Edit: Well, there is this poem; "For what purpose does God have a Visage, of there is none around to appreciate it?", essentially saying all the splendor of the universe is wasted unless there also exists life somewhere in the universe. From this viewpoint, any disruptive force, such as war and HIV can be seen as enemies of God, as they uglify the splendor of the Universe, so to speak. If life is short, brutish and unpleasant, life need not exist, therefore the Universe need not exist. However, I feel this viewpoint is quasi-religious.
Really, you think an argument about God and the meaning of existence might just perhaps be religious in some small way? I am so shocked.
1. Again, you are confusing right and wrong with good and evil. All sound observers react negatively to genocide, whether they can justify it or not. 2. I already did.
1. But all of them can do so because they are conditioned. Therefore, we do not know if x is evil, because maybe there is no single thing universally evil thing, but some standard of cultural conditioning. But that standard is by no way objectively good or evil, right? 2. I don't recall you describing spefic chain of actions one must undertake to determine if one's brain is neurotypical, sorry. Unless you give me that chain I'm going to perceive your theory worthless, because we gives us no way to determine sound observer. Sorry, you can't brush that aside as "technicality".
The stronger a natural urge is, the more difficult it is to suppress. Even when people accept atrocities, they still have that voice in the back of their skull yelling "WRONG WRONG WRONG" as evident for instance by PTSD, Nazi propaganda and Alexanders Chroniclers.
Give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG". Unless you do so, your entire babbling is worthless fantasy. I'm not denying you right to imagine some fictional world where you can read minds of dead peple, but don' think that this is right basis for any discussion.
Well, men often feel so strong natural urge to reproduce, so they rape women. What have we proven again? Your constant reference to "nature" (I'm mercifully omit how loaded and unnatural that term is) mutilates any ethics you propose to crude behaviorism, where ethics is set by structure of brain. What with aliens? Are they outside ethics?
Massively incorrect on both accounts. For instance, a logical assumption is that swimming after eating might cause cramps. Why?
Premise 1: After lunch, you (may) become fatigued for digesting food. Premise 2: Cramps can result from overexpending your energy. Premise 3: Swimming expends energy Conclusion: Swimming right after eating lunch is inadviseable as you might cramp.
HOWEVER, when tested empirically, we find that the conclusion is not justifiable. There are all manner of alternative medicine and other assorted hocus-pocus that indeed are logical enough but simply will not perform when put to the test.
Conclusion is wrong. You lack premise 4. Can you find that out or do you need help? Because if this is how you "trump" logic with scientific method, then
The irony is strong in this thread. If there is no objective evil, then evil must be subjective, if it is subjective, then what each person feels is wrong is true for them, if this is also the case, then telling someone that what they view is evil and its nature is then also false because you cannot judge a subjective concept for what it means to someone else.
The irony is strong in this thread. If there is no objective evil, then evil must be subjective, if it is subjective, then what each person feels is wrong is true for them, if this is also the case, then telling someone that what they view is evil and its nature is then also false because you cannot judge a subjective concept for what it means to someone else.
But isn't that what normative ethics is all about? Evaluating moral choices and actions doesn't mean personally attacking people for their beliefs. It means finding out what they believe, how they come to believe it, and why. And, of course, doing the same for your own beliefs. Examining the logical structure behind those beliefs is an important part of that, and structural analyses aren't all that concerned what individuals think on a case-by-case basis; rather, it's about normative systems and values that can apply to larger groups of people, and how they think.
The irony is strong in this thread. If there is no objective evil, then evil must be subjective, if it is subjective, then what each person feels is wrong is true for them, if this is also the case, then telling someone that what they view is evil and its nature is then also false because you cannot judge a subjective concept for what it means to someone else.
But isn't that what normative ethics is all about? Evaluating moral choices and actions doesn't mean personally attacking people for their beliefs. It means finding out what they believe, how they come to believe it, and why. And, of course, doing the same for your own beliefs. Examining the logical structure behind those beliefs is an important part of that, and structural analyses aren't all that concerned what individuals think on a case-by-case basis; rather, it's about normative systems and values that can apply to larger groups of people, and how they think.
I don't disagree, but so many of the replies have been variations of, "No you're wrong and also ignorant, here is how it really is." Not really an honest attempt to examine or evaluate.
1. But all of them can do so because they are conditioned. Therefore, we do not know if x is evil, because maybe there is no single thing universally evil thing, but some standard of cultural conditioning. But that standard is by no way objectively good or evil, right?
Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
I don't recall you describing spefic chain of actions one must undertake to determine if one's brain is neurotypical, sorry. Unless you give me that chain I'm going to perceive your theory worthless, because we gives us no way to determine sound observer. Sorry, you can't brush that aside as "technicality".
The sound observer is clearly defined. No mental illnesses. Normal or higher levels of empathy, compassion and passion. No personal stakes in the outcome.
Give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG". Unless you do so, your entire babbling is worthless fantasy. I'm not denying you right to imagine some fictional world where you can read minds of dead peple, but don' think that this is right basis for any discussion.
Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
Well, men often feel so strong natural urge to reproduce, so they rape women. What have we proven again? Your constant reference to "nature" (I'm mercifully omit how loaded and unnatural that term is) mutilates any ethics you propose to crude behaviorism, where ethics is set by structure of brain. What with aliens? Are they outside ethics?
How often do men that rape feel they perform an act of good?
Are aliens outside ethics? Well, that is a whole other question all together. Many female spiders eat their partner after mating. Sharks carry many young in their belly, but only one emerge, as the biggest eats all his or her smaller siblings. Many insects and smaller mammals eat their young if they are stressed. Dolphins gang rape all the time. There is a species of fly that lay eggs in live larva, that will suffer as painful existance as their primitive neural system allows during incubation, before finally the flies dig themselves out of the larvas body, causing it a slow death as the bodily fluids leak out.
Massively incorrect on both accounts. For instance, a logical assumption is that swimming after eating might cause cramps. Why?
Premise 1: After lunch, you (may) become fatigued for digesting food. Premise 2: Cramps can result from overexpending your energy. Premise 3: Swimming expends energy Conclusion: Swimming right after eating lunch is inadviseable as you might cramp.
HOWEVER, when tested empirically, we find that the conclusion is not justifiable. There are all manner of alternative medicine and other assorted hocus-pocus that indeed are logical enough but simply will not perform when put to the test.
Conclusion is wrong. You lack premise 4. Can you find that out or do you need help? Because if this is how you "trump" logic with scientific method, then
Please.
The point is not that you in hindsight can keep adding premises until it becomes so meticulous and bloated that you start adding contradictory premises without even noticing. The point is that what logic calls a conclusion, science calls a hypothesis.
For instance, it was known that bacteria thrive in crevices, which is why they made dental implants as smooth as they possible could, but the dental implants yet kept getting infected. This logic was NOT flawed. It made perfect sense with the current knowledge. What they later realized was that the human body also like grooves, so they made the dental implants rough, and flesh would encapsulate them, keeping bacteria out with natural barriers and the immune defense system.
I don't disagree, but so many of the replies have been variations of, "No you're wrong and also ignorant, here is how it really is." Not really an honest attempt to examine or evaluate.
This is why I stand by my earlier comments made back on page 4.
Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
*sigh* Jesus Christ.
We have given three sets: Set A (x, y, b, c, d) Set B (y, z, q, w, d) Set C (o, p, y, l, k)
Does it mean that every possible set has to necessarly contain d? Are you even reading what you are writing? Because it looks like you make it up as you go along.
The sound observer is clearly defined. No mental illnesses. Normal or higher levels of empathy, compassion and passion. No personal stakes in the outcome.
So let's sum up why that "definition" is not only vague, but terribly stupid: 1. Unless you give precise description of every step we ought to do to examine if one is sound observer, that idea is worthless. 2. Science is changing constantly. Definition of mental ilness is changing constantly. Science does not have adamant ways to examine someone's mental health . Fifty years ago no homosexual could be "sound observer". 3. You gave no way to examine if one's levels of empathy are "normal". 4. You gave no explanation why are we allowing higher levels of empathy, but not lower. 5. You gave no explanation of "empathy", "compassion" and "passion". 6. Your give no explanation what to do if sounds observers don't agree. 7. You give no reason to believe why sound observers wouldn't agree. Are you going to say that trolley dilemma will be solved exactly the same by every sound observer? 8. And since you ignored those questions, I am going to put them bold: how do we examine social conditioning? How can we know if everyone isn't so heavily conditioned that no person can be sound observer? 9. And another question you ignored: give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG". 9a. And don't make me laugh with those pathetics eristics. You propose existence of some beings, and it's your job to prove it. You don't get to turn tables and say "SO PROVE ME OTHERWISE!". 10. Even if you ignored all above, your sound observer obviously doesn't apply to any being that is not human and does not have human brain. It's enough to deem it as not universal and relative.
