Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Do you see the word "unjustified" in that process being conflated with murder? The point is that there is not an inherent reason to justify the killing, in order for the legislature, and the court to not have sufficient proof that it's justified in throwing you in the slammer. Justification is a process.
You lost me.
Are you trying to argue that all instances of humans killing humans intentionally are automatically justified (the soldier example)?
Or are you trying to argue that all instances of humans killing humans intentionally are automatically murder unless and until some justification process determines otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Well stated.I think the issue here is you're treating it as a quantifiable and discrete measure of something. It's more like health or humor we can say something is healthier than something else or something is funnier than something else but they're not discrete measurements of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think we don't know enough to say exactly why the universe is as it is, but we do know enough to say that no gods were (necessarily) involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
What is your point?You worship the government? Someone charges you with a crime, the court presumes innocence, and you are proven guilty. Proving justifiability might be practical way of defending yourself and getting the trial over with. That's why stand your ground laws exist, so you don't have to survive a legal battle after already surviving an imminent threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
People must be making a judgement or estimate of something to determine where they place their color of choice on the bestest colours evar scale - what I want to examine/uncover is what it is we are estimating when make a favorite colour judgement.
This seems like a flawed premise.
You, and I do mean you, yourself, need to rigorously define what you mean by "morality" before you have even the slightest hope of measuring it.
AND you absolutely must watch this 2 minute clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut0ai4s4mjU
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Are you kidding me?That's because the particular soldier has not been charged with murder, a crime that will likely be judged in a court of law, not because the homicide has been justified.
Many people are accused of murder in a court of law and are exonerated specifically because their act of intentionally killing another human being was justified by something like "self defense" or some "stand your ground" legislation or "your right to defend your property with deadly force".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Some people believe that even the slightest infraction dooms you to eternal hell fire.The point being that we do assign things to points along a morality scale.
Not much "scale" in that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
A soldier is not usually considered a "murderer".You can drop "unjustified" entirely
Mostly because it is generally accepted that their killing, while perfectly intentional, is also justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'. That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.
The action itself is not moral or immoral.
The specific act of, I don't know, stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver, is not automatically "murder".
And, as such, "stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver" is not an intrinsically "moral" or "immoral" action in-and-of-itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Is a crime of passion still considered intentional?Murder has intent. Unjustified killing is just a killing that hasn't been justified.
Is "felony murder" necessarily intentional?
"The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder." - Wiki
Regardless,
Murder = killing + unjustified + intentional
Killing + unjustified + intentional = murder
Is still perfectly axiomatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It is a false choice to force anyone to accept that the only two options are "good intentions" and "bad intentions"....would you rather live in a world of people with mostly bad intentions?
The division seems to be better framed as "let everyone decide for themselves what they thing is best" versus "encourage compliance with (deontological) consensus principles".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I believe it is due to a very poor common understanding/definition of the concept of morality itself.It is a snow-ball effect that is a degradation of humanities integrity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Yeah sort of.Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it.
Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
So to manage with as little change as possible (necessary) under the circumstances....to regulate the external changes...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please explain the difference.Or that acting unlovingly is morally preferable to acting lovingly?
If it is sometimes moral to act immorally if you personally, with absolutely no outside perspective at all, personally believe it will be "better" somehow "in the long run" whatever that means.
If you can act immorally and sometimes it is more moral or at a minimum "permissible" then you subscribe to consequentialism.
If you subscribe to consequentialism and you do not know for absolutely certain what the future holds, then you are blindly stabbing at hope.
Would you, personally rather be locked in a pitch-black basement full of people who "always act morally" (pacifists) or would you rather be locked in a pitch black basement full of people with knives who "try to predict which is the lesser of two or more potential evils"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is, surprisingly not a logical contradiction.Time exists in reality, but time is not ultimately real.
Or, if you prefer text -
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?I don't see it that way, homeostasis is naturally a regulatory effect; dealing with changes is its bread and butter.
