tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6156476563843896870..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Peter Singer on infanticideVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28512409836944847082013-03-30T09:00:34.083-07:002013-03-30T09:00:34.083-07:00Karl,
You do realize that most of the analogies ha...Karl,<br />You do realize that most of the analogies have been to the medical field, itself not being a hard science in the same exact ways that morality isn’t, right? This is far from admitting that it’s not a science, unless you’re dismissing most of the sciences as not being science since they can’t compete with the standards of physics. I doubt you’ll be able to respond without mischaracterizing what I’ve said, so I’ll agree, there are better things to do than to converse with you.<br /><br />HyperEntity, <br />What do you think that quote shows? We do indeed do those things. The families of victims do indeed want retribution, but is that the result of rational analysis or emotion? Given the emotional impact of the event, it would seem that emotion clouds judgment. Should retribution play a role in the justice system? Many people don’t think it should; they do indeed see the criminals as merely faulty units, similar to a robot stuck on kill mode that needs to be isolated from society (If you point out this is not the general view, may I remind you that the general public has also expressed visceral hate to other minorities, e.g. homosexuals). When we assign blame, we are in fact short-cutting whether this is the result of programming or not, the result of intent or not. Was this simply a robot that backed into someone who shouldn’t have been there or was the robot akin to the Terminator? Assigning responsibility is simply a short-cut to decide whether it is safe for the robot to be in society. We don’t blame the robot that moves back and forth mindlessly, but the computer that specially targets human-like objects would be ‘evil’ and ‘responsible’ for those deaths and needs to be put down (even though theists here would deny machines have intentionality), otherwise, it would result in more deaths, that might include me (a fairly useful evolutionary speaking to eliminate/move away from things that are out to kill you). So, yes, we would blame ‘mindless’ systems for deaths and yes, some people think murderers contain ‘faulty’ systems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40352570994641588802013-03-29T08:47:32.213-07:002013-03-29T08:47:32.213-07:00"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanis..."But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility"<br /><br />No. It only makes nonsense if the idea that we are responsible to your non-existent God. That has always been a laughably ridiculous notion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23989890671753692002013-03-28T18:13:31.000-07:002013-03-28T18:13:31.000-07:00Richard Dawkins posted: ''Basil Fawlty, Br...Richard Dawkins posted: ''Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. <br /><br />But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?<br /><br />Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.''<br /><br />http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html<br /><br />I look forward to seeing how this quote will be spun.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695856427586801682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13050038531663652242013-03-28T06:23:25.575-07:002013-03-28T06:23:25.575-07:00Yeah, more of the same. I gave you two more chance...Yeah, more of the same. I gave you two more chances to improve; you didn't. But thank you for admitting this isn't science what you are doing (<i>It may not be a hard science</i>), that alone undermines half of what you said in this discussion. <br /><br />Now, if you will excuse me, I have better things to do in my free time.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44657962775863235292013-03-27T22:28:49.373-07:002013-03-27T22:28:49.373-07:00Karl,
Condensed to one post:
“This is a false anal...Karl,<br />Condensed to one post:<br />“This is a false analogy and doesn't damage my claim that Dawkins needs a basic understanding of morality and a way to test whither something is moral or not before making judgement calls.”<br /><br />No one disagrees that you need test cases, only you think that someone does. I don’t care about the rest of your claim. It’s accepted in the sciences, your acceptance isn’t required.<br /><br />“I can tell the sun didn't explode twenty-minutes ago because… You can make all the fictitious examples you want, but it's not gonna change the fact that I need knowledge of the subject material and way to test the validity of those claims to call bullshit on them.”<br /><br />You completely missed the point of this analogy and your point even misses the mark. The claims that Dawkins was dismissing was for the Bible, not morality, so he would need knowledge of the Bible, which is not the subject of this discussion. <br /><br />“The solar system is not astrology. Astrology is a system of interpreting how astral bodies…affect a person's behavior. Astronomy …has nothing to say about morality...You do love to twist other people's words, even if you have to commit blatant category errors, to create your straw-men, don't you?”<br /><br />Here’s the quick run-down of this part of the conversation: I say that astrologers think that the solar system concerns morality. You say that the solar system does not. I say that you dismissed the explanations of astrology as being irrelevant to morality. How is this anything other than an accurate description of your response? What else is that supposed to mean!? Nobody brought up astronomy until now. If that was your intended meaning, then you simply didn’t answer my point at all.<br /><br />“Your statement Now, do you need a full explanation of morality in order to dismiss astrology? If not, then you’ve cleared Dawkins of any wrong-doing. Otherwise, you’re being hypocritical. That is a blatant attempt at forcing me into a Catch-22 position.”<br /><br />You’re right; I assumed that you were scientifically literate. I should be more careful in the future when discussing on theistic forums as they tend not to accept the practices of science. Change hypocrite to scientifically illiterate, and by implication, no credibility to talk about this issue, which in turn would kind of be hypocritical; funny how that turns out that way.<br /><br />“Saying you can't determine whether Hitler was right or wrong is not an explanation of morality, it is not saying you don't know where morality comes from.”<br /><br />Simply reasserting your interpretation doesn’t give it any more merit. Nothing new here so I’ll refer you back to my previous points on this issue. Also, I didn’t say it was an explanation for morality, I said it Dawkins answer involved explanations, as in that’s what he was referring to when he said that was a hard problem.<br /><br />“You just admitted people need not know basic biological information like the difference between species and genus when critiquing evolution and your entire argument is being ignorant of something doesn't prevent you from debunking it.”<br /><br />One, you don’t need to know the distinction between genus and species in order to critique evolution because evolution doesn’t rely on that distinction. As such, your question had nothing to do with understanding evolution. Second, you’re simply putting words in my mouth. My actual position is that you can have phenomena that you are ignorant of, and still debunk explanations for it.<br /><br />“You are not dealing with a hard science like medicine or evolution here. You are dealing with a social contract here which require both parties to agree upon what is moral to begin with, how we determine something is moral and agree we have an obligation to abide by said moral rules.”<br /><br />It may not be a hard science, but that doesn’t make it not objective. Consequentialism has nothing to do with social contracts. We no more need to agree on terms than in the sciences. This moral system doesn’t require that everyone agrees to abide by said rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74594125129194851682013-03-27T19:30:36.522-07:002013-03-27T19:30:36.522-07:00Oh, I forgot to elaborate here. When I said I have...Oh, I forgot to elaborate here. When I said <i>I have cancer or that my species is part of the primate family. The latter two are hard facts, the former is merely your opinion.</i> I really don't have cancer, that's just an example. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85970824435488915842013-03-27T15:08:24.488-07:002013-03-27T15:08:24.488-07:00CautiouslyCurious,
I find this humorous. I presen...CautiouslyCurious,<br /><br /><i>I find this humorous. I present a scenario such as “If I told you the sun exploded 20 minutes ago, would you believe me? No, because you could see for yourself that the claim is false.</i><br /><br />This is a false analogy and doesn't damage my claim that Dawkins needs a basic understanding of morality and a way to test whither something is moral or not before making judgement calls. I can tell the sun didn't explode twenty-minutes ago because I have basic knowledge in the form of my experiences twenty minutes ago and I have a way to test the validity of that claim just by stepping outside and looking up. You can make all the fictitious examples you want, but it's not gonna change the fact that I need knowledge of the subject material and way to test the validity of those claims to call bullshit on them. And a way to test whither a claim is moral or not is something Dawkins admits he does not have when he says he can't determine whither Hitler is right or wrong. <br /><br /><i>I didn’t specify that paragraph, but you did say it: “The Bible speaks at lengths of morality, so does religion in general. It has meaning in a discussion about morality, determining morality and what influences morality. The solar system does not and is a red herring."</i><br /><br />The solar system is not astrology. Astrology is a system of interpreting how astral bodies, including ones in the solar system, affect a person's behavior. Astronomy also studies the solar system and has nothing to say about morality. That's because the solar system is a part of the universe, not a system of interpreting how said part of the universe effects us. You do love to twist other people's words, even if you have to commit blatant category errors, to create your straw-men, don't you? <br /><br /><i>There’s no Catch-22 here.</i><br /><br />Your statment <i>Now, do you need a full explanation of morality in order to dismiss astrology? If not, then you’ve cleared Dawkins of any wrong-doing. Otherwise, you’re being hypocritical.</i> That is a blatant attempt at forcing me into a Catch-22 position. <br /><br /><i>This is your opinion; I’ve already provided another interpretation that is backed up by his other statements. That interpretation involved explanations, not tests</i><br /><br />Saying you can't determine whither Hitler was right or wrong is not an explanation of morality, it is not saying you don't know where morality comes from. It is saying that you don't know how to determine whither an individual's actions are moral or not. And if you can't test if something is moral or not, if you don't have any research criteria or methodology to make that judgement call, you damn well can't make a statement about whither something (religion) is moral or influences morality. <br /><br /><i>Good luck in justifying this conclusion.</i><br /><br />You just admitted people need not know basic biological information like the difference between species and genus when critiquing evolution and your entire argument is being ignorant of something doesn't prevent you from debunking it.<br /><br /><i>You are under no obligation to accept it, but I can still call certain actions moral or immoral. This would be like saying that since we have no obligation to live healthily</i><br /><br />How? You are not dealing with a hard science like medicine or evolution here. You are dealing with a social contract here which require both parties to agree upon what is moral to begin with, how we determine something is moral and agree we have an obligation to abide by said moral rules. Saying you disapprove of my actions and you consider them immoral when there is no agreement or obligation is not the same thing as saying I have cancer or that my species is part of the primate family. The latter two are hard facts, the former is merely your opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43671446834664314922013-03-27T13:13:53.867-07:002013-03-27T13:13:53.867-07:00Karl,
Going to keep to one post from now on, so co...Karl,<br />Going to keep to one post from now on, so condensed answers are to be expected.<br /><br />“Your statement, You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly, is not stating a fact. It is putting words in my mouth since you didn't bother ascertain whither I actually investigated astrology or not before making this statement.”<br /><br />I find this humorous. I present a scenario such as “If I told you the sun exploded 20 minutes ago, would you believe me? No, because you could see for yourself that the claim is false.” And you criticize me for simply detailing what I think the rational response to the rhetorical question is. This is not me putting words in your mouth (and certainly not a straw man since I’m not saying that’s its false); you are free to say that you’re irrational. Nonetheless, since you find my writing style so offensive, replace “you” with “a rational person.” <br /><br />“and nowhere in that paragraph did I say that astrology doesn't concern itself with morality”<br /><br />I didn’t specify that paragraph, but you did say it: “The Bible speaks at lengths of morality, so does religion in general. It has meaning in a discussion about morality, determining morality and what influences morality. The solar system does not and is a red herring.”<br /><br />“It is also example of the fallacy of the Complex Question since you just made the assumption You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly and ran with it before asking me a loaded question (Now, do you need a full explanation of morality in order to dismiss astrology?) based solely on said assumption in a blatant attempt to force me into a Catch-22 situation.”<br /><br />There’s no Catch-22 here.<br /><br />“I never said the word cause in any statement on this subject, you are the one who filled in that blank. You have a real bad habit of putting words in other people's mouths. When Dawkins said What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question he admitted that he didn't have the knowledge and the means means to test whither something was moral in the first place. He admitted when he said he couldn't tell if Hitler was right or not doesn't know how to test if something is a possible cause or not but he still made a judgement call on morality concerning religion. Don't you think there might be a little problem there?”<br /><br />This is your opinion; I’ve already provided another interpretation that is backed up by his other statements. That interpretation involved explanations, not tests. The entire time I’ve been talking, I’ve been talking about explanations and hypotheses, not test(s) (cases). The examples provided (e.g. the cause of heart disease) have involved causes, not tests. It’s fairly ironic that you’re now doing what you accused me of doing, since you just made the assumption that I agree with your interpretation (that goes counter to the entire discussion) and then added a loaded question.<br /><br />“Okay then, you don't get to call Young Earth Creationists ignorant when they advance their arguments against evolution as you have done so in the past.”<br /><br />Good luck in justifying this conclusion.<br /><br />“If there is no such thing as moral duty or moral obligation, then I am under no obligation to accept your pronouncements on morality or abide by your moral code, meaning you can't call my actions moral or immoral. This is a very simple concept.”<br /><br />You are under no obligation to accept it, but I can still call certain actions moral or immoral. This would be like saying that since we have no obligation to live healthily, you can’t say that certain actions are bad for one’s health. Or how about those who don’t believe in evolution, the evolutionists can describe their traits as being adaptive or not, despite them being under no obligation to accept said pronouncements. This is a very simple concept.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45298569305707707822013-03-26T21:39:29.221-07:002013-03-26T21:39:29.221-07:00I'm Skeptical,
If that article is what you ca...I'm Skeptical,<br /><br /><i>If that article is what you call a "well-thought out, logically sound" argument, it's no wonder you keep failing to make your points. It's nothing more than an emotional appeal.</i><br /><br />Referencing that article wasn't a well-thought out, logically sound appeal. Referencing that article was merely an example to point out religious thinkers are aware of morality being uniform across cultures, which CC thinks is a revolutionary concept none of us have ever heard about before. So I am gonna to make a reminder that you don't know the difference between an example and an argument. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28479279808956628972013-03-26T21:32:28.872-07:002013-03-26T21:32:28.872-07:00Karl,
If that article is what you call a "we...Karl,<br /><br />If that article is what you call a "well-thought out, logically sound" argument, it's no wonder you keep failing to make your points. It's nothing more than an emotional appeal. Why don't you look that up in your dictionary of logical fallacies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20518466220165835792013-03-26T21:23:18.218-07:002013-03-26T21:23:18.218-07:00I'm Skeptical,
Not much of a defense, is it?
...I'm Skeptical,<br /><br /><i>Not much of a defense, is it?</i><br /><br />Why should I mount more of a defense? Advancing long, well-thought out, logically sound arguments is wasted upon you and CautiouslyCurious. CC builds straw-men out of his opponents' arguments and proceeds to knock them down. You just keep repeating the same crap over and over, despite multiple people pointing out the flaws. You also both think you can debunk something without bothering to learn the basic information about what you are debunking, something that would abhor any real intellectual. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17012745512309098672013-03-26T20:24:51.772-07:002013-03-26T20:24:51.772-07:00"No shit. Morality being uniform across cultu..."No shit. Morality being uniform across cultures is typically a defense of theistic based morality. Here is an example from Professor Daniel C. Peterson:"<br /><br />Not much of a defense, is it?<br /><br />"But what of an individual who believes that morality is merely an illusion foisted upon him by evolution?" says Peterson. Of course he has it all wrong. God is the illusion, morality did evolve in humans, and it actually exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46357379824749643452013-03-26T19:24:24.110-07:002013-03-26T19:24:24.110-07:00Okay CautiouslyCurious, I am gonna give you one la...Okay CautiouslyCurious, I am gonna give you one last go since I got nothing else to do right now. I am not gonna respond to it all, I am just going to respond to the blatantly obvious.<br /><br /><i>One, that’s fairly dishonest of you. I simply stated a fact about a subject.</i><br /><br />Your statement, <i>You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly,</i> is not stating a fact. It is putting words in my mouth since you didn't bother ascertain whither I actually investigated astrology or not before making this statement. In fact, you have a habit of doing this since you said <i>it’s obvious that you didn’t do any research on the subject; otherwise you would have known that astrology does concern itself with morality</i> and nowhere in that paragraph did I say that astrology doesn't concern itself with morality. <br /><br />It is also example of the fallacy of the Complex Question since you just made the assumption <i>You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly</i> and ran with it before asking me a loaded question (<i>Now, do you need a full explanation of morality in order to dismiss astrology?</i>) based solely on said assumption in a blatant attempt to force me into a Catch-22 situation. News flash dumbass, you can't call someone hypocritical based on words you put in their mouth. <br /><br /><i>To answer your last question, no, they don’t need to know that distinction. They could adequately understand evolution without ever learning about genuses.</i><br /><br />Okay then, you don't get to call Young Earth Creationists ignorant when they advance their arguments against evolution as you have done so in the past. <br /> <br /><i>We already know that you don’t need to know the cause of a thing in order to rule out possible causes.</i><br /><br />I know you don't need to know the final cause to rule out possible causes. I never said the word cause in any statement on this subject, you are the one who filled in that blank. You have a real bad habit of putting words in other people's mouths. When Dawkins said <i>What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question</i> he admitted that he didn't have the knowledge and the means means to <i><b>test</b></i> whither something was moral in the first place. He admitted when he said he couldn't tell if Hitler was right or not doesn't know how to <i><b>test</b></i> if something <i>is</i> a possible cause or not but he still made a judgement call on morality concerning religion. Don't you think there might be a little problem there?<br /><br /><i>I’ve explained earlier why the lack of such a feature is not a valid objection. If that is not the source of your error, then I have no idea how anyone with any inkling of understanding the concepts involved would make such a mistake.</i><br /><br />If there is no such thing as moral duty or moral obligation, then I am under no obligation to accept your pronouncements on morality or abide by your moral code, meaning you can't call my actions moral or immoral. This is a very simple concept. <br /><br /><i>Since you have moved into name calling</i><br /><br />When you start putting words into my mouth to build up a straw-man that can mock and ridicule, I see no reason to remain civil. <br /><br />Now, quite frankly, that is more attention then you deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45858794950254136282013-03-26T17:07:21.836-07:002013-03-26T17:07:21.836-07:00Karl,
“Basically, I said that 297*x>3*x and you...Karl,<br />“Basically, I said that 297*x>3*x and you responded with counterexample saying 297*y>3*x without bothering to explain why it doesn't always hold or why one is 297*x>3*x and 297*y>3*x.”<br /><br />Sorry, I thought that you knew at least the minimum about utilitarianism. Basically, you have a bunch of small entities, called humans, and they each have a particular value, indicated by their well-being. To get the total well-being of a population, you simply sum up the individual values. Let’s say you have two groups of people, group A (has 293 people) wants X (say a soccer stadium) and group B (has 3 people) wants Y (say a cricket stadium) and there are only enough resources to accomplish one task. In this thought experiment, we’ll stipulate that if X is built, each person in group A will experience U utility, and if Y is built, each person in group B will experience U utility. So if X is built, the total utility will be 297*U, and the same for Y, 3*U. Since 297*U is greater than 3*U, it means that there is greater utility by building the soccer stadium, so it should be built instead. However, reality is never so cut and dry. You went balls to wall and applied this reasoning, completely forgetting the assumption it was built on. If group A and group B don’t get the same utility, then it’s not a simple matter of majority rules. If you want to say majority rules, then you have to satisfy that assumption, which you didn’t, hence the bad analogy and why the hypothetical then becomes 297*U>3*Z.<br /><br />“This comes off as rationalization and evasion of having to deal with consequences of a belief system you espouse.”<br /><br />Your ignorance of the subject matter isn’t my problem. If have trouble understanding, simply ask. This would be a welcome turn of events compared to your recent mischaracterizations and false accusations.<br /><br />“Oh, and don't expect any further replies from me on the subject. Ideologues tend to bore me.”<br /><br />Yeah, I should have cut this conversation short a while ago. It’s a shame that sciolism seems to be the standard for theists around here. Since you have moved into name calling, I very much doubt that you have any argument left that isn’t as pitiful as the one’s you’ve already shared.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74981601723253964202013-03-26T17:01:45.051-07:002013-03-26T17:01:45.051-07:00Karl (cont.),
“So your response is pretty much to ...Karl (cont.),<br />“So your response is pretty much to double down on hypothesis contrary to fact. You don't know it's there, you think it's there. Other people don't and other people probably don't agree with your standards of measurement either because we are not dealing with objective thing like the amount of liquid in a flask but subjective concepts like "Well-being."”<br /><br />Sure, we don’t know it’s there kind of like we don’t know that pain is concerned with nerves and the brain. Some people don’t think we can get to the point where we can measure someone’s pain because they don’t agree that it’s there and they don’t agree with the standards we use because pain is not an objective matter, so it’s not like you can be in more or less pain. This is the point we are at. If you think that trying to measure pain commits oneself to the hypothesis contrary to fact, then so be it. But like I said before, this is not an objection to utilitarianism in principle, so it’s not that great of an objection.<br /><br />“But under utilitarianism that is moral. After all, you said: You shouldn’t unless it affects your own.”<br /><br />Just wow. You do realize that utilitarianism states that you need to consider the total utility, and not a single value, right? I think the source of your error is that you are assuming that utilitarianism is prescriptive in all cases, but that assumption is false and this is clear when you say next line that Harris denies the existence of moral duties. I’ve explained earlier why the lack of such a feature is not a valid objection. If that is not the source of your error, then I have no idea how anyone with any inkling of understanding the concepts involved would make such a mistake.<br /><br />“Oh, I understand perfectly what an analogy is and I also understand that comparing an objective fact (vomiting non-stop and it's health implications) and a subjective topic (personal well-being) is a piss poor analogy.”<br /><br />I didn’t compare the truth values of those. I compared the reasonableness of requiring the ability to convince someone of an objective fact as a requirement of something being objective. You’ve simply mischaracterized this point.<br /><br />“Now you are being stupid. Objective (completely unbiased) and subjective (depending on perspective) are two separate things. You flunked English, didn't you?”<br /><br />Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual. Apparently they forget to teach you that words can have more than one meaning.<br /><br />“Does True, well-being is a fickle and subjective thing, ring any bells?”<br /><br />Yes, and I compared it to health, which is also subjective, as it pertains to the individual. Also pertaining to the individual is height, nutritional value of peanuts, etc. These attributes are both subjective and objective. Now, considering your definition of subjective, then no, well-being is not subjective and you were patently incorrect to describe the scenario you painted as subjective. Apparently, trying to use the principle of charity here is frowned upon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23561642490011382652013-03-26T17:00:51.292-07:002013-03-26T17:00:51.292-07:00Karl,
Since you’ve stated that your no longer goin...Karl,<br />Since you’ve stated that your no longer going to reply, this is for any spectators:<br />“One, this is the The Courtier's Reply and it's a logical fallacy, not to mention the kind of thing somebody resorts to when they don't have an effective counter-argument and they know it. Two, you are making an assumption that I simply dismiss claims I find odd out of hand rather then doing any kind of investigation or critically thinking on the subject; which is probably how you handle things and definitely how your role-model Dawkins handles things. Three, you will still have to have a way of determining morality and at least basic, general understanding of astrology to make that judgment call, so the point still stands. Now I asked you a question and I want a straight yes or no answer, not some logically fallacious evasion, do you think somebody need not know the difference between genus and species before saying evolution is false?”<br /><br />One, that’s fairly dishonest of you. I simply stated a fact about a subject. If you want a source, you could have simply asked, no reason to get snippy about it. Two, it’s obvious that you didn’t do any research on the subject; otherwise you would have known that astrology does concern itself with morality, but even if you did, you didn’t need to fully understand morality in order to dismiss it as nothing more than wordplay. I see you’ve moved onto bulverism, my role model is not Dawkins. Three, I’ve already explained why this is not the case. If you could respond to those reasons rather than reasserting your position, that would be greatly appreciated. To answer your last question, no, they don’t need to know that distinction. They could adequately understand evolution without ever learning about genuses. Also, you seem to have ignored my explanation for why this is a poor point. <br /><br />“On the contrary, my point remains the same. Dawkins needs to have a understanding of morality and way of determining morality in order to make a judgement call on whither something influences morality or not. You are the one who introduced the phrases ''full'' and ''complete'' understanding of morality into this discussion.”<br />I’m aware of your point, but you have yet to substantiate it. We already know that you don’t need to know the cause of a thing in order to rule out possible causes. This is a fairly routine in science, so I don’t see why you’re having such a hard time with it.<br /><br />“You didn't say anything about sheer willpower, Dawkins did. Pay attention.”<br /><br />Please cite your source. I can only find where you say that Dawkins has argued against genetic determinism. Do you think that there is some dichotomy between sheer willpower and genetic determinism? If so, then that’s a lot of circuitry that needs to be rewired.<br /><br />“No shit. Morality being uniform across cultures is typically a defense of theistic based morality.”<br /><br />Let’s work from established premises please. We’re talking about scientific explanations for observed phenomena. If you think that you’re theistic hypothesis has any merit, then find an academic publisher.<br /><br />“If I asked you what happens during a heart attack and your answer is "uhhh..." do you think I am gonna take any pronouncements you make on the causes of heart attacks seriously?”<br /><br />This is not a methodological problem, this is your problem. Like I said before, I can analyze a possible cause and justly eliminate one without knowing the actual cause.<br /><br />“In that case all philosophers engage in science. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”<br /><br />Nope, saying that scientists use philosophy in order to come up with hypotheses in no way implies that philosophers test their ideas with empirical data. So, sorry, this isn’t a two way street.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46326728108509785042013-03-26T13:55:41.433-07:002013-03-26T13:55:41.433-07:00Oh, and don't expect any further replies from ...Oh, and don't expect any further replies from me on the subject. Ideologues tend to bore me. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69993918880477687802013-03-26T13:41:30.326-07:002013-03-26T13:41:30.326-07:00The distinction here between philosophy and scienc...<i>The distinction here between philosophy and science isn’t that meaningful to me, since it would mean that all scientists engage in philosophy and hence he has expertise on the issue.</i><br /><br />In that case all philosophers engage in science. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. <a href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/" rel="nofollow"> But as Brain Earp pointed out when Harris pulled the same trick:</a><br /><br /><i>So by “science” Harris evidently means, “philosophy” … or at least something that’s not different from philosophy in a principled way. Let me check my brochure for a second and confirm what the title of his talk was — the radical-sounding title that sold so many tickets — yes, here it is, it’s, “Who says science has nothing to say about morality?” If we do a quick update based on Harris’ personal definition of science, we get … “Who says philosophy has nothing to say about morality?”<br /><br />The answer is: no one ever said that. Moral philosophy plus facts is not “science” telling us objective moral truths.</i><br /><br />Now you said: <br /><br /><i>We know what we need to get, we know it’s there, and we are developing tools to more accurately measure what we need, and we are getting more accurate, but it’s just not there yet.</i><br /><br />So your response is pretty much to double down on hypothesis contrary to fact. You don't know it's there, you think it's there. Other people don't and other people probably don't agree with your standards of measurement either because we are not dealing with objective thing like the amount of liquid in a flask but subjective concepts like "Well-being." <br /><br /><i>Yeah, if you have no problem being immoral, then you’re simply immoral.</i><br /><br />But under utilitarianism that is moral. After all, you said: <i>You shouldn’t unless it affects your own.</i> Plus Harris denies the concept of moral responsibility, he buries it in the end-notes but on pg. 217 he states that moral responsibility is a social construct and that in neuroscientific terms no person is more or less responsible than any other.<br /><br /><i>Do you know what an analogy is? It’s when you compare two things that have something in common.</i><br /><br />Oh, I understand perfectly what an analogy is and I also understand that comparing an objective fact (vomiting non-stop and it's health implications) and a subjective topic (personal well-being) is a piss poor analogy. <br /><br /><i>Also, simply claiming that something is subjective doesn’t make it any less objective. A lot of things that are subjective and objective, such as height, the health benefits of peanuts, etc.</i><br /><br />Now you are being stupid. Objective (completely unbiased) and subjective (depending on perspective) are two separate things. You flunked English, didn't you? Also, you have already admitted <i>twice</i> in this discussion that well-being is subjective. Does <i>True, well-being is a fickle and subjective thing,</i> ring any bells?<br /><br /><i>So basically you have no idea how utilitarianism works, good to know.</i><br /><br />I understand that you said <i>utilitarianism is a numbers game, do you really think that 3 million is going to take precedence over 297 million when each individual has equal shares of utility at stake?</i> When I pointed out same standards applied to a group you belonged to, numbering less than 30 million with the opposing group numbering 280 million plus, you responded <i> that assumption doesn’t always hold. Basically, I said that 297*x>3*x and you responded with counterexample saying 297*y>3*x</i> without bothering to explain why it doesn't always hold or why one is 297*x>3*x and 297*y>3*x. Nor have you tried to set a common definition for utility we both agree on for those calculations. This comes off as rationalization and evasion of having to deal with consequences of a belief system you espouse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86883225069560089342013-03-26T13:04:08.319-07:002013-03-26T13:04:08.319-07:00CautiouslyCurious
Astrologers do say that astrolo...CautiouslyCurious<br /><br /><i>Astrologers do say that astrology influences morality. You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly. </i><br /><br />One, this is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Courtier's_Reply" rel="nofollow">The Courtier's Reply</a> and it's a logical fallacy, not to mention the kind of thing somebody resorts to when they don't have an effective counter-argument and they know it. Two, you are making an assumption that I simply dismiss claims I find odd out of hand rather then doing any kind of investigation or critically thinking on the subject; which is probably how you handle things and definitely how your role-model Dawkins handles things. Three, you will still have to have a way of determining morality and at least basic, general understanding of astrology to make that judgment call, so the point still stands. Now I asked you a question and I want a straight yes or no answer, not some logically fallacious evasion, do you think somebody need not know the difference between genus and species before saying evolution is false? <br /><br /><i>You’ve now switched the accusation of Dawkins from not fully providing a full explanation</i><br /><br />On the contrary, my point remains the same. Dawkins needs to have a understanding of morality and way of determining morality in order to make a judgement call on whither something influences morality or not. You are the one who introduced the phrases ''full'' and ''complete'' understanding of morality into this discussion. <br /><br /><i>Where did I say anything about sheer willpower?</i><br /><br />You didn't say anything about sheer willpower, Dawkins did. Pay attention. <br /><br /><i>Well, considering that morality is so uniform across cultures, it would seem that it is something being selected for rather than, say, something in the local water supply.</i><br /><br />No shit. Morality being uniform across cultures is typically a defense of theistic based morality. Here is an example from <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765617108/Moral-law-is-no-product-of-evolution.html?pg=all" rel="nofollow"> Professor Daniel C. Peterson</a>:<br /><br /><i>Moral law is notably uniform across cultures. While applications can and do vary, fundamental values don't. No culture teaches that murder is good, that selfishness is a virtue or that parents should be disrespected.</i><br /><br />Moving on:<br /><br /><i>First, that analogy was in reference to Harris’s use of the billionaire and war-victim, not Dawkins.</i><br /><br />First, the paragraph you have quoted doesn't deal with billionaire and the war-victim but with the sentence: <i>It just so happens that we can evaluate it without complete information. I fail to see why we should expect complete information when it comes to morality when we don’t expect it for other fields. It seems like a double standard to me</i> which is a statement you were using to defend Dawkins. Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? <br /><br /><i>Third, your heart attack example is not very apt. It’s more like Dawkins has looked into whether Cherry coke causes heart attacks and he found that they don’t. <br />It’s more like Dawkins has looked into whether Cherry coke causes heart attacks and he found that they don’t. He dismisses the Cherry coke hypothesis, yet he still doesn’t know what causes heart attacks.</i><br /><br />No, this is like not being able to explain how the heart works but still rendering judgement about the cause of heart attacks. If I asked you what happens during a heart attack and your answer is "uhhh..." do you think I am gonna take any pronouncements you make on the causes of heart attacks seriously? Same with Dawkins: <i> Religion and the Bible have nothing to do with morality.</i> Well, how do you determine if an action is moral or not? <i>Uhhh, I don't know. That's a hard question.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91908125631814673912013-03-26T12:04:32.301-07:002013-03-26T12:04:32.301-07:00Karl (cont.)