Mayhaps we should stick to humans for now?
No no no. If your ethics is objective, then it's appliable to aliens as well.
How often do men that rape feel they perform an act of good?
Soldiers of Red Army in Prussia in 1945 felt raping german women was reasonable vengeance for everything Nazis did in USSR furing the war.
For instance, it was known that bacteria thrive in crevices, which is why they made dental implants as smooth as they possible could, but the dental implants yet kept getting infected. This logic was NOT flawed. It made perfect sense with the current knowledge. What they later realized was that the human body also like grooves, so they made the dental implants rough, and flesh would encapsulate them, keeping bacteria out with natural barriers and the immune defense system.
YES IT WAS FLAWED. CERTAIN VARIABLE WAS GIVEN VALUE 1 INSTEAD OF 0. It's called "material error". Basics.
I don't disagree, but so many of the replies have been variations of, "No you're wrong and also ignorant, here is how it really is." Not really an honest attempt to examine or evaluate.
This is why I stand by my earlier comments made back on page 4.
Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
*sigh* Jesus Christ.
We have given three sets: Set A (x, y, b, c, d) Set B (y, z, q, w, d) Set C (o, p, y, l, k)
Does it mean that every possible set has to necessarly contain d? Are you even reading what you are writing? Because it looks like you make it up as you go along.
All are examples of people heavily conditioned into thinking a certain way, but their condition is overcome by base human instinct. Your counter-argument misses the mark by about fifteen kilometers.
5. You gave no explanation of "empathy", "compassion" and "passion".
Err... are these terms unclear and confusing for you?
In any case, lets say I should describe a cars propulsion, but I have no concept of what an engine is. I might say something like "it is a cart that moves without a horse, but it has some manner beast living inside, surely, for I have seen them enter a long feeding tube."
What we are learning with this thought exercise is that the subject defines the description, not the other way around. The description does not define the subject.
Might other cultures describe the same subject differently and indeed in doing so at times even contradict each others? Might some cultures provide unique viewpoints? Might some cultures even inadvertently introduce erroneous claims?
Yes to all three - but this is of no relevance of the subjects real form.
YES IT WAS FLAWED. CERTAIN VARIABLE WAS GIVEN VALUE 1 INSTEAD OF 0. It's called "material error". Basics.
And how, pray tell, would you have learned this had you not used empiricism? Logic strikes me as limited, if it so heavily relies on hindsight addendums.
All are examples of people heavily conditioned into thinking a certain way, but their condition is overcome by base human instinct.
Okay. We have Nazis who: a) commit war crimes; b) hide those war crimes from public.
How do you know what (a or b) is result of conditioning? How do you know if both of them aren't just effect of conditioning?
Also: JUST BECAUSE YOU GAVE THREE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE DOING THINGS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S UNIVERSAL TRUTH FOR EVERYONE. It's called "induction". Look it up.
You got right and wrong mixed up with good and evil, yet again.
- How often do men that rape feel they perform an act of good? - Soldiers of Red Army in Prussia in 1945 felt raping german women was reasonable vengeance for everything Nazis did in USSR furing the war. - You got right and wrong mixed up with good and evil, yet again.
Jesus Christ. Could you please try to read what you are answering?
Err... are these terms unclear and confusing for you?
Sorry, I'm not going to explain to you what "definition" is. If you don't know that, then look it up.
In any case, lets say I should describe a cars propulsion, but I have no concept of what an engine is. I might say something like "it is a cart that moves without a horse, but it has some manner beast living inside, surely, for I have seen them enter a long feeding tube."
What we are learning with this thought exercise is that the subject defines the description, not the other way around. The description does not define the subject.
How do we know what subject is without description?
And how, pray tell, would you have learned this had you not used empiricism? Logic strikes me as limited, if it so heavily relies on hindsight addendums.
It does not mean logic is "trumped" by scientific method. And if logic is limited, then I eagarly await you discovery of any better method of setting relations between sentences.
