The Responsibility of Man

[Blowtus]

I don't believe Seditious is saying that we have a responsibility towards ourselves either.

'Responsibility' is elected, either to avoid suffering - responsibility to your boss, the law, etc, or to ally ourselves to some notion of 'greater cause' that we feel worthwhile - the state, deities, humanity, sentient creatures, art, work, etc. While in the end everything we do is done because 'we want to', to be honest that doesn't really seem any more explanatory than saying we do things because of the universe.

 

[Seditious]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You didnt say much to refute, agree or understand that facts that I stated in said post and thereby assume my smelly cargohold held too much undisputable truth ?

Suggestions of no morals/values/standards/ethics implies lawlessness and a return to barbaric, not communism

if you like to voice your opinion, and don't wish to sound so ignorant forever, it might be a good idea for you to find out if your high school has debate classes.

look up the red herring logical fallacy and get back to me with a point that's relevant to the discussion.

 

[Seditious]

I don't believe Seditious is saying that we have a responsibility towards ourselves either.

'Responsibility' is elected, either to avoid suffering - responsibility to your boss, the law, etc, or to ally ourselves to some notion of 'greater cause' that we feel worthwhile - the state, deities, humanity, sentient creatures, art, work, etc.

Indeed.

what we have to ourselves we could call an inclination, and an instinct to satisfy particular inclinations. Reason gives us an abstract layer of reasoning, beyond 'take hand off hot stove' to more complex and future-minded actions---ulterior motives. With this we could say 'if I want x, then I should do a, b, then tomorrow, c' such that it's your responsibility to do a and b now so that tomorrow you're able to do c so that you don't miss out on x, but it's entirely a hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one (i.e., not 'do this', but 'if you want that, do this').

While in the end everything we do is done because 'we want to', to be honest that doesn't really seem any more explanatory than saying we do things because of the universe.

it doesn't really need to be explanatory, so long as there are no standing theories against it.
there's a physical world because of physics
there's a physical world because God wanted there to be one.
there's a physical world because we all wished really hard and our psi powers brought it into existence.
...it's not terribly important what the explanation is, and especially while these others have no evidence.

the only need for explaining why we do what we do is as a response to other explanations which would claim to circumscribe our behavior by right. So long as these others fail, the content of what explanation we are left with is unimportant...we can just get on with life, so it's emptiness is just like an emptiness in law, imagine no law---'this book [of law] doesn't tell us how to live (it's blank), we need something more explanatory' ...'no we don't. it tells you what you can't do, it says nothing, so use your head and get on with life'.

 

[Seditious]

We Human beings have the responsibility to at least clean up our own mess (the state of the planet).

what do you base that on?

might I draw a parallel. Seeing that you're from Aussie, I'm sure you're not an evolution denialist, so you can appreciate man's part in nature.

when influenza kills chickens and cows and humans, does it have a responsibility to clean up it's mess? if not, why not?

suppose trees could clean up all the oxygen they make, in the interest of restoring the nice carbon-dioxide rich environment they're ruining with their behavior...

what actions of ours might be ruinous to our own survival as a species (which include overfishing and whatnot, not just the mess of pollution) may well be extremely beneficial for another species...and nature will continue along it's way happy as can be. Hell, how many extinctions do we have to thank for our existence, 3? ...destroying the status quo isn't intrinsically a bad thing. Thus it seems to me it is only for selfish reasons that we would seek to "clean up the mess", i.e., preserve the measure of cleanliness which favors our wellbeing. And what responsibility has any one of us to preserve that for ourselves or others? And do you hold this principle down to the level of the individual, as does Peter Singer when he says we in the west with $30,000 to spend on a luxury car, should be sending $20,000 to people starving to death in Africa---you're responsible to do with the environment what is good for other humans, right?--so why not other things for their good, instead of doing merely what you wish to, such as because you happen to find it also benefits you (as many people do with water restriction, reducing power usage, recycling, etc.)?

Either you're responsible to others, or you aren't. And if you're responsible to others, why to those who're yet unborn generations who'll suffer our ruins of this world and struggle to reverse the damage, but not to those who live and suffer today without our help? and if you are responsible to both, but do nothing for some, preferring your own broadband, and nike sneakers, why should we help those of the others you want to help, and in the way you want them helped, and with the amount of resources you think we should give of what we have?

hypocrisy corrodes all noble ideals.

 

[Blowtus]

it doesn't really need to be explanatory, so long as there are no standing theories against it.
there's a physical world because of physics
there's a physical world because God wanted there to be one.
there's a physical world because we all wished really hard and our psi powers brought it into existence.
...it's not terribly important what the explanation is, and especially while these others have no evidence.

the only need for explaining why we do what we do is as a response to other explanations which would claim to circumscribe our behavior by right. So long as these others fail, the content of what explanation we are left with is unimportant...we can just get on with life, so it's emptiness is just like an emptiness in law, imagine no law---'this book [of law] doesn't tell us how to live (it's blank), we need something more explanatory' ...'no we don't. it tells you what you can't do, it says nothing, so use your head and get on with life'.

I disagree - I think it's useful to understand the motivations of humans in a manner more specific than 'they do things because they want to'. While I don't imagine any could be as objectively valid as such a broad, obvious conclusion, theories of motivation (ie we eat because we are hungry, we care for someone because we love them) are very obviously useful, imho.

 

[razoredge]

if you like to voice your opinion, and don't wish to sound so ignorant forever, it might be a good idea for you to find out if your high school has debate classes.

look up the red herring logical fallacy and get back to me with a point that's relevant to the discussion.

sorry but it seems to me you are ignorant and offering little relevance. Things are as they have come to be for good reason, its been a continued social evolution, abused my many but its still present. Suggestings of lawlessness are regression, its that simple. However you have turned around and made many of the same implications I have. But rather than saying I offer nothing of relevance and resorting to personal insults why dont you show where theres no validation to any of what I have said. You all seem to be implying there is only one philosophy allowed here and thats yours, dont dare oppose it or "I will insult you". these philosophys I've been reading seems to want to go back and start again at first day civilization, much of the proposed views are preposterous, and fortunately will never happen.

 

[razoredge]

I disagree - I think it's useful to understand the motivations of humans in a manner more specific than 'they do things because they want to'. While I don't imagine any could be as objectively valid as such a broad, obvious conclusion, theories of motivation (ie we eat because we are hungry, we care for someone because we love them) are very obviously useful, imho.

this is true our hard earned values and morals have evolved from centuries of compassion as well as other logical reasoning and human needs. Many of the lower morals and accountability have come from more primitive instincts and have allowed some to self justify suffering or loss of others for their gain.

 

[Seditious]

Things are as they have come to be for good reason, its been a continued social evolution, abused my many but its still present.

time travel a century: women are subjugated to men internationally---"Things are as they have come to be for good reason" therefore women should always remain politically inferior and without the vote.

google 'argument from antiquity' while you're looking up the fallacies in your drivel.

 

[Seditious]

crazy lagging server

 

[Seditious]

I disagree - I think it's useful to understand the motivations of humans in a manner more specific than 'they do things because they want to'. While I don't imagine any could be as objectively valid as such a broad, obvious conclusion, theories of motivation (ie we eat because we are hungry, we care for someone because we love them) are very obviously useful, imho.

the latter strikes me as a non-explanation...we are loving to someone we love because we love them... reminds me of Schopenhauer's 'we can do what we want but not want what we want' assertion. ...you're doing that caring behavior because you want to, you want to because you love them. it's just rewording the same non-explanation. ('I eat because I love not being hungry', 'I obey the law because I love liberty'...)

 

[Blowtus]

Is their more worth to an explanation that that it allows us a measure of accuracy in our predictions? For someone exhibiting enough signs that we deem them to 'love' someone else, it can reasonably be assumed from such that they will also exhibit a propensity to look after the other in times of illness. There need not be any objective accuracy of explanation in our toolset of understanding if the toolset demonstates it's worth to us in the predictions it allows.

 

[Seditious]

Is their more worth to an explanation that that it allows us a measure of accuracy in our predictions? For someone exhibiting enough signs that we deem them to 'love' someone else, it can reasonably be assumed from such that they will also exhibit a propensity to look after the other in times of illness. There need not be any objective accuracy of explanation in our toolset of understanding if the toolset demonstates it's worth to us in the predictions it allows.

my point, though, was that you're just adding words.

call it 'love' when what you want is a person to be well
call it 'dedication' when what you want is your garden to be well
call it 'dependance' when what you want is your car to be well

I predict you'll water the garden and make sure the car meets roadworthy standards because of my insight into your dedication and dependence... all I'm saying is 'I think that if you're smart you'll do what one needs to do to get what they want, to get what you want', and giving new names to what you want. the explanatory power hasn't increased.

The same problem is raised in philosophy of science when considering instincts, when we say 'oh, he did that because of instinct'...great, we've named why he does it. why did I heal from cancer, god made a miracle happen, there we have it, the process that has occurred has been explained. ...no, it's been labelled, we've given a label to that which we hope to be able to explain but haven't yet done.

seems to be the same sort of obfuscation to me.

 

[razoredge]

time travel a century: women are subjugated to men internationally---"Things are as they have come to be for good reason" therefore women should always remain politically inferior and without the vote.

google 'argument from antiquity' while you're looking up the fallacies in your drivel.

and not much earlier than that we had examples of lawlessness, speaking of invaluable drivel. There are no fallacies in what I presented that is why you cant show them but once again resort to a personal insult and the cliche shield of "100 years ago women couldnt vote", which pertains to morals and accountability... in what way ?.

Me look them up ? pft... look up what ? google truth ?

 

[Seditious]

and not much earlier than that we had examples of lawlessness, speaking of invaluable drivel. There are no fallacies in what I presented that is why you cant show them but once again resort to a personal insult and the cliche shield of "100 years ago women couldnt vote", which pertains to morals and accountability... in what way ?.

Me look them up ? pft... look up what ? google truth ?

you're a lost cause.

...but nothing twenty years wont fix.

 

[Blowtus]

my point, though, was that you're just adding words.

call it 'love' when what you want is a person to be well
call it 'dedication' when what you want is your garden to be well
call it 'dependance' when what you want is your car to be well

I predict you'll water the garden and make sure the car meets roadworthy standards because of my insight into your dedication and dependence... all I'm saying is 'I think that if you're smart you'll do what one needs to do to get what they want, to get what you want', and giving new names to what you want. the explanatory power hasn't increased.

Ok, I agree - but I think there is a worth to the 'added words' in that they readily and easily group expected actions together, rather than necessitating a full inquiry into the depths of every scenario to determine such actions.

'Dedication' is pretty clearly not as accurate a reason for suggesting someone does something as 'they want to' but my argument is that it is more *useful* in it's connotations. To say someone waters their garden because they are dedicated to it provides more insight into future possibilities than to say someone waters it because they want to. I don't see that it's obfuscating anything.

 

[Seditious]

Ok, I agree - but I think there is a worth to the 'added words' in that they readily and easily group expected actions together, rather than necessitating a full inquiry into the depths of every scenario to determine such actions.

'Dedication' is pretty clearly not as accurate a reason for suggesting someone does something as 'they want to' but my argument is that it is more *useful* in it's connotations. To say someone waters their garden because they are dedicated to it provides more insight into future possibilities than to say someone waters it because they want to. I don't see that it's obfuscating anything.

I guess it might rather be said that it's a non-contradiction.
me: they want to
you: he's in love
me: that's what I meant.
ya know?
I think I commented in the first place because words are often abused with notions of nobility and altruism, and when someone says 'love' I'm wont to say 'that's just a subgenre of what I'm talking about', which is to say that I don't use the word because I worry about it being misapprehended by those 'love is a selfless thing' type people.

 

[Blowtus]

Yep - I can understand the desire to, and relevance of, pinning it all back to 'people doing what they want'. Now that I'm thinking on it though, I kind of wonder, what do you gain by stopping there, and not going the whole hog with 'stuff happens'? Surely the most accurate of observations!

 

[razoredge]

you're a lost cause.

...but nothing twenty years wont fix.

and you are worthless, your last 3 posts anyhow have had NOTHING to do with the topic and you sit there stateing either total nonsense or the obvious as if some form of profoundness

" me: they want to
you: he's in love
me: that's what I meant.
ya know?"

so now "they want to" also means "hes in love" ? off to rewrite the dictionary are you ? I suppose as long as you feel words are "apprehended" you'll need to pass out your new dictionary

fixing a car, growing a garden and wishing for health pertain to moral responsibility and accountability... how ? Here all along I've been thinking they were just surface value of everyday life... things that dont require contemplation

the only year that will fix you will come at the end of the day on the last day

 

[Seditious]

Yep - I can understand the desire to, and relevance of, pinning it all back to 'people doing what they want'. Now that I'm thinking on it though, I kind of wonder, what do you gain by stopping there, and not going the whole hog with 'stuff happens'? Surely the most accurate of observations!

it may be just a 'time and a place' thing.

sometimes it's useful to be specific like you were suggesting, sometimes general, sometimes just entirely dismissive---'pff, c'mon, that's just the universe---total non-issue'.

I mean, I guess the point is to identify what is relevant to the case for what is at issue between the parties, which for me usually is in this broad-ish realm... I'm usually willing to stipulate for sake of argument preeeetty much whatever the fuck someone wants to claim, and draw issue only when their claim extends so far as to claim to be altruism or some such thing which I take to be a significantly mischaracterizing of the behavior, perhaps only because I'd like to say 'it's like this other behavior too, why be against one?' to which they wish to keep it separate, opposing one and supporting the other.

it's a matter of determining the point of controversy, and being as specific as necessary for where the issue lies.

I know that was vague as a shit in the fog but given all the time we've been posting, and the common ground, I'm sure you get what I'm getting at.

 

[razoredge]

oh how profound... and yes so valuable... as dead minnows in a bait box