Well, technically that isn't actually God's name, but merely the reading of the names of the Hebrew characters (equivalent to saying "jee-oh-dee" instead of "God").
Indeed. But it is uncertain whether "Yod Heh Vav Heh" is the sounding out of the letter's in God's name or whether "Yahweh" or "Jehova" are potential names derived from the characters. We really don't know for certain how to say God's name according to the Hebrews precisely because of the practice of not writing it. It's quite a conundrum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Indeed. But it is uncertain whether "Yod Heh Vav Heh" is the sounding out of the letter's in G[-]d's name or whether "Yahweh" or "Jehova" are potential names derived from the characters. We really don't know for certain how to say G[-]d's name according to the Hebrews precisely because of the practice of not writing it. It's quite a conundrum.
I believe he did, however, include "YHVH," which would be the same thing as "Yod Heh Vav Heh." It becomes an issue of transliteration over translation.
On the topic of cute, non-existent men, Toboe from Wolf's Rain? Mmmmm...^_^
Awww, Toboe's a cutie-pie.
@FMota: The link you posted was disturbing and unfortunate. I can see why those quotes would be mocked, though I find it more sad than amusing. Such people demonstrate pride, fear, rigidity, and their beliefs smell of superiority, hate, and politic. Especially the comments about disobeying your husband being equivalent to spouse abuse, and "breaking the will" of children, who can't defend themselves. Without uncertainty these are strong examples of exertion of power and domination, and more subtly but just as troubling, of self-blunting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
@Leilani: "Shinigami" literally means death-god or god of death. Such a person is pretty common in some anime, such as Bleach and Death Note. I believe that Duo Maxwell, a character in Gundam Wing, depicted in Shinigami's avatar, was either sometimes called a shinigami, or his moblie suit was . . . whatever.
Duo is HOT. the end.
I have a picture of him on my bedroom wall. Plus, I have a little model of his Gundam. [because i like doing things like that...tinkering around]
I, sadly, have never seen the entirety of Gundam Wing. Yet it remains one of my favorite animes ever. After such animes such as Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop. And I guess Neon Genesis, though i didn't like that one as much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Sorry I haven't posted, I've been really busy!
Also, I bought a nintendo DS, and it has been distracting me, because, in my heart of hearts, I am a nintendo nerd.
I watched a bunch of movies this weekend too, which is something I never do...Annie (not the one everyone knows about, the little Disney version with Kathy Bates as Ms. Hannigan, Alan Cumming as Rooster, and Kristin Chenoweth (<3!) as Lilly), Notes on a Scandal (amazing. Creepy, but amazing), the History Boys (Also very good. I may buy it), and Marie Antoinette (I don't know what I thought of the movie, but the sets and costumes were gorgeous).
@blue: It does when we have to look at your definition of 'pretty'.
I don't get it.
Mike: Welcome back. I'm assuming she's okay now... or rather she's at least alive? You got to see her of course, was she glad to see you? what all did you do?
This is a nuanced matter to debate, because as I see it, morality has a necessary subjective component and a necessary objective component.
[...]
However, "increased pleasure" is a state that objectively does exist, whatever that happens to mean.
Ah, well, I never argued that empirical (thus objective) evidence can't be used to inform morality, since we might need to use it in order to decide what best achieves our goals (however, that is mainly only in consequentialist systems).
I mean this in the sense that there is a moral system that is the "best" one, that if we were to have enough insight, we would find following that moral system to be the most desireable, or is most likely to lead to goodness and utility. There is a necessary breakdown at some point, because "desireable" is a subjective quality.
The problem is that Ain, and now, it seems, you, are ignoring the fact that consequentialist moral systems are not the only moral systems. Kantian ethics does not care about "utility". If we just go by what Kant himself advocated (later versions alter the rules some), then we would say that lying is wrong. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, because what makes lying wrong is not the consequences (utility) of lying, but the fact that when you lie to someone, you are treating them as a means rather than an end. And that would be true (according to Kant) whether you are lying to them to spare their feelings, or lying to them to protect someone else, or lying to cheat them out of money.
And while, as I said before, I'm not primarily deontological in outlook (Kantian ethics is a deontological system), you can't just assume that it's wrong without giving a justification. And I'm not sure you can give any objective reason to reject it.
Therefore, I cannot conclude anything but that morality is intersubjective, whatever else it may be.
This, however, I agree with.
Morality is analogous to "truth" in a way. Ain_Soph appears to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is moral realism, a concrete quality of goodness or badness that something can have or not have. The only issue there is defining what it means to have such a quality, but even that doesn't mean, necessarily, that such a quality doesn't exist objectively. And erimir (again, correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be saying that moral systems, since they are by nature predicated on values, must be subjective because values are subjective. I can't disagree with either point because they address both aspects of what entails morality as a whole. The ideological system determining what is moral, and the objective truth of what is being described (though the latter may vary in meaning of truthfulness depending on the former).
My point (my main point) is that any moral system that we as humans come up with is going to be subjective. We have no reason to suppose that objective morality exists. But if there is an objective morality, we have no way of knowing it nor of approximating it. We can assume that it's logically consistent, but that's about it. As such, objective morality is either non-existant, or irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure I follow you. You're saying that moral systems are really describing something truthful, even if some of those systems have incorrect conceptions about what is good.
They might be. But absent any way to know which aspects are true, it's pretty irrelevant to say that they're partially correct.
If I may speak for Erimir (and he can correct me if I'm mistaken), I think his point is that utility and benefit are so tied up in how those terms are defined by a moral system that an objective truth of being good or beneficial is almost impossible to really distinguish.
Well, yes and no. Just as I was saying above by pointing out that Kantian ethics does not fit into the supposed objective parts of morality than you and Ain are talking about, it is obvious that whether you adopt Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics is going to have a profound influence on how you determine what is moral. And the problem is that you can't objectively determine which system is "objectively true".
Usage note: Utility is a term specific to consequentialist ethics (hence the name, Utilitarianism). It does not enter into Kantian ethics. Do you mean for it to be a term that can apply to both consequentialist and deontological systems? If so, you should use something else. Likewise, Kantian ethics does not care about whether an action benefits people or not - it cares about the intention behind the action.
As I said before, I'll just summarize that I believe that there is such a thing as a "best" morality that, if everyone were to have proper insight into it, could be seen as having a consequential nature most desirable for all.
But how do you know that the best morality is not of a deontological nature?
But deontological morality does care about consequences. The difference between deontology and consequentialism is not that one ignores consequences and the other doesn't. It's that consequentialism is only concerned with the consequences of an action, method, or attitude, whereas deontology looks at more than that. But consequences are still valid means of measuring the nature of an act, method, or attitude. Sometimes the consequences don't seem bad enough to outweigh the usefulness of the action - i.e. sometimes stealing doesn't appear to really hurt anyone, so it seems fine. In conseuquentialist terms, that would be true, but in deontological ones, even if that if the loss is quit negligible, that stealing is still wrong. You are still ignoring someone else's rights and privileges (even if that someone is just Wal-Mart), you are still making it okay for yourself to take freely of others. I argue that these are themselves consequences, even though they are consequences that consequentialism ignores.
This may lead one to believe that consequences are a non-issue to deontologists, but that's wrong. I think that consequences do matter in deontology just as much, but on a much larger scale. Instead of being strictly confined to casuistric analyses, deontology values things which are not immediately apparent.
And utility is not a word that is only definite in terms of utilitarianism. Because utility also just means practicality, and by no means does deontology not have to be practical. I'd even say that deontological ethics have more utility than utilitarian ones. Sometimes following a deontological ethos seems impractical in a given circumstance, but in the long run, may end up being more worthwhile.
But deontology compresses things into the building blocks of moral situations and qualifies certain behaviors, intentions, and attitudes as wrong or right by their own virtue rather than how they specifically work in the particular situation. This is simpler not least because it requires less extravagant understanding of paradigms. Though casuistry is still useful in the task of examining and testing moral ideas. The virtues and norms of deontological moral systems certainly aren't decided at random.
And what's more, my argument wasn't predicated on the theoretical superiority of consequential morality, especially since I don't even believe in that superiority. My point was this: "good" must be defined by a moral system - yes, even a deontological system - and whatever that definitions entail, whatever it's describing, that could be something that has an independent existence.
Quote from erimir »
My point (my main point) is that any moral system that we as humans come up with is going to be subjective. We have no reason to suppose that objective morality exists. But if there is an objective morality, we have no way of knowing it nor of approximating it. We can assume that it's logically consistent, but that's about it. As such, objective morality is either non-existant, or irrelevant.
I believe I already affirmed this point. A moral system is necessarily subjective, as it is created and adopted in accordance with values held by people, which are by definition subjective (in the sense you're using).
And though we cannot prove that there is an "objective morality," we do have reason to act as though there were an objective morality, in the same way we have reason to act as though we can trust our senses even though we don't really know that.
We have reason to assume a factive attitude about our morality, which is treating it as being certain for pragmatic purposes. When it comes to knowledge, we have very little certain knowledge, but we act as though we're certain because doing so is functional (i.e. how science works).
And just to note preemptively, being pragmatic or functional is not something only a consequentialist would care about. In short, I'm saying that if there is a "best" morality (I believe there is), upon finding it, we should use it. We would treat it as being true even if we don't technically know that it really is true.
Epistemologically, we almost never know if something is or is not true. We can check internal consistency (which you pointed out), and we can check coherency with a preestablished "given," which may or may not be true either.
But there is a third epistemic approach we can take, which is to treat something as true if doing so appears to be functional and practical.
They might be. But absent any way to know which aspects are true, it's pretty irrelevant to say that they're partially correct.
Ain_Soph's point seemed to be that there is an objectively true nature of morality whether we know it or not.
True, in terms of creating a moral system, that doesn't help us at all.
Well, yes and no. Just as I was saying above by pointing out that Kantian ethics does not fit into the supposed objective parts of morality than you and Ain are talking about
Yes it does. Well, maybe not what Ain is saying, but what I'm saying, yes.
Even when it comes to consequentialism, "good consequence," "bad consequence," and "utility," still need to be defined, and they are still going to be defined using values. By nature all moral systems are defined by values.
Even a relatively safe term like "practical" needs to be defined and is so defined based on subjective values. It's just that the nice thing about it is that it's easier to agree on.
If good and bad consequences can really exist, so can "good intent" and "bad intent," depending on how those are defined.
Kantian ethics does not care about whether an action benefits people or not - it cares about the intention behind the action.
Yes, categorical imperative does primarily use intention as it's measuring stick, so to speak. Not all deontological systems are strictly concerned with that - some weigh both intent and consequences, and all different ranges of consequences aside from immediately visible ones (some kinds of Christian virtue morality are good examples of this). By such systems, you can still do something bad with good intentions at heart.
But how do you know that the best morality is not of a deontological nature?
In fact, I believe that the best morality is of a deontological nature.
In summary, my purpose was to point out that you and Ain_Soph are talking about morality using two different definitions of that term.
Frankly, erimir, I am more inclined to agree with your position, because moral systems are by nature subjective. However, I also think that Ain_Soph has a point in that there can be a "something" that all moral goals can eventually be refined to, and that this something exists even if no one realizes it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
@Mamelon & Ain Soph Aur
Ah, well, I never argued that empirical (thus objective) evidence can't be used to inform morality, since we might need to use it in order to decide what best achieves our goals (however, that is mainly only in consequentialist systems).
The problem is that Ain, and now, it seems, you, are ignoring the fact that consequentialist moral systems are not the only moral systems.
So?
The consequentialist moral system, in a regard, describes or captures the phenomenon of morality in its manifestation through the consequences of actions - and this is measurable. Intents can't be measured, so why would be adopt a moral system that doesn't really help us in interpreting the moral nature of actions? The measured value is, generally, superior to the intuitive one and so consequentialism will be superior to deontology in that it provides a system in which you are able to make measurements and observations.
Kantian ethics does not care about "utility". If we just go by what Kant himself advocated (later versions alter the rules some), then we would say that lying is wrong. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, because what makes lying wrong is not the consequences (utility) of lying, but the fact that when you lie to someone, you are treating them as a means rather than an end. And that would be true (according to Kant) whether you are lying to them to spare their feelings, or lying to them to protect someone else, or lying to cheat them out of money.
Which is why as a moral system it doesn't describe Morality, with a capital M, very well... it's just a moral system. So is consequentialist morality, of course, but at least that system helps us to understand how Morality actually operates.
And while, as I said before, I'm not primarily deontological in outlook (Kantian ethics is a deontological system), you can't just assume that it's wrong without giving a justification. And I'm not sure you can give any objective reason to reject it.
Objectively, there is no way to apply a moral system based on intent except through hindsight, in which case an action has already occurred and it seems pretty useless to know intent in any case.
Morality necessarily describes whether you are doing something good or something bad. Intents may be flawed by any manner of things, such as ignorance, false rationalizations, or perceptive bias. And there is not necessarily any causality related with intent. I could intend to get out of bed all day and never actually do so. The only change that is occurring is when I physically force myself to get up: this is what makes the universe a different framework than it was one second ago - an action occurred. Having intentions doesn't necessarily change the contents of the universe, in comparison, so an intent in one moment is not distinguishable from an intent to the next - and in fact intents such as this can change all of the time as time passes and nothing else changes. The consequences of actions, however, make a difference to people and the state of the universe.
A deontological moral system certainly may exist... but what it describes isn't really Morality. It's something that must be categorized differently.
My point (my main point) is that any moral system that we as humans come up with is going to be subjective.
Certainly.
Moral systems, however ≠ Morality.
We have no reason to suppose that objective morality exists.
Well, I suppose if you want to adopt the absolute extreme skepticism of solipsism, you could say that we have no reason to suppose than anything else exists. Why, after all, trust that our physical senses accurately describe reality to us? It's an assumption that we made which is the basis of empiricism, and luckily for us, using such a system we tend to get consistent, reliable results.
In the same way, Morality describes how individuals will react to stimuli. If they react negatively, it simply means that to cause that stimuli would be immoral, and vice versa. And with repetition, you will consistently achieve the same results with the same individuals. You will make empirical, objective observations as to how they react.
But if there is an objective morality, we have no way of knowing it nor of approximating it. We can assume that it's logically consistent, but that's about it. As such, objective morality is either non-existant, or irrelevant.
We have no way of ultimately knowing the moral consequence of a particular action through an infinite generation of impacted individuals, but other than that, it's quite feasible to approximate the moral value of a particular action. For example, if person A shoots person B in the face, mostly it's person B who is affected (but, also, anyone who knows person B, and the people who know those people, and so forth). In most instances, shooting someone in the face is probably a cause of harm to them. Observing the state of them being harmed in this manner is objective. Morality is simply whatever it is that corresponds to the objectively observable states that people experience when they are impacted by an action. The word itself, Morality, does not matter, but the phenomena that it describes is quite objective in nature.
We aren't omniscient, so it's pretty difficult for us to truly know what morality an action has taken by the end of its causal relevance, but just looking at the immediate generations of those impacted by the action does give us a viable approximation. It's not, truly, irrelevant.
They might be. But absent any way to know which aspects are true, it's pretty irrelevant to say that they're partially correct.
Indeed, and that's why for the most part I don't try to address the "good aspects" of moral systems. Most moral systems are flawed and may be, for example, based on intuitions. There is no intuition involved, however, when you make an objective observation of how an action impacted a person. It's quite binary: they were either harmed by the action or benefited by it. The standards that this individual has which determines whether they were harmed or benefited are of course subjective, but the state of being harmed or benefited in this way is objective.
@erimir:
But deontological morality does care about consequences. The difference between deontology and consequentialism is not that one ignores consequences and the other doesn't. It's that consequentialism is only concerned with the consequences of an action, method, or attitude, whereas deontology looks at more than that. But consequences are still valid means of measuring the nature of an act, method, or attitude. Sometimes the consequences don't seem bad enough to outweigh the usefulness of the action - i.e. sometimes stealing doesn't appear to really hurt anyone, so it seems fine. In conseuquentialist terms, that would be true, but in deontological ones, even if that if the loss is quit negligible, that stealing is still wrong. You are still ignoring someone else's rights and privileges (even if that someone is just Wal-Mart), you are still making it okay for yourself to take freely of others. I argue that these are themselves consequences, even though they are consequences that consequentialism ignores.
Well, the consequences of these actions may seem negligible to the person committing them, but if you were to take a sample of how that action impacted others, it would likely mostly be a cause of harm, even if a very small one in some cases. Negligible harm still counts as harm for the purpose of determining the moral properties of an action. Besides oneself, who indeed is necessarily aided from stealing something as opposed to simply buying it? Perhaps you cannot afford it, or somesuch, but it doesn't become moral to commit the action of stealing, which we can see does cause harm, until you have exhausted all other methods which would not cause harm, such as accepting charity.
This may lead one to believe that consequences are a non-issue to deontologists, but that's wrong. I think that consequences do matter in deontology just as much, but on a much larger scale. Instead of being strictly confined to casuistric analyses, deontology values things which are not immediately apparent.
And utility is not a word that is only definite in terms of utilitarianism. Because utility also just means practicality, and by no means does deontology not have to be practical. I'd even say that deontological ethics have more utility than utilitarian ones. Sometimes following a deontological ethos seems impractical in a given circumstance, but in the long run, may end up being more worthwhile.
But deontology compresses things into the building blocks of moral situations and qualifies certain behaviors, intentions, and attitudes as wrong or right by their own virtue rather than how they specifically work in the particular situation. This is simpler not least because it requires less extravagant understanding of paradigms. Though casuistry is still useful in the task of examining and testing moral ideas. The virtues and norms of deontological moral systems certainly aren't decided at random.
And what's more, my argument wasn't predicated on the theoretical superiority of consequential morality, especially since I don't even believe in that superiority. My point was this: "good" must be defined by a moral system - yes, even a deontological system - and whatever that definitions entail, whatever it's describing, that could be something that has an independent existence.
I believe I already affirmed this point. A moral system is necessarily subjective, as it is created and adopted in accordance with values held by people, which are by definition subjective (in the sense you're using).
And though we cannot prove that there is an "objective morality," we do have reason to act as though there were an objective morality, in the same way we have reason to act as though we can trust our senses even though we don't really know that.
We have reason to assume a factive attitude about our morality, which is treating it as being certain for pragmatic purposes. When it comes to knowledge, we have very little certain knowledge, but we act as though we're certain because doing so is functional (i.e. how science works).
And just to note preemptively, being pragmatic or functional is not something only a consequentialist would care about. In short, I'm saying that if there is a "best" morality (I believe there is), upon finding it, we should use it. We would treat it as being true even if we don't technically know that it really is true.
Epistemologically, we almost never know if something is or is not true. We can check internal consistency (which you pointed out), and we can check coherency with a preestablished "given," which may or may not be true either.
But there is a third epistemic approach we can take, which is to treat something as true if doing so appears to be functional and practical.
Ain_Soph's point seemed to be that there is an objectively true nature of morality whether we know it or not.
True, in terms of creating a moral system, that doesn't help us at all.
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Except for perhaps minor nitpicks.
Yes it does. Well, maybe not what Ain is saying, but what I'm saying, yes.
Even when it comes to consequentialism, "good consequence," "bad consequence," and "utility," still need to be defined, and they are still going to be defined using values. By nature all moral systems are defined by values.
Even a relatively safe term like "practical" needs to be defined and is so defined based on subjective values. It's just that the nice thing about it is that it's easier to agree on.
If good and bad consequences can really exist, so can "good intent" and "bad intent," depending on how those are defined.
Yes, categorical imperative does primarily use intention as it's measuring stick, so to speak. Not all deontological systems are strictly concerned with that - some weigh both intent and consequences, and all different ranges of consequences aside from immediately visible ones (some kinds of Christian virtue morality are good examples of this). By such systems, you can still do something bad with good intentions at heart.
In fact, I believe that the best morality is of a deontological nature.
In summary, my purpose was to point out that you and Ain_Soph are talking about morality using two different definitions of that term.
Frankly, erimir, I am more inclined to agree with your position, because moral systems are by nature subjective. However, I also think that Ain_Soph has a point in that there can be a "something" that all moral goals can eventually be refined to, and that this something exists even if no one realizes it.
I'd agree that moral systems are subjective, but Morality itself is not.
A moral system, more or less, is how one attempts to understand a moral value. Compare to a scientific paradigm which, more or less, is how one attempts to understand factual values given what is known and what has been observed with the current level of technology. Morality itself is the actual state of the action, much in the way that Truth or Reality is the actual state or properties of whatever it is we're trying to understand scientifically.
Sorry I haven't posted, I've been really busy! Also, I bought a nintendo DS, and it has been distracting me, because, in my heart of hearts, I am a nintendo nerd.
I watched a bunch of movies this weekend too, which is something I never do...Annie (not the one everyone knows about, the little Disney version with Kathy Bates as Ms. Hannigan, Alan Cumming as Rooster, and Kristin Chenoweth (<3!) as Lilly), Notes on a Scandal (amazing. Creepy, but amazing), the History Boys (Also very good. I may buy it), and Marie Antoinette (I don't know what I thought of the movie, but the sets and costumes were gorgeous).
Yeah I havent posted here in sometime either. Hey everybody!
I just bought Brain Age for my DS and have found my self spending way to much time playing sudoku in bed and its so weird how entertaining doing simple math problems can be. I bought the DS when it first came out a few years back and got hooked on it with Meteos, i defintley recommend it.
I saw Marie Antoinette and didnt like it to much, there wasn't much to it. all in all it was pretty boring, if it wasnt for the great set peices and costumes i would have stopped watching. Me and my friends found our selves commenting on things like, "god look at those shoes" and "I love that dress" as opposed to "I hope she finally gets pregnant and provides a male heir!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks for the Sig and Avatar Fogatog @EPIC GRAPHICS
Mike: Welcome back. I'm assuming she's okay now... or rather she's at least alive? You got to see her of course, was she glad to see you? what all did you do?
She's alive. She's been transferred back to a local hospital and will be put in the psyche ward pending her doctor's okay. She was surprised to see me, given our complex history and our recent trouble. As for what I did, I slept on a hospital bench, barely ate and basically just sat around for the most part.
I'm hooked on Gary Jules' version of "Mad World" [from Donnie Darko].
I've decided that I'm most likely going to leave Mikey. Unless something drastic changes while I'm there.
My friend, Ben, told me today that if he was drunk, he would **** me. I find this intriguing, because I think he's ****able, sober or not.
I want to get drunk. like, really bad. And...whatever happens, happens. ifyouknowwhatimean.
I'm addicted to Doctor Who. The actor who plays Doctor Who is so hot. But seriously, it's a good show. Unfortunately, it's on BBC, which I don't get here. But Ben downloads the episodes. Plussss he looks a LOT like the Doctor.
It's finally summer, and i ****ing love it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Sorry I haven't posted, I've been really busy! Also, I bought a nintendo DS, and it has been distracting me, because, in my heart of hearts, I am a nintendo nerd.
I've been addicted to my pokemon game since last Wednesday and have clocked in almost 70 hours of gameplay since I got it. I beat it and I've endeavored to collect the rest of the 484 pokemon that I don't have yet. I really need a boyfriend -_-.
Mike: Well was she pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised or just nonplused without emotional inflection and what were you expecting? Are you going to visit her now? Are you doing okay?
Ain, Ma'am, and Erimir: Thanks for putting it all in spoilers. I really am going to try to read everything you've been talking about, only I wish it had been more streamlined (like in its own thread). Time to get out the dictionary.com so I can look up all the terms I don't understand.
I sometimes have trouble putting in words what I feel about a subject since I get distracted and all my thoughts come out in a disjointed mess. So bear with me.
So right now I'm trying to begin to understand what you guys are talking about. To me it seems like Ain is describing a morality that's not based on the individual as much as the over all perception of the individual's actions. Ain, you're saying that a person's morality is based on or could be based on or interpreted by the effect his actions have in the long run on everyone around him. You made a point that I thought was interesting: morality based on reaction to stimuli. I was thinking of people before spoken and written language existed and their concept of morality. It got me thinking, where did morality even originate? When did we get to the point that we needed to define the "why we do things"? I feel awfully primitive that I don't care about the "why" and I don't feel like I need to define my moral code since everyone else's moral code will interpret how I act anyways. What I do is not only subjective to me but it's subjective to everyone else witnessing what I do. What I call moral you might call immoral. You may react negatively to a stimuli that I react positively to. But who's right in this situation and by what standard do you measure that? And what if you and Erimir react the same but I'm different? Does your majority make me inherently wrong morally? And what if you guys agree on one thing and then you and I agree on something else that Erimir disagrees with?
The problem I see is that when you're concerned with yourself you make decisions that may or may not be acceptable to other people. But that doesn't make your moral code less than theirs does it? Or are you saying that the most objective moral system is the one that looks at the actions based on the repercussions through infinity since every action affects more than just the self? In which case, barring omniscient precognition (I get that on Tuesday), there is no real objective moral system. Shouldn't we then separate the definition of moral into Individual morality and morality as it affects infinity (or the largest group possible)? Or is that what you guys were defining as solipsism and utilitarianism.
Mamelon one thing you said concerned me. You said that there probably is a best moral system and that we should follow it in the same way that we trust science because it provides reliable results. It bothered me because I've never felt comfortable doing something just because everyone else says it's right. Following a moral system to me removes your ability to choose, except within that system. I can't see, myself at least, implicitly following one moral code ad infinitum. It doesn't make sense to me that one objective morality should guide my actions without regard to myself. Perhaps you can propose a situation in which I can understand what you meant better because right now it's wholly disconcerting a concept.
@blue: I got Pokémon Pearl, too. I enjoyed it a lot, but haven't really played it too much. I have a tendency to start playing a video game but have a trouble keeping up if I miss a few days of it.
Right now I'm trying to get a Pokémon to evolve in the daytime through happiness, and I keep accidently missing the window for "daytime." Frustrating.
Ain, Ma'am, and Erimir: Thanks for putting it all in spoilers. I really am going to try to read everything you've been talking about, only I wish it had been more streamlined (like in its own thread). Time to get out the dictionary.com so I can look up all the terms I don't understand.
You're welcome. Really, I thought it looked pretty funny to just see post after post with nothing but a spoiler. Hee hee.
Quote from Leilani »
I want to get drunk. like, really bad. And...whatever happens, happens. ifyouknowwhatimean.
Hmm. That's quite a turn-around. Just be careful, Leilani.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I've been addicted to my pokemon game since last Wednesday and have clocked in almost 70 hours of gameplay since I got it. I beat it and I've endeavored to collect the rest of the 484 pokemon that I don't have yet. I really need a boyfriend -_-.
Mike: Well was she pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised or just nonplused without emotional inflection and what were you expecting? Are you going to visit her now? Are you doing okay?
Ain, Ma'am, and Erimir: Thanks for putting it all in spoilers. I really am going to try to read everything you've been talking about, only I wish it had been more streamlined (like in its own thread). Time to get out the dictionary.com so I can look up all the terms I don't understand.
I sometimes have trouble putting in words what I feel about a subject since I get distracted and all my thoughts come out in a disjointed mess. So bear with me.
So right now I'm trying to begin to understand what you guys are talking about. To me it seems like Ain is describing a morality that's not based on the individual as much as the over all perception of the individual's actions. Ain, you're saying that a person's morality is based on or could be based on or interpreted by the effect his actions have in the long run on everyone around him. You made a point that I thought was interesting: morality based on reaction to stimuli. I was thinking of people before spoken and written language existed and their concept of morality. It got me thinking, where did morality even originate? When did we get to the point that we needed to define the "why we do things"? I feel awfully primitive that I don't care about the "why" and I don't feel like I need to define my moral code since everyone else's moral code will interpret how I act anyways. What I do is not only subjective to me but it's subjective to everyone else witnessing what I do. What I call moral you might call immoral. You may react negatively to a stimuli that I react positively to. But who's right in this situation and by what standard do you measure that? And what if you and Erimir react the same but I'm different? Does your majority make me inherently wrong morally? And what if you guys agree on one thing and then you and I agree on something else that Erimir disagrees with?
Let's suppose an action impacts two people equally. One person is benefited, and the other person is harmed. This, disregarding any further impact that the action has on people, would render the action morally neutral.
No action is always good or always bad, and no person's standards will always apply or be better than any other person's standards. What matters is the objective state that people experience when actions impact them.
So, for example, an action that only impacts you and benefits you is a moral one. If the same action is harmful to me, then committing the action against me is immoral.
Unfortunately, since we don't have perfect knowledge of what people individually consider to be harmful or beneficial, it becomes a difficult matter to act accordingly... that is, your intent doesn't always reap the results desired for all parties. Morality helps us to learn from our past mistakes, hopefully, and alter our behavioral patterns so as to best accommodate the needs of others. And there are a large bulk of actions which, generally, can be considered harmful outside of the context of utility (such as killing to save another, and so forth) - it won't always be the case that those actions would be immoral, but it's safe to assume that they are not to be done lightly.