Let me copy my list, since you ignored everything on it except for one: 1. Unless you give precise description of every step we ought to do to examine if one is sound observer, that idea is worthless. 2. Science is changing constantly. Definition of mental ilness is changing constantly. Science does not have adamant ways to examine someone's mental health . Fifty years ago no homosexual could be "sound observer". 3. You gave no way to examine if one's levels of empathy are "normal". 4. You gave no explanation why are we allowing higher levels of empathy, but not lower. 5. You gave no explanation of "empathy", "compassion" and "passion". 6. Your give no explanation what to do if sounds observers don't agree. 7. You give no reason to believe why sound observers wouldn't agree. Are you going to say that trolley dilemma will be solved exactly the same by every sound observer? 8. And since you ignored those questions, I am going to put them bold: how do we examine social conditioning? How can we know if everyone isn't so heavily conditioned that no person can be sound observer? 9. And another question you ignored: give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG". 10. Even if you ignored all above, your sound observer obviously doesn't apply to any being that is not human and does not have human brain. It's enough to deem it as not universal and relative.
@Artona: This thread is not about DrakeICN, or you.
@DrakeICN: This thread is not about Artona, or you.
You two have been sniping at each other repeatedly in this thread, and this endless arguing has shed no new light on the subject at hand. You've spent over a whole page doing nothing but dissecting each other's words, looking for excuses to say "Gotcha! You said something wrong!" I fail to understand what you hope to accomplish by writing a 500-word post to criticize a 5-word phrase, after you've done exactly that several times already.
If you want to continue this argument, I have a suggestion. Not as a moderator, but out of curiosity. The next times you post in this thread, don't quote each other or refer to each other's previous words. Just as an experiment.
There is a reason for critizing a 5-word phrase with 500-word post: every ethical system is nothing system of sentences and relations between them (and it doesn't matter if we accept those sentences or not). And to analyze sentences, you need semantics. Only other way is to refer to so-called "common sense" but criteria like usefulness or knowability, but those are very muddy waters - and even then, you need to understand correctly what other party means. Natural languages are terribly unprecise both in their vocabulary and, what's more troubling, grammar (sentence "Socrates is human" and "Socrates is Plato's teacher" look very similar, but they mean something very different structurally), so it's almost impossible to move forward without some ground work.
Most all statements* are like osmosis**; they are the most vigorous at the core, and diminish the further outward you travel, only halftrue at the perimeter, and only occasionally true, if ever, outside of their boundaries. The chinese describes this as Yin-Yang dualism.
Thus, note that it often IS possible to find situations where the statement is untrue - but what you find is NOT that the statement is incorrect, but the outer boundaries of the statement. Of course, if a statement is never true, it does not even have a core. And if it is ridicously narrow, the utility of the statement is in question.
Meanwhile, the more words you add to describe a phenomena, the more likely you are to introduce mistakes, dangling modifiers and contradictions or simply cause confusion by the excessive amount of descriptive terms introduced to the reader. Add to this the fact that it is near impossible to ever be meticolous enough to create a perfect description.
Also meanwhile, descriptions do not define the subject, the subject defines the descriptions. Thus, confusion caused by above mentioned errors DO NOT disprove the subject. For instance, an incorrect description of a duck does not turn it into a swan. The ducks form is entirely independant on the accuracy of the descriptions.
For these reasons, agitators love constantly asking for ever more precise descriptions. Demanding more accurate descriptions is effortless and installs in the audience a false sense that secunda have valid points, and further, once an error is introduced, is abused by the agitator as a silver bullet to kill primas statement. Even if not, demanding ever more descriptive words creates a false impression of prima "makes stuff up as he goes along" - which, even should it be the case, also does not disprove primas argument as long as what prima introduces still makes sense. Prima might easily have overlooked an angle, but the mere existance of the angle, if it is refuted by prima, is non-relevant.
Therefore, meaningful philosophical discourse is best achieved through elegance on the part of prima, and honesty on the part of secunda, acccepting the spiritual meaning of the concept discussed should prima despite their best attempt of elegance still introduce an error.
If prima is incorrect, secunda should prove this with superior counter-arguments, not by lambasting technical errors. The reason which is, of course, because regardless of what is "logically" "proven" when descripte errors are overanalyzed, the subject is, again, a constant - the duck will not turn into a swan, even if secunda achieves "victory" in a dishonest fashion.
In fact, the dishonest secundas technique is a fallacy, called "gish gallop" and / or "moving the goalposts".
Now, this is not to be misunderstood; if prima is non-elegant or argue out of technical contradictions, it is the obligation of secunda to point this out, allowing prima to clarify, modify or abandon concepts or parts of concepts.
Now, how does one tell the difference between fallacious demand for more descriptions and friendly suggestions to clarify? Quite easily. The first kind is an entrapment, the purpose of which is to defeat an argument that secunda cannot defeat square. The second kind is an invitation to together delve deeper.
There is also of course the possibility that prima argues out of dishonest technical contradictions, known as "barrier defense". The true purpose is technically hidden behind a position easier to defend.
Now, how does one tell a barrier defense from a legitimate point? Also quite easily. Find the real purpose of the argument and bypass the barrier, answering not with you are encouraged to, but with a question that targets the true purpose.
*There are exceptions, of course, like you cannot be half-dead (or can you... what about the dying process?).
**Well, for the analogy to be correct, we must mean osmosis in a system with circulation and constant production, of course, otherwise it just becomes a blur
I hope I won't earn ban, but: claiming that "description do not define the subject" is wrong because of simplest reason - to differentitate subject from the world we need to define it. Otherwise there is no way no to refer world as whole.
Comments
2. I already did.
1. But all of them can do so because they are conditioned. Therefore, we do not know if x is evil, because maybe there is no single thing universally evil thing, but some standard of cultural conditioning. But that standard is by no way objectively good or evil, right?
2. I don't recall you describing spefic chain of actions one must undertake to determine if one's brain is neurotypical, sorry. Unless you give me that chain I'm going to perceive your theory worthless, because we gives us no way to determine sound observer. Sorry, you can't brush that aside as "technicality".
Give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG". Unless you do so, your entire babbling is worthless fantasy. I'm not denying you right to imagine some fictional world where you can read minds of dead peple, but don' think that this is right basis for any discussion.
Well, men often feel so strong natural urge to reproduce, so they rape women. What have we proven again?
Your constant reference to "nature" (I'm mercifully omit how loaded and unnatural that term is) mutilates any ethics you propose to crude behaviorism, where ethics is set by structure of brain. What with aliens? Are they outside ethics?
Premise 1: After lunch, you (may) become fatigued for digesting food.
Premise 2: Cramps can result from overexpending your energy.
Premise 3: Swimming expends energy
Conclusion: Swimming right after eating lunch is inadviseable as you might cramp.
HOWEVER, when tested empirically, we find that the conclusion is not justifiable. There are all manner of alternative medicine and other assorted hocus-pocus that indeed are logical enough but simply will not perform when put to the test.
Conclusion is wrong. You lack premise 4. Can you find that out or do you need help? Because if this is how you "trump" logic with scientific method, then
We're here to discuss philosophy. We're not here to fight.
Are aliens outside ethics? Well, that is a whole other question all together. Many female spiders eat their partner after mating. Sharks carry many young in their belly, but only one emerge, as the biggest eats all his or her smaller siblings. Many insects and smaller mammals eat their young if they are stressed. Dolphins gang rape all the time. There is a species of fly that lay eggs in live larva, that will suffer as painful existance as their primitive neural system allows during incubation, before finally the flies dig themselves out of the larvas body, causing it a slow death as the bodily fluids leak out.
Mayhaps we should stick to humans for now? The point is not that you in hindsight can keep adding premises until it becomes so meticulous and bloated that you start adding contradictory premises without even noticing. The point is that what logic calls a conclusion, science calls a hypothesis.
For instance, it was known that bacteria thrive in crevices, which is why they made dental implants as smooth as they possible could, but the dental implants yet kept getting infected. This logic was NOT flawed. It made perfect sense with the current knowledge. What they later realized was that the human body also like grooves, so they made the dental implants rough, and flesh would encapsulate them, keeping bacteria out with natural barriers and the immune defense system.
Like I already stated;
http://assets.amuniversal.com/3092b8009f89012f2fe600163e41dd5b
*sigh* Jesus Christ.
We have given three sets:
Set A (x, y, b, c, d)
Set B (y, z, q, w, d)
Set C (o, p, y, l, k)
Does it mean that every possible set has to necessarly contain d? Are you even reading what you are writing? Because it looks like you make it up as you go along.
So let's sum up why that "definition" is not only vague, but terribly stupid:
1. Unless you give precise description of every step we ought to do to examine if one is sound observer, that idea is worthless.
2. Science is changing constantly. Definition of mental ilness is changing constantly. Science does not have adamant ways to examine someone's mental health . Fifty years ago no homosexual could be "sound observer".
3. You gave no way to examine if one's levels of empathy are "normal".
4. You gave no explanation why are we allowing higher levels of empathy, but not lower.
5. You gave no explanation of "empathy", "compassion" and "passion".
6. Your give no explanation what to do if sounds observers don't agree.
7. You give no reason to believe why sound observers wouldn't agree. Are you going to say that trolley dilemma will be solved exactly the same by every sound observer?
8. And since you ignored those questions, I am going to put them bold: how do we examine social conditioning? How can we know if everyone isn't so heavily conditioned that no person can be sound observer?
9. And another question you ignored: give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG".
9a. And don't make me laugh with those pathetics eristics. You propose existence of some beings, and it's your job to prove it. You don't get to turn tables and say "SO PROVE ME OTHERWISE!".
10. Even if you ignored all above, your sound observer obviously doesn't apply to any being that is not human and does not have human brain. It's enough to deem it as not universal and relative.
No no no. If your ethics is objective, then it's appliable to aliens as well.
Soldiers of Red Army in Prussia in 1945 felt raping german women was reasonable vengeance for everything Nazis did in USSR furing the war.
YES IT WAS FLAWED. CERTAIN VARIABLE WAS GIVEN VALUE 1 INSTEAD OF 0. It's called "material error". Basics.
In any case, lets say I should describe a cars propulsion, but I have no concept of what an engine is. I might say something like "it is a cart that moves without a horse, but it has some manner beast living inside, surely, for I have seen them enter a long feeding tube."
What we are learning with this thought exercise is that the subject defines the description, not the other way around. The description does not define the subject.
Might other cultures describe the same subject differently and indeed in doing so at times even contradict each others? Might some cultures provide unique viewpoints? Might some cultures even inadvertently introduce erroneous claims?
Yes to all three - but this is of no relevance of the subjects real form. You got right and wrong mixed up with good and evil, yet again. And how, pray tell, would you have learned this had you not used empiricism? Logic strikes me as limited, if it so heavily relies on hindsight addendums.
Okay. We have Nazis who:
a) commit war crimes;
b) hide those war crimes from public.
How do you know what (a or b) is result of conditioning? How do you know if both of them aren't just effect of conditioning?
Also: JUST BECAUSE YOU GAVE THREE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE DOING THINGS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S UNIVERSAL TRUTH FOR EVERYONE.
It's called "induction". Look it up.
- How often do men that rape feel they perform an act of good?
- Soldiers of Red Army in Prussia in 1945 felt raping german women was reasonable vengeance for everything Nazis did in USSR furing the war.
- You got right and wrong mixed up with good and evil, yet again.
Jesus Christ. Could you please try to read what you are answering?
Sorry, I'm not going to explain to you what "definition" is. If you don't know that, then look it up.
What we are learning with this thought exercise is that the subject defines the description, not the other way around. The description does not define the subject.
How do we know what subject is without description?
It does not mean logic is "trumped" by scientific method. And if logic is limited, then I eagarly await you discovery of any better method of setting relations between sentences.
Let me copy my list, since you ignored everything on it except for one:
1. Unless you give precise description of every step we ought to do to examine if one is sound observer, that idea is worthless.
2. Science is changing constantly. Definition of mental ilness is changing constantly. Science does not have adamant ways to examine someone's mental health . Fifty years ago no homosexual could be "sound observer".
3. You gave no way to examine if one's levels of empathy are "normal".
4. You gave no explanation why are we allowing higher levels of empathy, but not lower.
5. You gave no explanation of "empathy", "compassion" and "passion".
6. Your give no explanation what to do if sounds observers don't agree.
7. You give no reason to believe why sound observers wouldn't agree. Are you going to say that trolley dilemma will be solved exactly the same by every sound observer?
8. And since you ignored those questions, I am going to put them bold: how do we examine social conditioning? How can we know if everyone isn't so heavily conditioned that no person can be sound observer?
9. And another question you ignored: give me a proof of that "WRONG WRONG WRONG".
10. Even if you ignored all above, your sound observer obviously doesn't apply to any being that is not human and does not have human brain. It's enough to deem it as not universal and relative.
@DrakeICN: This thread is not about Artona, or you.
You two have been sniping at each other repeatedly in this thread, and this endless arguing has shed no new light on the subject at hand. You've spent over a whole page doing nothing but dissecting each other's words, looking for excuses to say "Gotcha! You said something wrong!" I fail to understand what you hope to accomplish by writing a 500-word post to criticize a 5-word phrase, after you've done exactly that several times already.
This argument devolved into semantics long ago.
There is a reason for critizing a 5-word phrase with 500-word post: every ethical system is nothing system of sentences and relations between them (and it doesn't matter if we accept those sentences or not). And to analyze sentences, you need semantics.
Only other way is to refer to so-called "common sense" but criteria like usefulness or knowability, but those are very muddy waters - and even then, you need to understand correctly what other party means. Natural languages are terribly unprecise both in their vocabulary and, what's more troubling, grammar (sentence "Socrates is human" and "Socrates is Plato's teacher" look very similar, but they mean something very different structurally), so it's almost impossible to move forward without some ground work.
Thus, note that it often IS possible to find situations where the statement is untrue - but what you find is NOT that the statement is incorrect, but the outer boundaries of the statement. Of course, if a statement is never true, it does not even have a core. And if it is ridicously narrow, the utility of the statement is in question.
Meanwhile, the more words you add to describe a phenomena, the more likely you are to introduce mistakes, dangling modifiers and contradictions or simply cause confusion by the excessive amount of descriptive terms introduced to the reader. Add to this the fact that it is near impossible to ever be meticolous enough to create a perfect description.
Also meanwhile, descriptions do not define the subject, the subject defines the descriptions. Thus, confusion caused by above mentioned errors DO NOT disprove the subject. For instance, an incorrect description of a duck does not turn it into a swan. The ducks form is entirely independant on the accuracy of the descriptions.
For these reasons, agitators love constantly asking for ever more precise descriptions. Demanding more accurate descriptions is effortless and installs in the audience a false sense that secunda have valid points, and further, once an error is introduced, is abused by the agitator as a silver bullet to kill primas statement. Even if not, demanding ever more descriptive words creates a false impression of prima "makes stuff up as he goes along" - which, even should it be the case, also does not disprove primas argument as long as what prima introduces still makes sense. Prima might easily have overlooked an angle, but the mere existance of the angle, if it is refuted by prima, is non-relevant.
Therefore, meaningful philosophical discourse is best achieved through elegance on the part of prima, and honesty on the part of secunda, acccepting the spiritual meaning of the concept discussed should prima despite their best attempt of elegance still introduce an error.
If prima is incorrect, secunda should prove this with superior counter-arguments, not by lambasting technical errors. The reason which is, of course, because regardless of what is "logically" "proven" when descripte errors are overanalyzed, the subject is, again, a constant - the duck will not turn into a swan, even if secunda achieves "victory" in a dishonest fashion.
In fact, the dishonest secundas technique is a fallacy, called "gish gallop" and / or "moving the goalposts".
Now, this is not to be misunderstood; if prima is non-elegant or argue out of technical contradictions, it is the obligation of secunda to point this out, allowing prima to clarify, modify or abandon concepts or parts of concepts.
Now, how does one tell the difference between fallacious demand for more descriptions and friendly suggestions to clarify? Quite easily. The first kind is an entrapment, the purpose of which is to defeat an argument that secunda cannot defeat square. The second kind is an invitation to together delve deeper.
There is also of course the possibility that prima argues out of dishonest technical contradictions, known as "barrier defense". The true purpose is technically hidden behind a position easier to defend.
Now, how does one tell a barrier defense from a legitimate point? Also quite easily. Find the real purpose of the argument and bypass the barrier, answering not with you are encouraged to, but with a question that targets the true purpose.
*There are exceptions, of course, like you cannot be half-dead (or can you... what about the dying process?).
**Well, for the analogy to be correct, we must mean osmosis in a system with circulation and constant production, of course, otherwise it just becomes a blur