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How is that preference fundamentally distinguishable from your favorite color?I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality is an awareness of whether our thoughts and actions are affecting other living things in a loving or unloving way.
However, many people believe killing an enemy is morally superior to pure pacifism (hippies/Tibetan monks).
"Loving" would not seem to be the primary measure of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Killing exist.Some killings are immoral.We call those "murder."
Murder = killing + unjustified
Killing + unjustified = murder
Murder is defined as "killing + unjustified", axiomatically.
This is a perfectly arbitrary definition.
In the same way, kergrubbleipop = "stab a person in the face with a screwdriver + really enjoying it".
It is an axiomatic definition.
A logical tautology would be "(EITHER) murder is immoral is an axiom (OR) it is not".
A logical tautology is always "true" because it includes all possible options.
The classic example (of a tautology) is, "it is either raining or not raining" which itself would seem to beg for more specificity, but I hope you get the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Your "homeostatic principle" is interesting but it would seem to have the logical consequence of elevating pure repetition and "stasis" as the ultimate good and vilifying any type of change whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An objective principle cannot have a source, it cannot have a beginning and it cannot have an ending....source of objective...
Anything properly considered objective exists independently of any other thing and as such is not contingent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's why I believe this is the correct term in this case....axioms are not derived from deeper principles...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Not to mention, if morality is objective, it is contingent on absolutely nothing.
And as such, would not require a god, or-anything-else for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I consider the terms interchangeable.I'm not sure I like the phrase "Axiomatically" here, I think "tautological" is better since Murder is essentially defined as an immoral act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'. That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.
"Murder" as the go-to-perfect-example is AXIOMATICALLY IMMORAL.
"Self-Defense" may look exactly like "murder" in every single particular, but, if it is considered "justified" then it is automatically excluded from the label and social consequences of "murder".
The specific act of, I don't know, stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver, is not automatically "murder".
And, as such, "stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver" is not an intrinsically "moral" or "immoral" action in-and-of-itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Except that we effectively have a sample size of 1, which is scientifically inconclusive.there is no knock-down argument against deistic fine tuning - yet.
And except that any appeal to an unverifiable "deity" is an obvious appeal to ignorance fallacy.
It is much more honest to say simply, we don't currently have any blooming idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You've made another category error.I don't see how to use that to assign a measure of morality to, say murder or giving to charity. The former is 'very immoral' (under usual circumstances), the latter is 'very moral' (unner usual circumstances) - but what are those estimates of the morality of murder and charity measures of?
You can't measure the "morality" of an event.
You can only measure the morality of a person.
Only people can be moral.
Events and actions cannot be moral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Morality (in this particular context) is only a concern when interacting with other people.
If you are better at interacting with people (more empathetic/more desiring of respect), you are more moral.
Low social compliance is considered "anti-social" which is generally frowned upon.
Desire to gain respect leads people to activities and actions that people actively praise and promote and award and reward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, for it to be what it is, it must be ONE. The Ultimate Reality, by definition must be 1.
I agree, in practical terms, there would be no conceivable way of identifying or detecting individual or disparate parts of or duplicates or multiples of "NTURTTGgTS" and therefore it can logically be considered uniform and singular.
Reality apart from The Ultimate Reality is nonexistence.
I agree 100%.
Time as a reality can only exist by The Ultimate Reality.
In the same exact way that all reality can only exist by "NTURTTGgTS".
time can have no dominion over The Ultimate Reality.
Perhaps not "dominion" but it may very well be a fundamental aspect of "NTURTTGgTS" and at the same time it might not be. The assertion, either way on this point is beyond our epistemological limits.
The Ultimate Reality cannot change, because if it changed, that would mean that it is subject to causal forces.
It also follows quite logically that if "NTURTTGgTS" cannot change, then no change can ever occur ever anywhere (within any reality).
