal posts in this argument. Show me how a moral fact breaks down into a observable fact. I understand what you are arguing I just don't see why you insist on using these analogies.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:If you know what I'm arguing then you can tell me my argument. Your analogies are equating the physical with the intangible it's like saying " Demonstrate hope".
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because I have to weigh the probability of success with their right to autonomy. Which varies on a case by case basis. Generally the conclusion I come to is that I lack sufficient information to make a proper decision and I should continue to pay attention and offer what help I can which does not violate their autonomy to as great a degree. Okay but where does your ethical responsibility to that person come from? Why is it important to you for your friend to benefit and not say the person you see on the street that his homeless? Like why do you place a value on that decision above other decisions? Oh dear clone posted:People make ethically debatable decisions every time they do anything at all (including doing nothing). Perhaps you mean only that most people don't think about or question what they ought to do very often, but in that case, have you got statistics? I really don't think worrying about what one should do is at all unusual. That's a tough study to find but we can look at studies on ethical decisions / dilemma based on specific instances. The problem you have with a ethical dilemma is that its definition varies depending on who you ask. This is a interesting survey on Climate Change. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/motivates-consumers-environmental-ethical-decisions Also, yes I don't believe people debate themselves in regard to decisions they make.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 17:15
|
|