I think it's important to not do things without having some degree of knowledge of people you know will be impacted by your actions. Hopefully, also, that you will acquire the consent of others which will guide your actions. But these things are just attempts at committing moral actions, and not everything always works out that way. The way to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, just because one necessarily committed an immoral act doesn't necessarily mean that this person is evil and should be branded such, and expected to be under damnation. Morality is a quality of actions, not people. So if you are responsible for a immoral act, you should learn why and how it harmed others and learn from this experience so that your further actions can be more helpful to everyone. On the societal level, often times actions will have to be punished because people want this to happen, but I do not believe this is necessarily a right thing to do. In fact, crimes are not always immoral to commit, so laws and justice do not necessarily entail a compatibility with Morality. Justice is, essentially, revenge with authority.
The problem I see is that when you're concerned with yourself you make decisions that may or may not be acceptable to other people. But that doesn't make your moral code less than theirs does it? Or are you saying that the most objective moral system is the one that looks at the actions based on the repercussions through infinity since every action affects more than just the self? In which case, barring omniscient precognition (I get that on Tuesday), there is no real objective moral system.
It's true that there is no truly objective moral system that we can adapt for our use, as you are correct in our lack of causal omniscience. But the underlying Morality itself is objective. If theoretically we had perfect knowledge, we would easily see how it operates objectively. Which means that it is objective.
In the meantime, we have to make do with our sloppy human knowledge and the learning process of life.
Leilani: Well, that's one way of getting there ¬_¬.
blue: Too bad you live in Texas, otherwise I'd drive by to help get your mind off the video game (nothing against Texans, it's just really far away :-P).
I'm not sure how to take that a little bit of neuken en de keuken? lol.
Mamelon: hehe. I got that Happiny thing and havent even tried to evolve it yet (and I really like Blissey so I should by all means be trying)
I find that if you miss the window then the best idea is to get it to its happines level and then give it an everstone. When you wake up in the morning take the everstone off then let it level up once and it should evolve. At least that's how I evolved my Espeon this morning.
When I get my trainer code you and I can trade online! I'm completely absorbed in this thing and it's making my sleeping habits erratic. I work from 9-5 every day and I've discovered that if I want a good night's sleep I have to stop playing pokemon around 9. (Getting to sleep roughly around 12 or 1)
Any later and I'll be thinking about pokemon. I wish I had this much dedication to stuff that mattered (well... one thing I do have as much intense dedication to isn't meant for a PG-13 boards ;))
I'm not sure how to take that a little bit of neuken en de keuken? lol.
Mamelon: hehe. I got that Happiny thing and havent even tried to evolve it yet (and I really like Blissey so I should by all means be trying)
I find that if you miss the window then the best idea is to get it to its happines level and then give it an everstone. When you wake up in the morning take the everstone off then let it level up once and it should evolve. At least that's how I evolved my Espeon this morning.
When I get my trainer code you and I can trade online! I'm completely absorbed in this thing and it's making my sleeping habits erratic. I work from 9-5 every day and I've discovered that if I want a good night's sleep I have to stop playing pokemon around 9. (Getting to sleep roughly around 12 or 1)
Any later and I'll be thinking about pokemon. I wish I had this much dedication to stuff that mattered (well... one thing I do have as much intense dedication to isn't meant for a PG-13 boards ;))
I used to use the carbs/protein/iron/zinc/etc items to increase happiness. If you max out even one stat, it tends to make most happy enough to evolve. But this was, like, back in gold and silver, so I don't know if that still works.
You could always cheat. I used to give pokémon moves foreign to them this way simply because I found it interesting (I especially liked the spore/nightmare/curse/recover lineup, and works as leech seed/toxic/curse/recover...)
I used to use the carbs/protein/iron/zinc/etc items to increase happiness. If you max out even one stat, it tends to make most happy enough to evolve. But this was, like, back in gold and silver, so I don't know if that still works.
You could always cheat. I used to give pokémon moves foreign to them this way simply because I found it interesting (I especially liked the spore/nightmare/curse/recover lineup, and works as leech seed/toxic/curse/recover...)
/geek
I like that too. Toxic was always really cool but It sucked that it wouldn't always hit and you felt like you wasted a turn. That's why I like that new move that deals poison damage and "May badly poison the pokemon"
There was an interesting combination of Belly Drum (which lowered his health to half and raised his attack to max) then used an attack that got stronger the less HP percentage you had. Made me giggle (think that was on a snorlax)
Mike: Well was she pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised or just nonplused without emotional inflection and what were you expecting? Are you going to visit her now? Are you doing okay?
1) I really don't know. She was near comatose when I first got there and as she got better I think her humiliation took priority over being happy/unhappy to see me.
2) No, probably not. Her boyfriend hasn't called me to let me know what hospital she's at and by the time I find her, she'll probably be in the psyche ward. Which means no visiters.
3) Yeah, I'm fine. Why wouldn't I be? I generally don't waste my time stressing over people who attempt suicide.
3) Yeah, I'm fine. Why wouldn't I be? I generally don't waste my time stressing over people who attempt suicide.
Which would make the trip out there counterintuitive.
Which is why I asked.
She's not just someone that attempted suicide she's also a girl you have a deeper connection to on different levels. Her attempting to take her own life makes her less than that now?
Which would make the trip out there counterintuitive.
Which is why I asked.
I was concerned for her physical well-being (which has since more or less recovered after a few tense days, which is why I can say I'm fine now - medically, she's out of the woods). Her mental well-being is her own problem and I'm not really concerned about it. I made a choice to distance myself from her for my own good, I'm not about to go back on that because she's extra fragile right now. She has a boyfriend for that.
She's not just someone that attempted suicide she's also a girl you have a deeper connection to on different levels. Her attempting to take her own life makes her less than that now?
No, but then I never said that. I'm just taking the position that I've always had when it comes to suicide: one of cold distance. She's action-packed with issues and she sorely needs the help she'll soon be getting in the psyche ward. It's long been out of my hands so I put it out of my head as well.
No, but then I never said that. I'm just taking the position that I've always had when it comes to suicide: one of cold distance. She's action-packed with issues and she sorely needs the help she'll soon be getting in the psyche ward. It's long been out of my hands so I put it out of my head as well.
That's the approach I was expecting you to go with at first. (The confusion I had was allieved just now with your explanation about the physical well-being.) The confusion stopped me from saying something crass initially (since my opinion was, "Well what a dumbarse" and "too bad there's nothing you can do"...confusion abated I'm back to being rude so there it was.)
That's the approach I was expecting you to go with at first. (The confusion I had was allieved just now with your explanation about the physical well-being.) The confusion stopped me from saying something crass initially (since my opinion was, "Well what a dumbarse" and "too bad there's nothing you can do"...confusion abated I'm back to being rude so there it was.)
Oddly enough, I feel much worse for her boyfriend right now. Back in March, when I realized that my friendships with them were thinning out, I gave him some parting advice about watching her for signs of deep depression (I've known almost since day one that she was highly depressed and a probable suicide-case). Advice which he quickly discarded because the two of them talked and she's fine now and they're in love and there's no secrets between them and she'd tell him if things were bad, etc. Cut to now, and he's completely blindsided. And I feel bad for him because he was taken in by her lies so all this came as a huge shock and uprooted everything he thought he knew about her.
Suicide can be hard to deal with. My mom's been talking about it again lately, and it's a lot for me to deal with. My relationship with her is a very rocky one, as she has problems with depression and alcohol, but lately we had been doing really well. But it seems that these past few weeks (since my dad started going after maintenance enforcement for all the child support money she owes) she's been lapsing into old patterns, and it's hard to see that happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Indeed. But it is uncertain whether "Yod Heh Vav Heh" is the sounding out of the letter's in God's name or whether "Yahweh" or "Jehova" are potential names derived from the characters. We really don't know for certain how to say God's name according to the Hebrews precisely because of the practice of not writing it. It's quite a conundrum.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Duo FTW.
On the topic of cute, non-existent men, Toboe from Wolf's Rain? Mmmmm...^_^
I believe he did, however, include "YHVH," which would be the same thing as "Yod Heh Vav Heh." It becomes an issue of transliteration over translation.
It does make it rather mysterious, doesn't it?
Awww, Toboe's a cutie-pie.
@FMota: The link you posted was disturbing and unfortunate. I can see why those quotes would be mocked, though I find it more sad than amusing. Such people demonstrate pride, fear, rigidity, and their beliefs smell of superiority, hate, and politic. Especially the comments about disobeying your husband being equivalent to spouse abuse, and "breaking the will" of children, who can't defend themselves. Without uncertainty these are strong examples of exertion of power and domination, and more subtly but just as troubling, of self-blunting.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Duo is HOT. the end.
I have a picture of him on my bedroom wall. Plus, I have a little model of his Gundam. [because i like doing things like that...tinkering around]
I, sadly, have never seen the entirety of Gundam Wing. Yet it remains one of my favorite animes ever. After such animes such as Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop. And I guess Neon Genesis, though i didn't like that one as much.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Also, I bought a nintendo DS, and it has been distracting me, because, in my heart of hearts, I am a nintendo nerd.
I watched a bunch of movies this weekend too, which is something I never do...Annie (not the one everyone knows about, the little Disney version with Kathy Bates as Ms. Hannigan, Alan Cumming as Rooster, and Kristin Chenoweth (<3!) as Lilly), Notes on a Scandal (amazing. Creepy, but amazing), the History Boys (Also very good. I may buy it), and Marie Antoinette (I don't know what I thought of the movie, but the sets and costumes were gorgeous).
I don't get it.
Mike: Welcome back. I'm assuming she's okay now... or rather she's at least alive? You got to see her of course, was she glad to see you? what all did you do?
The problem is that Ain, and now, it seems, you, are ignoring the fact that consequentialist moral systems are not the only moral systems. Kantian ethics does not care about "utility". If we just go by what Kant himself advocated (later versions alter the rules some), then we would say that lying is wrong. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, because what makes lying wrong is not the consequences (utility) of lying, but the fact that when you lie to someone, you are treating them as a means rather than an end. And that would be true (according to Kant) whether you are lying to them to spare their feelings, or lying to them to protect someone else, or lying to cheat them out of money.
And while, as I said before, I'm not primarily deontological in outlook (Kantian ethics is a deontological system), you can't just assume that it's wrong without giving a justification. And I'm not sure you can give any objective reason to reject it.
This, however, I agree with.
My point (my main point) is that any moral system that we as humans come up with is going to be subjective. We have no reason to suppose that objective morality exists. But if there is an objective morality, we have no way of knowing it nor of approximating it. We can assume that it's logically consistent, but that's about it. As such, objective morality is either non-existant, or irrelevant.
They might be. But absent any way to know which aspects are true, it's pretty irrelevant to say that they're partially correct.
Well, yes and no. Just as I was saying above by pointing out that Kantian ethics does not fit into the supposed objective parts of morality than you and Ain are talking about, it is obvious that whether you adopt Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics is going to have a profound influence on how you determine what is moral. And the problem is that you can't objectively determine which system is "objectively true".
Usage note: Utility is a term specific to consequentialist ethics (hence the name, Utilitarianism). It does not enter into Kantian ethics. Do you mean for it to be a term that can apply to both consequentialist and deontological systems? If so, you should use something else. Likewise, Kantian ethics does not care about whether an action benefits people or not - it cares about the intention behind the action.
But how do you know that the best morality is not of a deontological nature?
But deontological morality does care about consequences. The difference between deontology and consequentialism is not that one ignores consequences and the other doesn't. It's that consequentialism is only concerned with the consequences of an action, method, or attitude, whereas deontology looks at more than that. But consequences are still valid means of measuring the nature of an act, method, or attitude. Sometimes the consequences don't seem bad enough to outweigh the usefulness of the action - i.e. sometimes stealing doesn't appear to really hurt anyone, so it seems fine. In conseuquentialist terms, that would be true, but in deontological ones, even if that if the loss is quit negligible, that stealing is still wrong. You are still ignoring someone else's rights and privileges (even if that someone is just Wal-Mart), you are still making it okay for yourself to take freely of others. I argue that these are themselves consequences, even though they are consequences that consequentialism ignores.
This may lead one to believe that consequences are a non-issue to deontologists, but that's wrong. I think that consequences do matter in deontology just as much, but on a much larger scale. Instead of being strictly confined to casuistric analyses, deontology values things which are not immediately apparent.
And utility is not a word that is only definite in terms of utilitarianism. Because utility also just means practicality, and by no means does deontology not have to be practical. I'd even say that deontological ethics have more utility than utilitarian ones. Sometimes following a deontological ethos seems impractical in a given circumstance, but in the long run, may end up being more worthwhile.
But deontology compresses things into the building blocks of moral situations and qualifies certain behaviors, intentions, and attitudes as wrong or right by their own virtue rather than how they specifically work in the particular situation. This is simpler not least because it requires less extravagant understanding of paradigms. Though casuistry is still useful in the task of examining and testing moral ideas. The virtues and norms of deontological moral systems certainly aren't decided at random.
And what's more, my argument wasn't predicated on the theoretical superiority of consequential morality, especially since I don't even believe in that superiority. My point was this: "good" must be defined by a moral system - yes, even a deontological system - and whatever that definitions entail, whatever it's describing, that could be something that has an independent existence.
I believe I already affirmed this point. A moral system is necessarily subjective, as it is created and adopted in accordance with values held by people, which are by definition subjective (in the sense you're using).
And though we cannot prove that there is an "objective morality," we do have reason to act as though there were an objective morality, in the same way we have reason to act as though we can trust our senses even though we don't really know that.
We have reason to assume a factive attitude about our morality, which is treating it as being certain for pragmatic purposes. When it comes to knowledge, we have very little certain knowledge, but we act as though we're certain because doing so is functional (i.e. how science works).
And just to note preemptively, being pragmatic or functional is not something only a consequentialist would care about. In short, I'm saying that if there is a "best" morality (I believe there is), upon finding it, we should use it. We would treat it as being true even if we don't technically know that it really is true.
Epistemologically, we almost never know if something is or is not true. We can check internal consistency (which you pointed out), and we can check coherency with a preestablished "given," which may or may not be true either.
But there is a third epistemic approach we can take, which is to treat something as true if doing so appears to be functional and practical.
Ain_Soph's point seemed to be that there is an objectively true nature of morality whether we know it or not.
True, in terms of creating a moral system, that doesn't help us at all.
Yes it does. Well, maybe not what Ain is saying, but what I'm saying, yes.
Even when it comes to consequentialism, "good consequence," "bad consequence," and "utility," still need to be defined, and they are still going to be defined using values. By nature all moral systems are defined by values.
Even a relatively safe term like "practical" needs to be defined and is so defined based on subjective values. It's just that the nice thing about it is that it's easier to agree on.
If good and bad consequences can really exist, so can "good intent" and "bad intent," depending on how those are defined.
Yes, categorical imperative does primarily use intention as it's measuring stick, so to speak. Not all deontological systems are strictly concerned with that - some weigh both intent and consequences, and all different ranges of consequences aside from immediately visible ones (some kinds of Christian virtue morality are good examples of this). By such systems, you can still do something bad with good intentions at heart.
In fact, I believe that the best morality is of a deontological nature.
In summary, my purpose was to point out that you and Ain_Soph are talking about morality using two different definitions of that term.
Frankly, erimir, I am more inclined to agree with your position, because moral systems are by nature subjective. However, I also think that Ain_Soph has a point in that there can be a "something" that all moral goals can eventually be refined to, and that this something exists even if no one realizes it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
So?
The consequentialist moral system, in a regard, describes or captures the phenomenon of morality in its manifestation through the consequences of actions - and this is measurable. Intents can't be measured, so why would be adopt a moral system that doesn't really help us in interpreting the moral nature of actions? The measured value is, generally, superior to the intuitive one and so consequentialism will be superior to deontology in that it provides a system in which you are able to make measurements and observations.
Which is why as a moral system it doesn't describe Morality, with a capital M, very well... it's just a moral system. So is consequentialist morality, of course, but at least that system helps us to understand how Morality actually operates.
Objectively, there is no way to apply a moral system based on intent except through hindsight, in which case an action has already occurred and it seems pretty useless to know intent in any case.
Morality necessarily describes whether you are doing something good or something bad. Intents may be flawed by any manner of things, such as ignorance, false rationalizations, or perceptive bias. And there is not necessarily any causality related with intent. I could intend to get out of bed all day and never actually do so. The only change that is occurring is when I physically force myself to get up: this is what makes the universe a different framework than it was one second ago - an action occurred. Having intentions doesn't necessarily change the contents of the universe, in comparison, so an intent in one moment is not distinguishable from an intent to the next - and in fact intents such as this can change all of the time as time passes and nothing else changes. The consequences of actions, however, make a difference to people and the state of the universe.
A deontological moral system certainly may exist... but what it describes isn't really Morality. It's something that must be categorized differently.
Certainly.
Moral systems, however ≠ Morality.
Well, I suppose if you want to adopt the absolute extreme skepticism of solipsism, you could say that we have no reason to suppose than anything else exists. Why, after all, trust that our physical senses accurately describe reality to us? It's an assumption that we made which is the basis of empiricism, and luckily for us, using such a system we tend to get consistent, reliable results.
In the same way, Morality describes how individuals will react to stimuli. If they react negatively, it simply means that to cause that stimuli would be immoral, and vice versa. And with repetition, you will consistently achieve the same results with the same individuals. You will make empirical, objective observations as to how they react.
We have no way of ultimately knowing the moral consequence of a particular action through an infinite generation of impacted individuals, but other than that, it's quite feasible to approximate the moral value of a particular action. For example, if person A shoots person B in the face, mostly it's person B who is affected (but, also, anyone who knows person B, and the people who know those people, and so forth). In most instances, shooting someone in the face is probably a cause of harm to them. Observing the state of them being harmed in this manner is objective. Morality is simply whatever it is that corresponds to the objectively observable states that people experience when they are impacted by an action. The word itself, Morality, does not matter, but the phenomena that it describes is quite objective in nature.
We aren't omniscient, so it's pretty difficult for us to truly know what morality an action has taken by the end of its causal relevance, but just looking at the immediate generations of those impacted by the action does give us a viable approximation. It's not, truly, irrelevant.
Indeed, and that's why for the most part I don't try to address the "good aspects" of moral systems. Most moral systems are flawed and may be, for example, based on intuitions. There is no intuition involved, however, when you make an objective observation of how an action impacted a person. It's quite binary: they were either harmed by the action or benefited by it. The standards that this individual has which determines whether they were harmed or benefited are of course subjective, but the state of being harmed or benefited in this way is objective.
Well, the consequences of these actions may seem negligible to the person committing them, but if you were to take a sample of how that action impacted others, it would likely mostly be a cause of harm, even if a very small one in some cases. Negligible harm still counts as harm for the purpose of determining the moral properties of an action. Besides oneself, who indeed is necessarily aided from stealing something as opposed to simply buying it? Perhaps you cannot afford it, or somesuch, but it doesn't become moral to commit the action of stealing, which we can see does cause harm, until you have exhausted all other methods which would not cause harm, such as accepting charity.
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Except for perhaps minor nitpicks.
I'd agree that moral systems are subjective, but Morality itself is not.
A moral system, more or less, is how one attempts to understand a moral value. Compare to a scientific paradigm which, more or less, is how one attempts to understand factual values given what is known and what has been observed with the current level of technology. Morality itself is the actual state of the action, much in the way that Truth or Reality is the actual state or properties of whatever it is we're trying to understand scientifically.
Yeah I havent posted here in sometime either. Hey everybody!
I just bought Brain Age for my DS and have found my self spending way to much time playing sudoku in bed and its so weird how entertaining doing simple math problems can be. I bought the DS when it first came out a few years back and got hooked on it with Meteos, i defintley recommend it.
I saw Marie Antoinette and didnt like it to much, there wasn't much to it. all in all it was pretty boring, if it wasnt for the great set peices and costumes i would have stopped watching. Me and my friends found our selves commenting on things like, "god look at those shoes" and "I love that dress" as opposed to "I hope she finally gets pregnant and provides a male heir!"
Thanks for the Sig and Avatar Fogatog @EPIC GRAPHICS
She's alive. She's been transferred back to a local hospital and will be put in the psyche ward pending her doctor's okay. She was surprised to see me, given our complex history and our recent trouble. As for what I did, I slept on a hospital bench, barely ate and basically just sat around for the most part.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'm hooked on Gary Jules' version of "Mad World" [from Donnie Darko].
I've decided that I'm most likely going to leave Mikey. Unless something drastic changes while I'm there.
My friend, Ben, told me today that if he was drunk, he would **** me. I find this intriguing, because I think he's ****able, sober or not.
I want to get drunk. like, really bad. And...whatever happens, happens. ifyouknowwhatimean.
I'm addicted to Doctor Who. The actor who plays Doctor Who is so hot. But seriously, it's a good show. Unfortunately, it's on BBC, which I don't get here. But Ben downloads the episodes. Plussss he looks a LOT like the Doctor.
It's finally summer, and i ****ing love it.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
I've been addicted to my pokemon game since last Wednesday and have clocked in almost 70 hours of gameplay since I got it. I beat it and I've endeavored to collect the rest of the 484 pokemon that I don't have yet. I really need a boyfriend -_-.
Mike: Well was she pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised or just nonplused without emotional inflection and what were you expecting? Are you going to visit her now? Are you doing okay?
Ain, Ma'am, and Erimir: Thanks for putting it all in spoilers. I really am going to try to read everything you've been talking about, only I wish it had been more streamlined (like in its own thread). Time to get out the dictionary.com so I can look up all the terms I don't understand.
I sometimes have trouble putting in words what I feel about a subject since I get distracted and all my thoughts come out in a disjointed mess. So bear with me.
So right now I'm trying to begin to understand what you guys are talking about. To me it seems like Ain is describing a morality that's not based on the individual as much as the over all perception of the individual's actions. Ain, you're saying that a person's morality is based on or could be based on or interpreted by the effect his actions have in the long run on everyone around him. You made a point that I thought was interesting: morality based on reaction to stimuli. I was thinking of people before spoken and written language existed and their concept of morality. It got me thinking, where did morality even originate? When did we get to the point that we needed to define the "why we do things"? I feel awfully primitive that I don't care about the "why" and I don't feel like I need to define my moral code since everyone else's moral code will interpret how I act anyways. What I do is not only subjective to me but it's subjective to everyone else witnessing what I do. What I call moral you might call immoral. You may react negatively to a stimuli that I react positively to. But who's right in this situation and by what standard do you measure that? And what if you and Erimir react the same but I'm different? Does your majority make me inherently wrong morally? And what if you guys agree on one thing and then you and I agree on something else that Erimir disagrees with?
The problem I see is that when you're concerned with yourself you make decisions that may or may not be acceptable to other people. But that doesn't make your moral code less than theirs does it? Or are you saying that the most objective moral system is the one that looks at the actions based on the repercussions through infinity since every action affects more than just the self? In which case, barring omniscient precognition (I get that on Tuesday), there is no real objective moral system. Shouldn't we then separate the definition of moral into Individual morality and morality as it affects infinity (or the largest group possible)? Or is that what you guys were defining as solipsism and utilitarianism.
Mamelon one thing you said concerned me. You said that there probably is a best moral system and that we should follow it in the same way that we trust science because it provides reliable results. It bothered me because I've never felt comfortable doing something just because everyone else says it's right. Following a moral system to me removes your ability to choose, except within that system. I can't see, myself at least, implicitly following one moral code ad infinitum. It doesn't make sense to me that one objective morality should guide my actions without regard to myself. Perhaps you can propose a situation in which I can understand what you meant better because right now it's wholly disconcerting a concept.
Right now I'm trying to get a Pokémon to evolve in the daytime through happiness, and I keep accidently missing the window for "daytime." Frustrating.
You're welcome. Really, I thought it looked pretty funny to just see post after post with nothing but a spoiler. Hee hee.
Hmm. That's quite a turn-around. Just be careful, Leilani.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Let's suppose an action impacts two people equally. One person is benefited, and the other person is harmed. This, disregarding any further impact that the action has on people, would render the action morally neutral.
No action is always good or always bad, and no person's standards will always apply or be better than any other person's standards. What matters is the objective state that people experience when actions impact them.
So, for example, an action that only impacts you and benefits you is a moral one. If the same action is harmful to me, then committing the action against me is immoral.
Unfortunately, since we don't have perfect knowledge of what people individually consider to be harmful or beneficial, it becomes a difficult matter to act accordingly... that is, your intent doesn't always reap the results desired for all parties. Morality helps us to learn from our past mistakes, hopefully, and alter our behavioral patterns so as to best accommodate the needs of others. And there are a large bulk of actions which, generally, can be considered harmful outside of the context of utility (such as killing to save another, and so forth) - it won't always be the case that those actions would be immoral, but it's safe to assume that they are not to be done lightly.
I think it's important to not do things without having some degree of knowledge of people you know will be impacted by your actions. Hopefully, also, that you will acquire the consent of others which will guide your actions. But these things are just attempts at committing moral actions, and not everything always works out that way. The way to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, just because one necessarily committed an immoral act doesn't necessarily mean that this person is evil and should be branded such, and expected to be under damnation. Morality is a quality of actions, not people. So if you are responsible for a immoral act, you should learn why and how it harmed others and learn from this experience so that your further actions can be more helpful to everyone. On the societal level, often times actions will have to be punished because people want this to happen, but I do not believe this is necessarily a right thing to do. In fact, crimes are not always immoral to commit, so laws and justice do not necessarily entail a compatibility with Morality. Justice is, essentially, revenge with authority.
It's true that there is no truly objective moral system that we can adapt for our use, as you are correct in our lack of causal omniscience. But the underlying Morality itself is objective. If theoretically we had perfect knowledge, we would easily see how it operates objectively. Which means that it is objective.
In the meantime, we have to make do with our sloppy human knowledge and the learning process of life.
I'm not sure how to take that a little bit of neuken en de keuken? lol.
Mamelon: hehe. I got that Happiny thing and havent even tried to evolve it yet (and I really like Blissey so I should by all means be trying)
I find that if you miss the window then the best idea is to get it to its happines level and then give it an everstone. When you wake up in the morning take the everstone off then let it level up once and it should evolve. At least that's how I evolved my Espeon this morning.
When I get my trainer code you and I can trade online! I'm completely absorbed in this thing and it's making my sleeping habits erratic. I work from 9-5 every day and I've discovered that if I want a good night's sleep I have to stop playing pokemon around 9. (Getting to sleep roughly around 12 or 1)
Any later and I'll be thinking about pokemon. I wish I had this much dedication to stuff that mattered (well... one thing I do have as much intense dedication to isn't meant for a PG-13 boards ;))
I used to use the carbs/protein/iron/zinc/etc items to increase happiness. If you max out even one stat, it tends to make most happy enough to evolve. But this was, like, back in gold and silver, so I don't know if that still works.
You could always cheat. I used to give pokémon moves foreign to them this way simply because I found it interesting (I especially liked the spore/nightmare/curse/recover lineup, and works as leech seed/toxic/curse/recover...)
/geek
I like that too. Toxic was always really cool but It sucked that it wouldn't always hit and you felt like you wasted a turn. That's why I like that new move that deals poison damage and "May badly poison the pokemon"
There was an interesting combination of Belly Drum (which lowered his health to half and raised his attack to max) then used an attack that got stronger the less HP percentage you had. Made me giggle (think that was on a snorlax)
1) I really don't know. She was near comatose when I first got there and as she got better I think her humiliation took priority over being happy/unhappy to see me.
2) No, probably not. Her boyfriend hasn't called me to let me know what hospital she's at and by the time I find her, she'll probably be in the psyche ward. Which means no visiters.
3) Yeah, I'm fine. Why wouldn't I be? I generally don't waste my time stressing over people who attempt suicide.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Which would make the trip out there counterintuitive.
Which is why I asked.
She's not just someone that attempted suicide she's also a girl you have a deeper connection to on different levels. Her attempting to take her own life makes her less than that now?
I was concerned for her physical well-being (which has since more or less recovered after a few tense days, which is why I can say I'm fine now - medically, she's out of the woods). Her mental well-being is her own problem and I'm not really concerned about it. I made a choice to distance myself from her for my own good, I'm not about to go back on that because she's extra fragile right now. She has a boyfriend for that.
No, but then I never said that. I'm just taking the position that I've always had when it comes to suicide: one of cold distance. She's action-packed with issues and she sorely needs the help she'll soon be getting in the psyche ward. It's long been out of my hands so I put it out of my head as well.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That's the approach I was expecting you to go with at first. (The confusion I had was allieved just now with your explanation about the physical well-being.) The confusion stopped me from saying something crass initially (since my opinion was, "Well what a dumbarse" and "too bad there's nothing you can do"...confusion abated I'm back to being rude so there it was.)
Oddly enough, I feel much worse for her boyfriend right now. Back in March, when I realized that my friendships with them were thinning out, I gave him some parting advice about watching her for signs of deep depression (I've known almost since day one that she was highly depressed and a probable suicide-case). Advice which he quickly discarded because the two of them talked and she's fine now and they're in love and there's no secrets between them and she'd tell him if things were bad, etc. Cut to now, and he's completely blindsided. And I feel bad for him because he was taken in by her lies so all this came as a huge shock and uprooted everything he thought he knew about her.
Raw deal.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains