Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers.  

So objective morality is unworkable, like communism or the free market?

[Shai Hulud]

Just because civilization works by the assumption of moral codes doesn't mean that there are objective moral codes.

I agree, but I can still try, can't I?

What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers. 

So objective morality is unworkable, like communism or the free market?

That doesn't follow from what I said.  Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That doesn't follow from what I said.  Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.

So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to comprehend an objective morality. The problem is, humans aren't actually very good at being objective; not even in science. (See Luca Turin's work on the mechanics of scent, for example).

[NotPublished]

I would of once believed that in order to maintain an objective view, it would have to be set up by an external observer. But the more I think of it - its more so possible when it comes to a massive Hive/Herd mentality .. or a single sole conscious controlling everything.

I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore

[Shai Hulud]

That doesn't follow from what I said.  Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.

So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?

Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect.  Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.

Is this Socratic method or are you just setting me up for a massive take down?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to comprehend an objective morality. The problem is, humans aren't actually very good at being objective; not even in science. (See Luca Turin's work on the mechanics of scent, for example).

Well said Nigel, that's precisely the sort of thing I've been trying to say about the limitations of science.

When it comes to objective morality, I'm not sure that it's granted that you can boil it down to a convenient list of do's and don't like the ten commandments, but I think it is still objective in some sense.  At least I really want it to be

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That doesn't follow from what I said.  Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.

So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?

Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect.  Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.

So it IS unworkable, for the forseeable future?

Is this Socratic method or are you just setting me up for a massive take down?

Absolutely.

[Shai Hulud]

That doesn't follow from what I said.  Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.

So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?

Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect.  Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.

So it IS unworkable, for the forseeable future?

People have done it before.  Kant has an interesting system.  Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable.  Please clarify.

[The Johnny]

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Do you agree with him?

[The Johnny]

LMAO synchronicity.

[Shai Hulud]

LMAO synchronicity.

Gave me the jibbilies:)

In answer to your question, yes and no.  I think the categorical imperative, when applied narrowly, is to restrictive and leads to counter-intuitive outcomes, for example Kant himself says that stealing bread to feed your starving family is wrong because the maxim "It's ok to steal" can't be applied universally.  But I think if you alter Kant's theory a bit and make the maxim more specific, like "It's ok to steal to feed someone who would otherwise starve" then you get something "workable" but maybe not what Kant intended.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

People have done it before.  Kant has an interesting system.  Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable.  Please clarify.

If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.

Unworkable:  Not possible to put into practice in the forseeable future.

[The Johnny]

LMAO synchronicity.

Gave me the jibbilies:)

In answer to your question, yes and no.  I think the categorical imperative, when applied narrowly, is to restrictive and leads to counter-intuitive outcomes, for example Kant himself says that stealing bread to feed your starving family is wrong because the maxim "It's ok to steal" can't be applied universally.  But I think if you alter Kant's theory a bit and make the maxim more specific, like "It's ok to steal to feed someone who would otherwise starve" then you get something "workable" but maybe not what Kant intended.

We should pillage all supermarkets, and send the supplies to Africa.

[Shai Hulud]

People have done it before.  Kant has an interesting system.  Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable.  Please clarify.

If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.

Well I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong.

Unworkable:  Not possible to put into practice in the forseeable future.

That's just it, we put it in to practice every day when we make moral decisions.  Codification is one thing, practice is another.  I'm of the opinion that you judge the success of an ethical system by how well it jives with intuition.  So is objective morality workable?  Yes, absolutely.  Is my personal codification of objective morality workable?  No.

[Faust]

A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.

When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.

This is the post that set me off, BTW.

I love how it manages to simultaneously be smugly superior, AND mock every non-lily-white-academia culture's spiritual practices from the dawn of humanity.

Hey, so one of my ancestral cultures induces a mentally altered state through chanting, burning sage, wearing costume, dance, and storytelling? Faust PITIES us!

It's so nice to know.

FUCK YOU, FAUST. EAT A BONE AND DIE.

lol

I suspect that Faust is the only Really Real Discordian in the universe.

If you had read any more of the thread or even the next three posts, in which Incognito responded to it, you would have seen that I was looking for a knee jerk reaction. The post was facetious, and you still didn't get that even when it was exposed before you ever responded.
I'm going to go ahead and ignore the comments about the ancestral heritage, both sets of mine separated by half a continent did the same things fyi.