User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 192

  1. #111
    Senior Member SensEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    Did you just read the end of the paper or something? I would have to disagree with you - what she said isn't quite what you translated.

    She specifically uses her line of reasoning to prove that there is a right way to live.
    I read the whole thing. But her reasoning is that there is a right way to live because people figured out there is a right way to live.

    Another excerpt from her paper:

    I would argue not. Rather, I would argue that these very results—the undermining result
    if we assume a mind-independent conception, and the non-undermining result if we assume a
    mind-dependent conception—are actually what settles the debate between these two views of
    value, with the right conclusion being that the undermining result implied by the mindindependent
    conception is so implausible that it’s the mind-independent conception that must be
    thrown out.
    She argues a mind-indpendent conception (objective) is implausible and must be thrown out. And she argues the non-undermining result is a mind-dependent conception (subjective).

  2. #112
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    Focus on the actual argument and use your brain. Hitler was a monster. Washington acted in a way standard for the time by owning slaves, and he happened to be a spectacular leader. In the same way, things you and I do today will be looked back in 200 years from now as immoral.
    And there were no other dictators in Europe in the 30s and 40s? got it...

    And social equality was the norm then too? got it. Plus if you believe that morals change over time, then by definition they are subjective. Use your brain.
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

  3. #113
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SensEye View Post
    I read the whole thing. But her reasoning is that there is a right way to live because people figured out there is a right way to live.

    Another excerpt from her paper:

    She argues a mind-indpendent conception (objective) is implausible and must be thrown out. And she argues the non-undermining result is a mind-dependent conception (subjective).
    But evolution.

    We have been asking whether an evolutionary biological explanation of our values ought to undermine them. The answer I’ve suggested is “yes and no.” The answer is “yes” to the extent you started out thinking that here are mind-independent truths about value. If that was your view going in, then I’ve suggested that you ought to abandon it and move to an mind-dependent conception. But once you adopt a mind-dependent conception of value—or if you already held such a view to begin with—then the answer is “no,” evolutionary explanations of our values aren’t undermining in the least.
    We may have different conceptual schemes--religions, cultures, governments--but every last one of us underwent the same process of biological evolution, and indeed are all subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as well. If those are the processes that created us there really doesn't need to be anything outside of them about right and wrong. It is possible for us to make right and wrong statements about those fields.

    So in a sense the best system of morality would actually be "evolutionism" or "physicsism" or something, but people would definitely have a problem with at least the former because of their prior conceptions about the cruelty of evolution. Biologism would probably lead to less confusion, but isn't it still a bit too far removed from our experience? It isn't possible for us to think of our everyday actions in terms of biology at this point. Even though that's ultimately what determines right and wrong, being that suffering and well-being are neurochemical states.

    In the "western morality" thread, I addressed this idea as well. I told danseen that he was basically taking the point of view of a rock as if it is somehow more true than the point of view of a human. From that sense I have already acknowledged, nothing that happens in the human world has any value. Everyone could be tortured forever and a rock wouldn't care.

    Ultimately the point of the paper is that biological evolution doesn't just not undermine an absolute notion of right and wrong, it forms the basis for one.

  4. #114
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danseen View Post
    And there were no other dictators in Europe in the 30s and 40s? got it...

    And social equality was the norm then too? got it. Plus if you believe that morals change over time, then by definition they are subjective. Use your brain.
    You're still splitting hairs and calling it a valid argument.

    I could certainly talk about other equally evil dictators, it doesn't change my point. Hitler is merely the standard idea of a monster with too much power.

    I didn't say morals change over time. They don't. Science doesn't change over time either - we just get better at it.

  5. #115
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default

    lulz.. whatever dude. morals are a fiction and non-existent. or at best invented by humans solely. and if morals are absolute, explain why psychological differences lend to different behaviours and value systems?
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

  6. #116
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danseen View Post
    lulz.. whatever dude. morals are a fiction and non-existent. or at best invented by humans solely. and if morals are absolute, explain why psychological differences lend to different behaviours and value systems?
    1. If morals exist only for humans, they still exist.

    2. You misconceive morality. Above I compared a science of morality to a science of medicinal health. Not everyone needs the same interventions and prescriptions.

  7. #117
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default

    You just proved subjective morality.
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

  8. #118
    Senior Member SensEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    But [I]evolution[/IUltimately the point of the paper is that biological evolution doesn't just not undermine an absolute notion of right and wrong, it forms the basis for one.
    I wouldn't say absolute. Just a notion of right and wrong, and it's a subjective one. Primitive man would not have shared the same moral standard as modern man, although primitive man probably still had some standard of acceptable behavior.

    Again, if morality was objective (outside of a personal viewpoint), primitive and modern man would still be following the same codes of behavior, because these codes would exist regardless of our opinion of them.

  9. #119
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default Development and Morality

    Morality isn't subjective because it is developmental.

    Morality follows a developmental pattern in the growing child and adolescent.

    And morality follows a developmental pattern in child rearing practices in that as a society becomes more prosperous and educated, child rearing practices improve along a developmental curve.

    And moral development in children and society can be objectively observed and measured.

  10. #120
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default

    eh? All morals are subjective. Yes, there is normal human development, but then explain why some children are kinder and others are rougher?

    All things in this universe are subjectively perceived.
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2014, 12:54 AM
  2. [ESFP] Why isn't there any threads on ESFP's?
    By Eiddy in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 12:30 AM
  3. Why isn't Intuition more widely known?
    By Quinlan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO