8
   

A better understanding about subjective concepts.

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 06:26 pm
@Mockingclown,
Quote:
Q1) Do you agree that different people differ in their assessment of the same moral question?

Q2) Who would you save or rather would you push? Is it morally 'right' to save the five over the one, or vice versa?


The trolly dilemma is a very old dilemma, I do hope that you do not lose interest in this subject but I will be honest that from your last Ad hominems that you were not on board from the get go.
Mockingclown
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 06:41 pm
@reasoning logic,
I suppose you didn't read past question 2. I gave the trolley dilemma, because you wanted dumb examples. So I served them on a platter for you? And yet you still complain.

Your idea of moral objectivism, in that there is one moral truth always in every situation is just plainly wrong, even the youth of this age understand this. Yet, an adult, I'm assuming, with clouded beliefs is more stubborn than a mule to even give a thought to another idea.
I've only used Ad Hominem once, yet you've strutted a red herring as well as avoiding the issue, and avoiding the question.

Quote:
that you were not on board from the get go.


Oh look another avoiding the issue, which can also be be seen as Ad Hominem.
If your long term memory neurons aren't firing properly, reread my first post on this thread, to the one before this thread, and tell me what you really think, instead of saying I am not par with your level. Which is what exactly? a little above mediocre maybe.


aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 06:53 pm
As JLNobody said, this clown (don't take any offense Mr. Mockingclown) does make sense if you look at this idea of morality in context with history and society.

And you Reasoning Logic see morality from a universal perspective, right? At least that's what I gathered from the wide spread of ideas through out this thread. Although moral universals is a dangerous term to use. Because do you believe a psycho will conform to the golden rule?


I don't know why you guys are arguing whose scenery is more pleasing to look?
It's like arguing I can piss farther than you. Piss is piss, leave it alone, lol.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 07:13 pm
@aspvenom,
I think you guys are arguing over the chicken-egg dilemma.

Does a universal morality exist before us, and we find certain truths over time (which I think RL holds). Or did morality come from humans (which the clown holds). Which came first is the debate I'm sensing?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 07:14 pm
@Mockingclown,
Quote:
I suppose you didn't read past question 2. I gave the trolley dilemma, because you wanted dumb examples. So I served them on a platter for you? And yet you still complain.


Let me guess you did not read my quote from page 1?

Quote:
The problem that I see with dilemmas is that the rest of society who will be evaluating the outcome will view it as immoral in many cases, that is why a universal concept of morality needs to be established. If everyone could understand that wiping the Jews from the earth was immoral there would be no moral need to lie to protect innocent life from the Nazis.

If someone is in a moral dilemma and they thought that they had to make a choice I do not think that their action should be held against them as long as they did everything in their power to find a different solution. the most moral solution.

I know that we can put together some far out hypothetical moral dilemmas but this is reality, " such moral dilemmas coming to light in a world that has established a universal code of ethics and had taught it to everyone, would be in a much better position to deal with the outcome.


Quote:

Your idea of moral objectivism, in that there is one moral truth always in every situation is just plainly wrong,


I have not claimed this even though I think that it may be possibly true, though I do not have the answers but regardless if I do not hold the answers to these questions does not mean that there are not truthful answers to the questions.

Quote:
I've only used Ad Hominem once,


Why?

Quote:
Oh look another avoiding the issue, which can also be be seen as Ad Hominem.


OK maybe I was wrong and should not have said that.

Quote:
If your long term memory neurons aren't firing properly, reread my first post on this thread, to the one before this thread, and tell me what you really think, instead of saying I am not par with your level. Which is what exactly? a little above mediocre maybe.


I apologize if I came across as saying you are not on par with my level but I will be truthful, "that I have only found a few people that have an interest in moral philosophy. As I have said in the past that I am no pro but there are a few others like Dr Katz that I study who are pros in my opinion and what I a interested in is getting intellectuals as yourself to bring peer reviews to this discussion.



Mockingclown
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 07:29 pm
@reasoning logic,
A bit of misunderstanding made me a bit defensive and I sincerely apologize if I've crossed the line and you cogitated of me to be malicious.

Your belief on this matter is very interesting, nevertheless to say, and I've read of a wide range of works on it, even C.S. Lewis' work on it tied to fiction which are pleasurable readings. This then is tied to the existence of God and whatnot.

Mockingclown
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 07:37 pm
@Mockingclown,
Yet I must warn you of Dr. Katz that you speak of. Dr. Katz and his followers should realize that individuals are too enigmatic and complex to be neatly classified into simple categories. That's where the idea of building up universal morality hits the iceberg, so to speak.
0 Replies
 
deepthot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 08:56 pm
@Mockingclown,
Electron clouds and quarks and dark matter are enigmatic and complex ...or don't you think so?

Do you understand how science operates? It puts these complexities (such as how Aristotle viewed "motion") into neat categories called terms and relations of the theoretical structure, the frame-of-reference, which it then uses to deduce an implication, make a prediction, and then looks for confirmation. If enough workers in the specific field agree that a result was achieved, they consider it tentatively confirmed; and look for further confirmation. The finding is never fully established but is held onto until an even better theory or experience comes along to supercede it, or to restrict it to a limited domain.

[Aristotle said "motion" is defined as: "potentiality becoming actuality."

Galileo postulated that "motion" is the "ratio of space units to time units." -- what you would call "neat categories." In fact, the aristotelians of his day considered it a heresy, and criticized very severely that he was over-simplifying complex matters (such as potentiality)!!!! The Inquisition sentenced him to house arrest, with a threat of worse.]

I guess I'm lucky that you are not a member of The Inquisition ....not that I am anywhere near as smart as Galileo !!

My project, though, is to make a science out of one branch of Moral Philosophy - the one named Ethics. Moral Psychology is already a legitimate science: it deals with moral intuition, with feelings such as patriotism, awe, disgust; with stages of moral development in life; with the origins of altruism in human organisms; with how moral behavior is affected by various odors or fragrances, with ethical behavior, etc.

Philosophers of Ethical Science would still have plenty to do if my enterprise succeeds so philosophers need not worry that they will be put out of work. The way I see Ethics becoming a science is if it employs scientific methods. The project is already quite far along. Ignorance on the part of critics is no excuse. They have not read the required background reading, so they shoot from the lip. Then they aim afterward.

Who was it who said: "All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I would add a fourth: Fourth, they claim that they thought of it first !
Mockingclown
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 09:17 pm
@deepthot,
Hello Dr. Katz,
Nice to get feedback from you. I'm still skeptical.
I have not finished reading the entire document that reasoning logic has posted on first page or so.
By skimming it, it seems to be a work in progress since there is more on the theory itself than processes and steps to address social problems.
I may come of as rude, but a fair amount of skepticism and criticism is healthy.
Surviving this process will only make your theory stronger.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 10:30 pm
@Mockingclown,
You have my support on the skepticism front, My previous posts should explain why.

reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 10:40 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
You have my support on the skepticism front, My previous posts should explain why.


I am some what skeptical about football but that could have something to do with the amount of time that I put into understanding it. If I were to comment on other subjects that I have studied very little and invested very little interest in I may be skeptical in them as well.
Anything that we invest time into we become better at it or am I wrong? Dr Katz has invested more time into ethics than anyone else I know, Do you think that it could be logically possible that he is more informed in this area of thought than anyone else I know?
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 10:48 pm
@reasoning logic,
It's not a matter of authority, and what you're implying is an appeal to authority, which is an inductive argument in the first place, and secondly it's deductively fallacious.Because although Dr. Katz is an authority, there is nothing stopping him from declaring falsehood.
As the saying goes in science, all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 10:57 pm
@aspvenom,
I will be honest, I found that most everyone who has commented on this thread to have approached it like the people Socrates had spoken about with the exception of Dr Katz

Quote:
I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the "Herculean" labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.

At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:10 pm
@aspvenom,
Quote:
all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.


Yeah and we all know the scrutiny that Galileo faced don't we? the same scrutiny that Dr Katz is facing.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:13 pm
@reasoning logic,
Socrates also said an unexamined life is not worth living.

All I see are people in this forum examining this man's work. Galileo has nothing to do with this. It's standard procedure in science. There are no VIP cards, your hypothesis must be well reviewed and tested before anything else can happen, or else, it's back to the drawing board, to step 1, observation and research.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:15 pm
@aspvenom,
Quote:
It's standard procedure in science. There are no VIP cards, your hypothesis must be well reviewed and tested before anything else can happen, or else, it back to the drawing board to step 1, observation.


Thank you. That is all I am hoping for.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:26 pm
@reasoning logic,
One of my research supervisors got his PhD on "French Railway Slang" and his tenure from the publication of linguistic sub-issues thereof !

The point is that outside of the "hard sciences" much of what is called "academic research" is esoteric. In order to enhance funding and profile it is often useful to hitch your wagon to what are ostensibly "issues of public concern" from which popular articles or books can ensue. Most university academics recognize this "reality" and would not dream of using titles like "Dr" when discussing each others work.

Now none of this is directed towards Katz personally. He is entitled to earn his crust like the rest of his colleagues. But speaking as a former "social scientist" myself, I suggest we think pretty carefully about that blanket term "science" and the assumed ethos of respectability it implies.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:34 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I suggest we think pretty carefully about that blanket term "science" and the assumed ethos of respectability it implies.

Are you suggestion that we treat the social sciences the same way that they have been treated from their inception?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2012 12:21 am
@reasoning logic,
I am suggesting that in order to gain academic respectability, subjects like psychology and sociology needed to copy the methods of natural science which too often has resulted in superficiality. For example, the very concept of "statistical significance" on which their research is usually based depends on social convention rather than universality, and choice of tests can be manipulated in order to achieve "significance".

In philosophical terms however, the general problem concerns "the observation of observation". Unlike in the natural sciences, a standardized neutral "observer" cannot be assumed. As in the logic of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the act of observation can determine the nature of the "data".

Now much of this is tacitly "known" by many socially scientists but the momentum of their modus operandi tends to involve them in glossing over or ignoring such shortcomings. It is like the scenario of the medieval physician who is not quite happy with "the humors of the body" but his training and "expertise" in them, means he is professionally stuck with them.
0 Replies
 
deepthot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2012 02:15 am
@farmerman,
Greetings farmerman

I like what you wrote, and I like the signature you chose because I agree with Eddington on that point.

All those who are skeptical about my orientation and my conclusions need only study my papers to learn something about my point-of-view, my arguments for it, and the evidence I present. My aim is to construct a system of ethics based upon logic ...the derived implications of which ethical theory will seem reasonable to a majority of thinking people. I am aware of how difficult a task that is, but I enjoy "doing the impossible." I am delivering a paper on the topic at a values conference in early October, in Knoxville. After that I may print excerpts from it at various forums where I usually blog.

As to something Fresco wrote, the achievements of the HVP Test, as of the year 2003, are alluded to in Appendix One of my manual ETHICS: A College Course - a link to which was previously offered in an earlier post in this thread. Since then, the test has many other accomplishments to its credit. It is not useless.

I don't want Reasoned Logic to hold me up as an authority, for I have indicated in prior posts here that the appeal to authority is a very low form of value [and it's an Informal Fallacy of Logic.] I explicitly criticized Hegel for having that belief system. It helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Hitler.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 10:26:40