“That's not what I said and you k...Karl (cont.)<br />“That's not what I said and you know it. Saying that morality is based on personal well-being, which is what Harris is advocating, is a philosophical statement. This empirical question is used to support a philosophical position, not a scientific one.”<br /><br />When I say an empirical claim and your response is that it’s not an empirical claim, that it’s a philosophical claim, then that is exactly what you said, it’s simply not what you meant. The distinction here between philosophy and science isn’t that meaningful to me, since it would mean that all scientists engage in philosophy and hence he has expertise on the issue. <br /><br />“That is hypothesis contrary to fact because you are treating a future hypothetical situation as if they are fact to dismiss criticism here and now. Objective measures for interpersonal utility might be developed, they might never be developed but unless you can point to an example in the here and now the criticism stands.”<br /><br />When I say that they are not developed yet, I mean that they are not accurate enough to actually use in practice. We know what we need to get, we know it’s there, and we are developing tools to more accurately measure what we need, and we are getting more accurate, but it’s just not there yet. But like I said, this is not an objection to utilitarianism as a principle, so the point is moot.<br /><br />“So if you were lying on the sidewalk dying, I shouldn't stop to lend a hand because it doesn't effect my personal well-being one way or another? That's good to know.”<br /><br />Yeah, if you have no problem being immoral, then you’re simply immoral. There’s nothing magical about reason that is going to hit you over the head and make you comply.<br /><br /><br />“But the thing is that people's concept of 'good' or 'happiness' is subjective. You have admitted so. Vomiting non-stop is bad for their health is an objective fact, you are comparing apples and oranges.”<br /><br />Do you know what an analogy is? It’s when you compare two things that have something in common. They don’t have everything in common, or else they would be the same. So, I go and compare two situations, saying they have X in common, and you respond saying that one situation is X and the other one has –X, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Really, this is getting quite annoying. Please respond to my points and stay on topic. Also, simply claiming that something is subjective doesn’t make it any less objective. A lot of things that are subjective and objective, such as height, the health benefits of peanuts, etc.<br /><br />“So basically morality based on the greater group's well-being only works when you aren't part of the smaller group being shunted off to the side.”<br /><br />So basically you have no idea how utilitarianism works, good to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29113588753133796262013-03-26T12:03:54.717-07:002013-03-26T12:03:54.717-07:00Karl,
“The Bible speaks at lengths of morality, so...Karl,<br />“The Bible speaks at lengths of morality, so does religion in general. It has meaning in a discussion about morality, determining morality and what influences morality. The solar system does not and is a red herring. This is no different than demanding that someone have a basic understanding of biology before criticizing the evolutionary theory.”<br /><br />Astrologers do say that astrology influences morality. You simply dismiss them because you think they are incorrect and that the explanation is silly. You have done this without learning about what you are dismissing. This is exactly what you accuse Dawkins of doing. Now, do you need a full explanation of morality in order to dismiss astrology? If not, then you’ve cleared Dawkins of any wrong-doing. Otherwise, you’re being hypocritical. You’ve now switched the accusation of Dawkins from not fully providing a full explanation of morality to simply not having a basic understanding of the Bible; this is a completely separate issue and whether it has meaningful contributions to the discussion is under dispute.<br /><br />“So the idea that we are not beholden to our genes and ignore their influence by sheer willpower does not damage the fact that said genes play a role in our moral decisions in any way, shape or form? I got a question, do you actually think about what you write?”<br /><br />Where did I say anything about sheer willpower? Environmental factors certainly affect us in ways, which would break genetic determinism. Now, is morality due to genes or environmental factors? Well, considering that morality is so uniform across cultures, it would seem that it is something being selected for rather than, say, something in the local water supply.<br /><br />“Because this isn't doing it without complete information, this doing it without basic information and basic understanding of the subject material. When you assess a person's risk of heart attacks you have to know first what the heart does and at least have a general idea of what factors effect it. Dawkins saying he doesn't know how to determine morality but he is sure that religion and religious texts don't play a part is akin to him saying he doesn't know why heart attacks happen but Bob being about two hundred pounds overweight was not a factor in him having one.”<br /><br />First, that analogy was in reference to Harris’s use of the billionaire and war-victim, not Dawkins. Second, we do have basic facts about those two situations and evaluate their circumstances. Third, your heart attack example is not very apt. It’s more like Dawkins has looked into whether Cherry coke causes heart attacks and he found that they don’t. He dismisses the Cherry coke hypothesis, yet he still doesn’t know what causes heart attacks. According to you, this would be invalid, but anyone in science would disagree with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79303646835886738272013-03-26T03:49:27.743-07:002013-03-26T03:49:27.743-07:00Karl Grant: "So basically morality based on ...Karl Grant: <i>"So basically morality based on the greater group's well-being only works when you aren't part of the smaller group being shunted off to the side."</i><br /><br />Tell me about the smaller group of homosexuals being shunted off to the side under the Catholic plan.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30952036152068555692013-03-25T19:09:30.182-07:002013-03-25T19:09:30.182-07:00But to answer your questions. I believe that there...<i>But to answer your questions. I believe that there can be objective measures for interpersonal utility, but they are not developed yet (just as the measurement of pain is plausible yet not there yet).</i><br /><br />That is <a href="http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/107-hypothesis-contrary-to-fact" rel="nofollow">hypothesis contrary to fact</a> because you are treating a future hypothetical situation as if they are fact to dismiss criticism here and now. Objective measures for interpersonal utility might be developed, they might never be developed but unless you can point to an example in the here and now the criticism stands. <br /><br /><i>You shouldn’t unless it affects your own. Neither Harris nor I am saying that you should.</i><br /><br />So if you were lying on the sidewalk dying, I shouldn't stop to lend a hand because it doesn't effect my personal well-being one way or another? That's good to know. <br /><br /><i>Do you think that morality is somehow defined to include crossing the is-ought gap? Well, sorry, secular morality no more requires a method of convincing someone to act morally than, as Harris puts it, medicine needs a way to convince someone that vomiting non-stop is bad for their health. They simply conclude that it’s not good and move on, and so it is the case with morality.</i><br /><br />But the thing is that people's concept of 'good' or 'happiness' is subjective. You have admitted so. Vomiting non-stop is bad for their health is an objective fact, you are comparing apples and oranges. <br /><br /><i>You still need to sum the individual utilities. In my statement, it was stipulated that they were the same for each person, so the majority would indeed produce more utility. However, that assumption doesn’t always hold. Basically, I said that 297*x>3*x and you responded with counterexample saying 297*y>3*x as if I’m obligated to agree or face contradiction. Good luck in showing that contradiction.</i><br /><br />So basically morality based on the greater group's well-being only works when you aren't part of the smaller group being shunted off to the side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58726293916718853582013-03-25T18:10:43.851-07:002013-03-25T18:10:43.851-07:00CautiouslyCurious,
I don’t think you need a full ...CautiouslyCurious,<br /><br /><i>I don’t think you need a full rendering of a correct solution in order to figure out that certain solutions are incorrect. In this case, we are trying to explain certain behaviors, if a certain influence can’t explain those behaviors, then it gets discarded. Do I need a full understanding of why soldiers jump onto grenades in order to determine that the position of the solar system isn’t going to be a factor?</i><br /><br />The Bible speaks at lengths of morality, so does religion in general. It has meaning in a discussion about morality, determining morality and what influences morality. The solar system does not and is a red herring. This is no different than demanding that someone have a basic understanding of biology before criticizing the evolutionary theory. Or do you think somebody need not know the difference between genus and species before saying evolution is false? <br /><br /><i> Just because we are not determined by our genetics does not mean that we are not influenced by them to a large degree. Due to this, I don’t find his stance on genetic determinism to be an objection to him citing that evolution probably plays a large role in why we think certain things are moral.</i><br /><br />So the idea that we are not beholden to our genes and ignore their influence by sheer willpower does not damage the fact that said genes play a role in our moral decisions in any way, shape or form? I got a question, do you actually think about what you write? <br /><br /><i>It just so happens that we can evaluate it without complete information. I fail to see why we should expect complete information when it comes to morality when we don’t expect it for other fields. It seems like a double standard to me.</i><br /><br />Because this isn't doing it without complete information, this doing it without basic information and basic understanding of the subject material. When you assess a person's risk of heart attacks you have to know first what the heart does and at least have a general idea of what factors effect it. Dawkins saying he doesn't know how to determine morality but he is sure that religion and religious texts don't play a part is akin to him saying he doesn't know why heart attacks happen but Bob being about two hundred pounds overweight was not a factor in him having one. <br /><br /><i>It’s a matter of philosophy that a billionaire will end up in a war-zone or whether someone will escape one? Surely you’re joking. These are empirical questions far outside the domain of philosophy.</i><br /><br />That's not what I said and you know it. Saying that morality is based on personal well-being, which is what Harris is advocating, is a philosophical statement. This empirical question is used to support a philosophical position, not a scientific one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9609111061983313972013-03-25T16:32:11.285-07:002013-03-25T16:32:11.285-07:00Karl (cont.),
"Well, let's see. According...Karl (cont.),<br />"Well, let's see. According to Harris I cease to exist when I die. This is a fate that I will not escape from and no matter what actions I take in life this outcome will be the same. If my world ends with me why should I care about the well-being of others?”<br /><br />You shouldn’t unless it affects your own. Neither Harris nor I am saying that you should. Now, what’s the objection? Do you think that morality is somehow defined to include crossing the is-ought gap? Well, sorry, secular morality no more requires a method of convincing someone to act morally than, as Harris puts it, medicine needs a way to convince someone that vomiting non-stop is bad for their health. They simply conclude that it’s not good and move on, and so it is the case with morality.<br /><br />“Let me say congratulations, since of the estimated three hundred and fourteen million Americans about 75% is Christian and only about 15% have no religious affiliation. You have just stated under Utilitarianism that we have the moral right to enact school prayers, religious displays on public property, the Ten Commandments in the courthouses, religious license plates and anything else that is conductive to the well-being of Christians in general in this country. But Harris does not believe we have this right and I bet you don't either, so either Utilitarianism is not a numbers game or both you and Harris are holding contradictory beliefs.”<br /><br />I said it only works if we have equal shares of utility at stake. It’s now let you argue that that assumption applies in your given scenario. (Hint: it doesn’t.) You’ve made an amateurish mistake; you’ve simply said that majority rules, when that is not the case at all with utilitarianism. You still need to sum the individual utilities. In my statement, it was stipulated that they were the same for each person, so the majority would indeed produce more utility. However, that assumption doesn’t always hold. Basically, I said that 297*x>3*x and you responded with counterexample saying 297*y>3*x as if I’m obligated to agree or face contradiction. Good luck in showing that contradiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com