I prefer to concede that whether or not "NTURTTGgTS" can or cannot change, the assertion, either way on this point is beyond our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The question is 'What is morality a measure of?'
Morality is a measure of social compliance and desire to gain the respect of your peers.
It can be quantified with this - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/712
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Objective morality would necessarily be a natural law, like gravity, that applies equally to all beings, including a dog, a sheep, and a rhinoceros and a martian.It depends on how you define objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Velocity isn't made of atoms or energy either, but its not imaginary...
Velocity is well defined and quantifiable.
Morality is poorly defined and qualitative.
You are conflating quanta and qualia. This is a category error.
It does not follow that 1 + 1 = 2 therefore, I love you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
That's a ridiculously huge "if".If he knows what we know he will know...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I have not completely lost faith in their ability to rectify the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How do you know if it is "unchanging"?
How do you know if it is "perfect"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Poorly written rules are impossible to implement fairly.I think improving the rules would help.
It would be like telling all police officers, "use your best judgment" and then expecting uniform enforcement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I believe they were copied verbatim from DDO.Who do you think created the rules?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
I believe the problem is with the vague rules, not the enforcers themselves.On the whole I've observed more bad decisions than good ones...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
We are effectively working with a sample size of 1.I'll grant that life appears to be exceedingly rare in our universe, so rare that f things had been slightly different it might never have occurred at all in our local neighborhood. But in the entire universe? We have know way of knowing. Even when the odds of life occurring on a single planet are extremely low, given the numbers involved--a billion trillion stars over 14 billion years--it is not inconceivable that life developing somewhere in the universe is a near certainty, even if the universe was tuned differently.
Clearly, inconclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please define "prime"."God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness.
It is irrational to presume that anything either is or is not "eternal". Either statement is beyond our epistemological limitations.
It is irrational to presume anything resembling "consciousness" can exist outside of a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
You are conflating quanta and qualia.My point is that truth is not subjective. Something is either true or it is false. Truth is not subject to interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is there any such thing as morality? It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms. Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water. Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
Temporal and geographic social norms.
A mostly unspoken social contract.
Purely qualitative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
All these claims about it being unchanging
How do you know if it is "unchanging"?
and perfect
How do you know if it is "perfect"?
are implied by accepting it as being what it is.
We already agreed that it is unknown/unknowable.
The Ultimate Reality. This is a definition.
Your insistence on "definition" is merely axiomatic.
You can't randomly assign characteristics to something that is unknown/unknowable without some sort of justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
This is 100% better than no MEEP process.Right now, I am not really getting much feedback on the MEEP process itself,
Thank you for your fair and reasonable consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
On your analysis of the rules, I don't think it is accurate at all. If you look at many of the RFDs moderation has upheld, you will find that they don't require nearly as much work as you seem to think. Basically, the rules require a thoughtful, written reply that assigns points for how things interacted in the debate space and not based on superficial evaluations. When I write an RFD, I put in about 20 minutes, tops. I am sure you could do it in less time than that, depending on how quickly you type and process the arguments in your head.
The point is that the rules, as they are stated, are unclear (too subjective) and enforcement appears to be arbitrary.
I've noticed that if I give detailed reasons (focusing on formal logic) for what I believe are the key arguments (statements that related directly to The Debate Resolution Itself) I am invariably accused of citing outside sources or loading the RFD with personal opinion.
And when I quote specific arguments and counter arguments which I believe speak for themselves, I am invariably accused of not adequately explaining my "reasons".
And if I mention a specific logical fallacy, I am invariably accused again of citing outside sources.
Rule number one, "This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate" - this is particularly unreasonable.
I've seen many RFDs that are left standing that do not meet these requirements and many that are struck down.
There doesn't seem to be any consistency one way or another. Even the mods seem to inject personal opinion into their decisions to remove a particular vote and then let another similar vote stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you approve of Mike?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Bsh1?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Virtuoso?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Castin?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Not sure how I would measure that.
Also,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is meaningless.
Created: