The Responsibility of Man

[razoredge]

for cryin out loud man, Im not talking about the bullshit laws, that trivial bullshit, what a friggin distraction, Im talking about murder, theft, rape, beatings and I go even deeper than that but know damn well as not to go there with the likes of your eat em alive thinking.

Slavery, geeze... I just said history was chalk full of self serving examples.

How in the hell this correlates into the drinking age, and helmet law must be too deep for my tiny MUDPUDDLE

 

[razoredge]

delusion of morality... you have got to be kidding me... are you sure you believe in evolution ?

 

[Seditious]

for cryin out loud man, Im not talking about the bullshit laws, that trivial bullshit, what a friggin distraction, Im talking about murder, theft, rape, beatings and I go even deeper than that but know damn well as not to go there with the likes of your eat em alive thinking.

This is the logical fallacy of observational selection.

are you now admitting you earlier made the hasty generalization logical fallacy when you claimed law is founded on morality?

 

[Seditious]

delusion of morality... you have got to be kidding me... are you sure you believe in evolution ?

I take it you're not familiar with Berkeley or methodological naturalism?---that even 'the material world' might be nothing more than a delusion advantageous to us as an organism. Otherwise I'm not quite sure why you imagine the concept of morality as a delusion, and the fact of evolution, are contradictory.

 

[Blowtus]

I'm certainly not saying 'we should do what makes us happy' or anything, I'm not saying we should necessarily differ to it or anything, but yes, in terms of contingent and necessary, it does seem to be the necessary end. I THINK, if I remember rightly, this is about the point we've gotten to before, like last year or sumn, where I refused to explain further. I have an evolutionary account of why this indeed would be the condition that exists, though I've always been unwilling to share it, and still it appears that while it would be useful for argument sake to do so, I'm content to just draw the battle lines here and look for an alternative to be presented, rather than detailing why I'm extremely skeptical that it could be.

Yeah this is about the point we got to lol. Nice to know we can find our way here from any angle

The cells in my body could be said to function the way they do 'because it fulfils their biological drives', and as such they create me, which I value. I could be said to function the way I do 'because I think it will make me happy', which boils down to 'because I want to', or 'because the universe says so'. If I choose to apply my 'values' to humanity as a whole, and act (in some cases at least) for the 'greater good', (using my intellect to create 'value') then yes, such could be said to happen purely because of universal causality, but in no sense do I *feel* that I am acting for or because of causality - I feel that I am acting for the 'greater good' (morally, in some view of it at least) and as such it seems to be some sort of 'subjective end', just as I think pleasure, or God, could also be viewed as subjective ends.

 

[Seditious]

The cells in my body could be said to function the way they do 'because it fulfils their biological drives', and as such they create me, which I value. I could be said to function the way I do 'because I think it will make me happy', which boils down to 'because I want to', or 'because the universe says so'.

yea, I think we have to pick and choose at the time what might be most practical...all the while of course hoping science might help give us better details. that's always nice.

If I choose to apply my 'values' to humanity as a whole, and act (in some cases at least) for the 'greater good', (using my intellect to create 'value') then yes, such could be said to happen purely because of universal causality, but in no sense do I *feel* that I am acting for or because of causality - I feel that I am acting for the 'greater good' (morally, in some view of it at least) and as such it seems to be some sort of 'subjective end', just as I think pleasure, or God, could also be viewed as subjective ends.

yea. this is just the 'free-will illusion' problem being applied to moral concerns...as if it wasn't hassle enough on it's own! whyever it is, free-will or determinism, that we do have the values we do, and change them when we do, I think that can be put aside in the interest of the point that when we think we have some purpose in life--I must convert everyone to Islam, that is my life's work, or 'I must save the trees, that is meaningful'--it doesn't mean we're right, but that being our belief does account for our behavior, and we're acting on that belief toward the fulfillment of the goal involved because if we don't we predict we'll feel worse for it if we don't...however far we extend our values, to a cat or to a tamagotchi (virtual pet), the roots don't seem to me to be in any different soil.
It's hard to think of acting for the greater good irrespective of self-esteem and guilt and shame, or worshiping god irrespective of fear, or desire, or even of pleasure irrespective of the result pleasure has on our mood-state. these things seem to me unintelligible dissociated from the basic human end of self-satisfaction---unintelligible spoken of as 'ends in themselves', as contradictions to the idea of one end for which such things can be valued as means depending on subjective differences in the beliefs of individuals.

 

[Blowtus]

I guess in a sense I am finding 'self satisfaction' as an end neither here nor there - it seems as purposeless and non descriptive an end as causality but not as obviously accurate or broad. Morality / pleasure / God / other values, seem more descriptive and useful.

I definitely think there is worth to showing the evolution of 'morality' to be self serving, and not some objective state of the world - but in some way I think the power of this is that it allows further refinement of the notion, not that it necessarily destroys it.

Sorry if I sound like my view is chopping and changing - it is

 

[razoredge]

dude, you get off too much on your word play, Im not one to critize peoples writing but most of what you write requires a few goes at it and the sorting out of words. I realize this is a trait of some intellectual pride and can accept that but Im now getting ready to hire a translator to cut through the fat.

You believe and stand on your fallacy (nothing exists) crutch all you want, I dont apply to those concepts and that IS what they are... concepts, in fact concepts of the oh contrair, those that like to deny everything and anything for the sake of turning the obvious into a life long project.

"to be or not to be... for that is the question" "no, be doesnt exist therefore there is no question" [sorry I lack the intellect to wrap all those other words around that that jerks the mind in all directions first, but Im thinkin I can take pride in that]

No, I did not make a quick decision (plus all those other surely necessary words) to say that law was based on moral ideals. In fact the proof key word is in this qoute

are you now admitting you earlier made the hasty generalization ______ ______ when you claimed law is founded on morality?

Might be my lack of intellect but I'm really not aware that the helmet law and drinking age were in any foundational laws.

Further indications of your waffleing are in the fact that you have at the minimum... twice ignored that I clearly stated many times throughout this topic selfserving applications, distortions and twists. Yet you continue to pull examples of this as if to bear relevance on my ideals. You are even ignoring my reference to the aged global use of the ideal of the golden rule or how it came to be. [maybe it didnt because be doesnt exist]

I can accept peoples different way of going about things and their views and methods of expression but this is getting like .... ??? .... Im out here in the sun, clear as the light of day, mowing the lawn and your over in the weeds going in circles like a rabbid coon worrying about some stray blade of bluegrass you found... in the weed patch... that I didnt mow. Point being, that is easy.

As I said before the beauty about all of this is we will not at least in my lifetime and my childrens lifetime revert back to the beginning of civilization and give it a new go to see if we develope another base set of morals after much hard learned realities of social interaction, only under a new name so as to appease the current discontent.

 

[Seditious]

I guess in a sense I am finding 'self satisfaction' as an end neither here nor there - it seems as purposeless and non descriptive an end as causality but not as obviously accurate or broad. Morality / pleasure / God / other values, seem more descriptive and useful.

so far as I can see they're nothing more than accessories...interchangable if a person's beliefs/values are changed.

that which their values concern remains the same---how does God affect my life, how does pleasure make me feel, how does fame benefit me.. if these things were goals in themselves it would be odd that people choose one over the other, choosing only those which happen to be able to serve as means to that person's own satisfaction. this selection seems incoherent without the standard of the subjective experience as the explanation.

 

[razoredge]

BTW, I'm not meaning to be ruff, Im just very frustrated with all the ignoring of good points I have made, even when they paralleled others... only to pick at little items I did not cover nor care too for their irrelevence.

 

[Seditious]

the obvious.

...words hinting at the naivety of someone who is uninterested in philosophy.

"to be or not to be... for that is the question" "no, be doesnt exist therefore there is no question"

...wow. just wow.

Might be my lack of intellect but I'm really not aware that the helmet law and drinking age were in any foundational laws.

moving the goalposts fallacy.
at least retract your earlier statement before you play evade and escape.

Further indications of your waffleing are in the fact that you have at the minimum... twice ignored that I clearly stated many times throughout this topic selfserving applications, distortions and twists.

if you think that's valid, then might I for a second time point out your self-serving argument fallacy of observational selection.

I can accept peoples different way of going about things and their views and methods of expression but this is getting like .... ??? .... Im out here in the sun, clear as the light of day, mowing the lawn and your over in the weeds going in circles like a rabbid coon worrying about some stray blade of bluegrass you found... in the weed patch... that I didnt mow. Point being, that is easy.

yea... and it's so clear that god exists, just look around, the Christian will say. the 9/11 conspiracy is so obvious, the conspiracy theorist says.

find one other person here convinced by your claims before you get too arrogant about the how clearly valid, or how well presented, your position is. As I suggested and you misconstrued earlier, we are not our own judges of the validity of our arguments.

 

[Seditious]

I definitely think there is worth to showing the evolution of 'morality' to be self serving, and not some objective state of the world - but in some way I think the power of this is that it allows further refinement of the notion, not that it necessarily destroys it.

oh of course, of course it's not by necessity. This -is- just the position I argue for... what I've come to.

there are plenty of humanists who think morality is valid, or even that animal rights morality is valid. I'm only claiming that their arguments fail in any relevant claim.

which among us is right will only be figured out after much argument, maybe somewhere between is correct, but I'm still in search of an argument for it which isn't nonsense, irrelevant, fallacious, or based on false premises. Hell, I can still hope I'm wrong, just as I can hope I have a soul and a soul which is immortal...but I still have to argue against it to finally dig someone down to the argument they have in favor of that which I could only wish was true.

 

[Seditious]

BTW, I'm not meaning to be ruff, Im just very frustrated with all the ignoring of good points I have made, even when they paralleled others... only to pick at little items I did not cover nor care too for their irrelevence.

no need for apologies about anything, man. I was actually considering praising you for becoming more constructive as this thread has progressed.

p.s.
if you think it would be productive, you could restate your position, and elucidate exactly what you mean by the words used, from which we can perhaps refocus on exactly what it is you've been meaning to say, (many problems in argument come down to a lack of clarity or agreement on terms being used).

 

[razoredge]

...words hinting at the naivety of someone who is uninterested in philosophy.


...wow. just wow.


moving the goalposts fallacy.
at least retract your earlier statement before you play evade and escape.


if you think that's valid, then might I for a second time point out your self-serving argument fallacy of observational selection.


yea... and it's so clear that god exists, just look around, the Christian will say. the 9/11 conspiracy is so obvious, the conspiracy theorist says.

find one other person here convinced by your claims before you get too arrogant about the how clearly valid, or how well presented, your position is. As I suggested and you misconstrued earlier, we are not our own judges of the validity of our arguments.

another mostly pointless, attacking post. This is what Im talking about. I am not and do not evade and excape, that is what I have said you are doing and are doing now by this by not clearly pointing to a specific point and ignoring others as if I never said them.

then where did freakin Christianity come from again... I mean like really... WTF ?

I do not agree with your theory on not being able to judge ones own arguements. This leads back to origional topic item... accountibility... speaking for myself, I spent a lifetime watching observing and thinking various angles, so when I present ideas or observations I give the best possible effort. You seem to have an alternative agenda of interpretation.

 

[Einherjar86]

razoredge, it would be great if you recounted some of your points, so that we all could gain a better perspective on the debate. Of course, don't be offended if your points are still contested by those of us participating in this argument. We're simply discussing the issue at hand. And trust me, we all appreciate your input and opinion. Personally, I've enjoyed the discussion greatly, even though I haven't been involved in it entirely. Several good points have been raised, and I've found the whole debate very interesting. Keep up the good discussion lads!

 

[razoredge]

yeah well this shit stimulates me to but I dont get the playing mind fuck thing, even though I realize its a game some enjoy... it aint me. No insult jarman, strive for what you want, I just think it will be a sad day for humanity if these wishy washy attempts to redefine the values of more civil populations (not their self indulged puppet masters) rubs off... which sadly it is anyhow.

You guys gotta be clearly out of your mind if you think Im going to start again at the beginning. I still feel exactly as I origionally posted, I'll suggest you just didnt want to hear it so drew your own conclusions

**I mean really, you put me through the wood chipper and want me to go back, gather all the pieces put them back together so you can send them through again ?

 

[Seditious]

I do not agree with your theory on not being able to judge ones own arguements.

very well, then let us apply the standard you consider valid, and see how useful it is.

I consider my argument to be right.
your argument contradicts mine.
therefore you are wrong.

no more need to argue--to present a case to gain the assent of reasonable people--since you've granted the validity of me deducing from my own opinion the falsehood of yours.

what I've done is just present an argument which says 'if what you said is true, this is the absurdity it leads to'. not the 'desirability' or the 'necessity' of my being right, just that what is deduced from your view most people will probably take to be absurd, and probably agree with "my theory". (...but, of course, what they agree with doesn't matter, only your own opinion does, so, to the person holding such a view, it's unfalsifiable).

 

[Seditious]

I just think it will be a sad day for humanity if these wishy washy attempts to redefine the values of more civil populations (not their self indulged puppet masters) rubs off... which sadly it is anyhow.

for you it might be. just as for christians, the "progress" of the secularization of society is depressing. This is merely a matter of your values though.

You guys gotta be clearly out of your mind if you think Im going to start again at the beginning. I still feel exactly as I origionally posted, I'll suggest you just didnt want to hear it so drew your own conclusions

it's quite clear you don't appreciate the mentality of people here. You think I'm trying to impress people with my words, rather than convince them, that I'm trying to sound profound rather than explanatory (in reality vague and few words tend to give the illusion of profundity, and we only need to talk at length to ensure we're understood, and be as far from profound as possible), you think there are mind games, and things ignored so we can just jump to our own conclusions... you're really just asserting from ignorance self-serving evaluations, which if you stick around, and perhaps look through the pages for old threads the topics of which interest you, and read them, you might find are far from accurate.

moreover, it's an ad hominem (another argument fallacy) to think 'it's your fault you don't agree with me, my arguments rule, and you're just trying to jump to your own conclusions', and it's a way of excusing yourself from the effort of providing a better, or better explained, argument in support of your claims.

don't give up so quickly, that's really part of what separates everyday people from philosophers---the willingness to follow thoughts through to the end, rather than resigning as soon as finding a way to think about it which appeals ('oh, god did it, yea that makes sense, k I'm done thinking', 'oh, it's clearly immoral, works for me, back to playstation'.)

 

[razoredge]

see here we are again, as far as I know we were talking about value of presentation... but here you are talking about whether they are right or wrong.... WTF ?

and yes my propositions are correct as well.... seriously, even though you may not want to see it many were further agreed with by others, including thyself... so I'm not too far off the beaten trail

only discrepencies I can think of so far are most want to say "the line" varies or sways, I say it does not only the application which is essentially the same only my way places more responsibility... I can see why this is not popular. The other is where morals came from, some want to place the blame on Christianity, a popular notion these days. I say they evolved with/as man began to find errors in his ways and pointed toward the global use of the golden rule back in time, how far? I will admit Im not sure.

So fuckin shoot me

 

[Seditious]

see here we are again, as far as I know we were talking about value of presentation... but here you are talking about whether they are right or wrong.... WTF ?

and yes my propositions are correct as well.... seriously, even though you may not want to see it many were further agreed with by others, including thyself... so I'm not too far off the beaten trail

can someone else clarify this for me?

The other is where morals came from. . . . I say they evolved with/as man began to find errors in his ways and pointed toward the global use of the golden rule back in time, how far? I will admit Im not sure.

so is veganism more valid than a speciesist position which only cases for what affects another person?

we used to sacrifice them, now we only eat them, we 'put them down' humanely, we preserve endangered species, we have 'vegan's who won't interfere with them at all, and Jainists who won't even squash bugs. more and more there is a universalized application of the golden rule (or, again, its superior predecessor). If you're not a vegan, based on your principle here, that the popularity of a view counts toward its validity when it is more popular the more sophisticated civilizations get, you are defining yourself is less moral than them, as immoral when you eat animals.

there is also a problem evident by your false premise, namely the popularity of postmodernism, which provides an increase in the popularity of a view equal and opposite to that which you support, which makes your premise, when taking in the cultural evidence available, self-contradictory.