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

[Cain]

Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.

I have a moral system, others have different ones.

Now you're just being glib.  I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological.  You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste.  You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones."  Are they all equally valid?

No.  Mine is more valid.

See how that works?

So the conflict between peoples moral system can have an outcome a positive outcome on one and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.

As the Judge once told me, back in the bad old days, "Wrong is poor and weak; Right is rich and powerful."

Whenever I see these discussions the power play of morality is always ignored, and its probably the most important part because it is the reality and the actualization of morality.
Its shaking the shit out of it and seeing does it still work afterward.

Yep.  Any philosophical model that ignores brute force is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Realism, ITT.  E.H. Carr, Thucydides and Machiavelli FTW

[Triple Zero]

It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.

well that's what he said right? the universe displaying consistent behaviour is not a falsifiable statement. see:

the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle.  Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time?  It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.

there ya go, it's what he started out with, didn't you catch it the first time?

Guess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.

I agree that it falls outside the scientific method.

Why does that make it meaningless though?

[Shai Hulud]

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

No. Kant's writings on the Categorical Imperative aren't exactly very clear or logically complete. He gives several different definitions of the Categorical Imperative [JohnnyX just quotes one], and they are not logically consistent or even seem to define the same thing. He only gives 3 or 4 practical examples of application of the Categorical Imperative, so it doesn't leave much to be deduced from either. All the rest are interpretations by other people.

In that respect, utilitarianism is a lot better defined. I generally agree with it more as well, personally [on the occasions where Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarian ethics], but it's not perfect either.

That's a good point, TZ.  I'd be interested to know where you think that utilitarianism falls short, could you elaborate?  I've never been particularly persuaded by utilitarianism, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Cain]

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

No. Kant's writings on the Categorical Imperative aren't exactly very clear or logically complete. He gives several different definitions of the Categorical Imperative [JohnnyX just quotes one], and they are not logically consistent or even seem to define the same thing. He only gives 3 or 4 practical examples of application of the Categorical Imperative, so it doesn't leave much to be deduced from either. All the rest are interpretations by other people.

In that respect, utilitarianism is a lot better defined. I generally agree with it more as well, personally [on the occasions where Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarian ethics], but it's not perfect either.

Utilitarianism is also stupid, though.  Except when its not, but then it needs so many additions and rules and exceptions it quickly begins to look like another system entirely.  Hell, it took a genius like John Stuart Mill (who really was a certifiable genius) to even make it workable in any real sense.

[Triple Zero]

Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.

Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:

scenario A
you're in charge of a railroad switch. due to an error somewhere, the train is about to go into a mountain tunnel where 5 people are working on the ventilation somethings and if the train goes there, they will all get smashed and die. you could throw the switch to save them and the train will take a different route. except it's really not your day because that route also goes to a mountain tunnel where 1 guy is working.

so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I throw the switch and let 1 person die?

utlitarianism says throw the switch and let 1 person die.

scenario B
you're a doctor in a hospital and you are treating 1 person with a appendectomy. he is still asleep under narcosis but he will be fine. while treating him you happen to find out he has a very rare bloodtype. that night, it's really not your night, because 5 people come in and they all suffer from severe blood loss from a shoggoth attack. they need blood transfusion or they will die. of course (because this is a shitty night remember) these 5 people all have this same very rare bloodtype as your sleeping patient. you can save these 5 people by drawing blood from him, but it will be too much cause he's weakened from the operation and he will die.

so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I take action and let 1 person die?

utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.

--------

[Reginald Ret]

Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.

Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:

scenario A
you're in charge of a railroad switch. due to an error somewhere, the train is about to go into a mountain tunnel where 5 people are working on the ventilation somethings and if the train goes there, they will all get smashed and die. you could throw the switch to save them and the train will take a different route. except it's really not your day because that route also goes to a mountain tunnel where 1 guy is working.

so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I throw the switch and let 1 person die?

utlitarianism says throw the switch and let 1 person die.

scenario B
you're a doctor in a hospital and you are treating 1 person with a appendectomy. he is still asleep under narcosis but he will be fine. while treating him you happen to find out he has a very rare bloodtype. that night, it's really not your night, because 5 people come in and they all suffer from severe blood loss from a shoggoth attack. they need blood transfusion or they will die. of course (because this is a shitty night remember) these 5 people all have this same very rare bloodtype as your sleeping patient. you can save these 5 people by drawing blood from him, but it will be too much cause he's weakened from the operation and he will die.

so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I take action and let 1 person die?

utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.

--------

i thought utilitarianism also added that you should not feel bad about making that choice.
because it is The Right Thing To Do.

[Cain]

Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.

I thought so.  I mean, I do too, but I just wanted to point out that it really is a sucky system when you apply some of the logic of (especially Benthamite) Utilitarianism to properly tricky ethical questions.

[Triple Zero]

> i thought utilitarianism also added that you should not feel bad about making that choice.

that's kind of strange, the only moral system I could consistently feel good about is a subjective one, not an objective one.

except for that mythical "perfect" objective one, but that one might not exist.

i mean sometimes I do things because I feel they are the right thing to do, but I would feel better about doing something else. though maybe not in the long run, perhaps.

[Kai]

It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.

well that's what he said right? the universe displaying consistent behaviour is not a falsifiable statement. see:

the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle.  Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time?  It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.

there ya go, it's what he started out with, didn't you catch it the first time?

Guess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.

I agree that it falls outside the scientific method.

Why does that make it meaningless though?

Provided that the scientific method can only test falsifiable hypotheses, the "self consistency" hypothesis doesn't fall under the realm of the scientific method, therefore it doesn't indicate a flaw in the scientific method. A statement that falls outside the scientific method is scientifically meaningless. Again, this indicates no flaw in the scientific method, because it's only set up to test falsifiable hypotheses.

[Triple Zero]

Wow that's pretty circular.

So, science cannot falsify itself.

Does that make it flawless?

Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.

Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.

If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.

[Dalek]

There are the LOTR fans, who just want to be elves and have their own unicorns.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

God fucking hell. Shut the fuck up and go do some science. You people are making me puke. Assholes. The only one of you fit to have this fucking conversation is Kai.

SHUT

THE

FUCK

UP

You bunch of retarded fucking incompetent assholes

if any ONE of you had any fucking idea what you were talking about, you would have SHUT UP ALREADY.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I hate all of you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.

I thought so.  I mean, I do too, but I just wanted to point out that it really is a sucky system when you apply some of the logic of (especially Benthamite) Utilitarianism to properly tricky ethical questions.

YOU

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

JUST FUCKING SHUT UP.