lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-10-2007, 06:01 PM   #41
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Sigh. No Nancy, Stalinism is totally unrelated to the simple idea that there is a moral way to behave... and there are immoral ways to behave. Once again, your post is one big reactionary non-sequitur.

Needless to say, I will not address any further nonsense implying that my viewpoint is "Stalinist".


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 07:45 PM   #42
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Because you cannot prove that only allowing one set of values isn't Stalinist no doubt.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 08:55 PM   #43
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Nancy, come on... it's not Stalinist to believe that numbers are universal is it? Even if you use base10 and I use base2, or if you use Arabic and I use Chinese characters, the numbers still represent the same amount. The idea that is being discussed in this thread presupposes that morality is objective and universal in the same way with the goal describing the morality as an equation.

Spider AL provided a link to the Moral Relativism thread for discussions regarding the the nature of morality. I'd invite you and anyone else in this thread who wishes to debate that topic to do so in that thread. If you have critiques regarding how morality can be quanitified or symbolically defined, please post them in this thread.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 09:00 PM   #44
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Of course numbers are universal. However to add 2 and 2 together, in this case saying that because there is this mathamatical process of morality it should be the only one that applies, you end up with 5 rather than 4. You are not going to take this and have people from other cultures or even the same culture adopt it, there's just no way they will stop doing what they feel is right no matter how much we disagree with it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 09:01 PM   #45
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Heh, AL, you make it sound as though morality itself is some sort of deity whose expectations we can either live up to or not.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 09:20 PM   #46
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
You are not going to take this and have people from other cultures or even the same culture adopt it, there's just no way they will stop doing what they feel is right no matter how much we disagree with it.
Assuming "we" are the ones who are right in the matter, we would be able to create a stronger argument based on sound reasoning how the actions carried out by this other culture were immoral. "We" would have to be on guard to avoid shading our conclusions with personal biases in order to keep the argument objective as possible. Of course the audience we are appealing to will also have to set aside their personal biases and consider our argument.

Your critique is about the difficulty of trying to convince others to act morally. Of course that is not an easy thing to accomplish, but just because something is difficult to do, doesn't mean you shouldn't try. It would be immoral not to wouldn't it?
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 10:25 PM   #47
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Well here's where things get a little complicated. Let's take Iraq as an example. They were living under a tyrannical rule and an attempt was made to bring to them democracy, freedom of speech, of action. The Iraqis seized the freedom, including killing of and terrorist acts against America, because they no longer had to fear torture and execution under Saddam. If anything it would have been more moral to act in this situation because the people weren't holding to a way of life that, according to one set of values, is wrong, rather they were being prevented from expressing these values. Would it have been more moral not to intercede given what our good intentions have achieved? That's an excellent topic for another thread. Secondly, how broad does this mathamatical list go? If you see a thug threatening a woman with a shotgun for example are you according to this list morally allowed to punch their lights out? Snap their neck? Stab them? Shoot them yourself? How about grabbing the thug and smashing their face against the floor? One of the difficulties in any case lies in that in these situations you have about a split second to act and you do not, nor can you, think whether or not the action you take will be moral or not. Just on that, what happens if we add up something on this list and it says, for example, homosexuality is wrong? Religion is wrong? Not having the right job or car is wrong?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 01:45 AM   #48
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Emotions are merely contributing factors within the larger issue of bias, Windu. Therefore this has already been addressed.
But you can't ignore emotions.
Morality is useless without emotions or empathy; you won't give a damn about doing good or evil if you have no emotions or sympathy for others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
No, there is either sense... that is: that which makes sense, that which is logical... or nonsense. That which is not logical. They are absolutes. There is no issue of relativism when it comes to the question of whether someone is "making sense".
Yes there is; the knowledge we have acquired today about the universe was once thought nonsense, until over time meaning was gained.
Since you keep believing that we are the only ones and the current knowledge about the universe is only known to us.
That imply the rest of the knowledge of the universe relative to us remain nonsensical, for the time being.
As time go by and we continue to explore existence the present nonsense will become meaningful to us in the ongoing future.
Like for example the existence of black holes was once thought of as nonsense, until more and more knowledge was gained about the universe, then the meaningful explanation of the existense of the Blackholes was obtained.
The current nonsense is the big bang singularity, that was suppose to had created our universe, but as the unproved theories of our universe slowing bring understanding, such as String Theory, M-Theory and Quantum Gravity more meaning replace the nonsense.
Where do you suppose the concept of morality come from?
Nowhere!

The explanation of our own existense is nonsense in terms of logic.

A first creator to existence don't make no logical sense, because it is a contradiction, it conflicts with a logic principle called, the principle of the excluded middle, that states by the assumption of a person who use logic, that no proposition is both true and false. It must be only true and only false.A first creator won't have a creator, that means to logician, he would have to conclude, that the first creator will have to create itself out of nothing also, which will be a contradiction to the principle of the excluded middle.
A creator created itself!
The creator came from nothing.
So, that will make the first creator infinite, which will imply a contradiction in it's own creation.
Since infinity is true and false at the same time.
A logician will have to called the idea of a first creator illogical, if he/she follow logic strictly, but a atheist, don't believe in a creator or creators of any kind, but the idea of no creator is also illogical.
Because we will have to be created from nothing and nothing to a logician is nonsense.

If you follow logic so strongly like a religion as you do Spider, the concept of morality had to come from somewhere, that was acquired by the ancient philosophers, that they gave to our society today.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Of course. As an objectivist, I automatically have to accept the possibility that I will never attain the state of perceiving absolute truth.
And furthermore, I must accept the certainty that I will never KNOW to an absolute degree whether I have attained such a state or not, even if I have in fact attained it.
Well, then you can't boldly say someone gotten it wrong with high confidence.
Uncertainy seems to ruled existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But that doesn't signify anything. The fact that we are fallible human organisms doesn't mean that there is no objective truth. It merely means that we may be incapable of perceiving it.
Then it's possible that something out there that can perceive it; which can imply we aren't alone in existence.
And we aren't superior!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Let's discard your options that involve jumping off after them, as suicide would serve no useful purpose, moral or otherwise.
Well, I included that because some people will commit sucicide because of guilt or to save many others in dire circumstances.
Like the people in the twin towers on 9/11 jump with others because of guilt.
Or, a solider jump in the line of fire to save his buddies in combat; sucicide he commit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Next let's point out that making a judgement based on one's personal affections for one of the falling individuals is immoral. It's perfectly human and understandable, but personal bias should be disregarded, ideally.
What do you mean ideally, there seems to be nothing ideal in real life, on Earth?
You know this is laughable, you're saying you will let your family member die over the stranger?
Because you don't want to be immoral?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
It is therefore morally necessary to make a dispassionate choice as to which person to save. Since we know nothing about the stranger, it's hard to weigh the impact of his/her death against the death of one's lover. Perhaps if the stranger was a family man supporting several children and one's lover was childless it would be more moral to save the stranger. But this set of factors would have to be established before such a judgement could be made.
Man you are sounding like a computer A.I.?
So, you saying some strangers children is more important than your own family member?
Also I was not talking about a lover; your family member, when say love one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
In a situation where nothing is known about the stranger, it would be impossible to weigh their life against the life of one's lover... therefore to save either would be equally moral.
Since you believe that our society is the ONLY one.
And we are superior!
No it won't, you let someone die that who's death, that you could've prevented, in this society that is against the rules of morality; Negligent homicide.

No one life should be weighed, never.
In the concetration camps, the victims was force to make that choice of weighing someone's life over the other, by the immoral SS concentration camp
guard.
So, those victims made choices like that, will be label immoral by some in our society.
The point I'm trying to make that if you have emotions, sympathy and personal bias, you possibly can't be truly morally objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
As noted before, objective morality is MOTIVATED by empathy, not DEFINED by empathy. Logic defines the correct- most moral- course of action in each situation. Not empathy.
So, you saying logic should determine who should die and don't die.
Logic only should determine who's life more valuable than someone else life.
That's rediculous!
The Nazis use that kind of reasoning, when they imbrace evil in the death camps.
The Jews lives was not valuable at all, in the like of other ethnic groups that was death camp victims.
A Jew life was consider less valuable, than other concentration camp prisoners, because they was consider inferior. So, with the logic the Nazis use, the more of them(Jews) die, the less immoral it is to them(Nazis) .
Because, they were seen like wood in their inferiority, so worthless.
I think it's really amoral to only use Logic to determine who will die and who won't die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
but also because we are discussing a very human and very terrestrial issue, the issue of morality.
What, you believe morality and other knowledge was only acquired and invented by us?
What about animals like elephants, gorillas, monkeys dogs, etc... they should be included too.
They have empathy!
It's utter arrogance, to include only us and to say we are only ones in existence.
What, do you believe that all those planets, stars and galaxies out there is just decoration?
To be admired at!

Last edited by Windu Chi; 06-11-2007 at 05:22 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 03:52 AM   #49
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Quote:
As noted before, objective morality is MOTIVATED by empathy, not DEFINED by empathy. Logic defines the correct- most moral- course of action in each situation. Not empathy.
Quantifications versus emotion, eh Al?

Well, that would be the logical thing to do. But don't expect anyone to follow logic in such a time as when forced to make such a choice.

I guess what it boils down to then, is what's in your mind. And for just about all of us, who love is infinitely more important than who others love. Saving one over saving others because of brain chemicals and nerve readings.

Quote:
What you believe morality and other knowledge was only acquired and invented by us?
What about animals like elephants, gorillas, monkeys dogs, etc.
I've seen your posts before, and much as I'm tempted to ignore them.. I just can't. Agh. Anyway. The answer to your question is

YES. It was invented by us because we are the only bloody animals on Earth to post at 2:49 am in the morning on a thread regarding moral objectivism. And before you give me the whole "dude just cause they can't do stuff like talk or communicate with us doesn't mean they don't think like we do and have morals and stuff" schtick, I'd like to say that just cause I don't have wings doesn't mean I can't fly. Oh wait.

But if you must persist in this endeavor of advocating animal morality, show me some clear cut evidence and I'll consider it. Until then, fly Mikey fly.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 04:22 AM   #50
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
I've seen your posts before, and much as I'm tempted to ignore them
What you can't find the ignore list button?
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 04:33 AM   #51
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Oh no, it's very visible. But then I wouldn't get to see your fabulous posts on interspace travel..




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 05:18 AM   #52
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
Oh no, it's very visible. But then I wouldn't get to see your fabulous posts on interspace travel..
Why are you so fascinated by my post, no one here really gives a damn about my posts, concerning interstellar travel.

I'm wasting my time with those posts, but I'm to damn reluctant to give up.

Search this site~ American Antigravity if you are really interested, Mike Windu.
That's where your fascination should lay.

Last edited by windu6; 06-11-2007 at 05:32 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 06:42 AM   #53
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
What you believe morality and other knowledge was only acquired and invented by us?
What about animals like elephants, gorillas, monkeys dogs, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
YES. It was invented by us because we are the only bloody animals on Earth to post at 2:49 am in the morning on a thread regarding moral objectivism. And before you give me the whole "dude just cause they can't do stuff like talk or communicate with us doesn't mean they don't think like we do and have morals and stuff" schtick, I'd like to say that just cause I don't have wings doesn't mean I can't fly. Oh wait.

But if you must persist in this endeavor of advocating animal morality, show me some clear cut evidence and I'll consider it. Until then, fly Mikey fly.
Hmm. Some thoughts on the subject of animals and moral, taken from the moral relativism thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayston
[...]

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can real and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of perceiving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALbert
I think I've answered this question before in this thread with the simple statements that the ability to apply morality is limited by limited intelligence and reasoning power, and that without the quality of empathy one has no reason to be moral. I don't know that animals other than humans possess empathy. I don't really know that other humans possess empathy. I assume they do, because they tell me so. But animals without empathy won't really want to be moral. And animals without our ability to reason and anticipate likely consequences of actions, won't be ABLE to be moral. Hey, most PEOPLE aren't moral. It's doubtful that many other animals are.

Also, the fact that other animals may not be capable of possessing a sense of morality is just as irrelevant as the fact that some humans aren't capable of possessing a sense of morality. So they can't. So what? The moral standard exists outside of individuals, be they man or elephant.

And of course, in the final analysis it's a moral truism that those with the most power have the most responsibility to use their power morally. Who has more power than intelligent humans? Who has a greater responsibility to be moral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayston
I think many animals feel empathy, especially the higher developed ones. Primates for instance and elephants, why not. I think empathy (and morality) becomes an aspect when a social together and also the ability to act independent to or despite of instinctive impulses exists. And the more complex the social interaction is, the more instinct-independend the train of thought is, the more we can expect empathy and some kind of desire for being moral, at least within this group of individuals.

However, these two questions lead me to the conclusion that whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALbert
Couldn't agree more. A surfeit of intelligence doesn't just confer the ability to be moral, it also confers the responsibility to be moral. And I think that's mainly due to the fact that opportunity equals responsibility. The rich have a greater responsibility to use their money morally than do the poor. The strong have a greater responsibility to use their strength morally than do the weak. And the intelligent have a greater responsibility to be moral people than do the muppets.

If you CAN be moral... you MUST be moral. Or... erm... you're immoral.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 07:44 AM   #54
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Would acting moral include not judging others, not looking for faults in others and not trying to undermine comments from others?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 08:17 AM   #55
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
How would looking for faults, judging others, or undermining comments be an immoral act?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 08:30 AM   #56
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Looking for faults? Simple, by looking for things that you can criticise the implication is very strong that you are looking for ways to bring down someone or something, certainly an immoral act. Undermining comments? Much of this has to do with what's known as 'poisoning the well' where some quote might be deemed false or irrelevent where it may in fact be quite pertient. Besides which you don't like it when someone tries and make you appear to be a liar do you? And judging others, or perhaps more importantly pre judging others? Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured for you. Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults unless, of course, you want the same treatment.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 08:57 AM   #57
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Looking for faults? Simple, by looking for things that you can criticise the implication is very strong that you are looking for ways to bring down someone or something, certainly an immoral act.
Criticism does not equal bringing someone down. Criticism does not even relate to negativity. Also, I can live with criticism, or if someone points out errors or faults on my side, heck I am thankful if someone shows me that I've done something wrong. Is a teacher who is correcting his student acting immoral?

Quote:
Undermining comments? Much of this has to do with what's known as 'poisoning the well' where some quote might be deemed false or irrelevent where it may in fact be quite pertient. Besides which you don't like it when someone tries and make you appear to be a liar do you?
Huh? Did you just call me a liar? ^^

Quote:
And judging others, or perhaps more importantly pre judging others? Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured for you.
Prejudging does not imply any possible course of action. I can prejudge someone to be the worst asshat within the whole universe because he's stolen my panty collection and yet help him when he is in need (read: act moral).


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 11:30 AM   #58
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
@ Ray's quotes:I completely agree. Of course we should. But as we've established then, they can't. Now what that means for us remains the same as evidenced by your statement in that we must protect the ideal of morality in terms of those who are incapable of judging their actions from a moral standpoint.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go wash my pink fur.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 06:13 PM   #59
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Huh? Did you just call me a liar? ^^
No, and I apologise if there was any indication of that, but there, you see, you don't like the implication which is what undermining comments does.

I think there's a world of diffirence between putting across a point of view, even stating that something is wrong, and going "hahahahaha you're ****ing retarded for not having the beliefs I have".
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2007, 03:23 AM   #60
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
going "hahahahaha you're ****ing retarded for not having the beliefs I have".
While this may not be very kind, it sounds better than "hahahahaha you ****ing die for not having the beliefs I have". Better, if you're just going to ignore it, no harm is done at all.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2007, 07:43 PM   #61
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
It still isn't a moral comment to make is it?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-13-2007, 09:10 AM   #62
Vaelastraz
Veteran
 
Vaelastraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: City 17. It's safer.
Posts: 851
It's definitly rude but I also think it depends on what the beliefs are.
Vaelastraz is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-13-2007, 09:40 AM   #63
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Too much semantics, not enough debate!




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-13-2007, 09:08 PM   #64
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it, yet that's not going to be the case. Example? Iraq, wouldn't the moral thing to do to help the people of Iraq? Oh nonononono we cannot do that, as that would be immoral.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 01:54 AM   #65
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it
I think only the naive will have that kind of stance, Nancy.
Wisdom will suffer if you have such a strong belief like that to any rules, rules will fail eventually, and new rules arise, with new interpretations, from different perspectives of intelligent beings.
Accepting and believing in never changing constants is unwise, I believe Nancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Example? Iraq, wouldn't the moral thing to do to help the people of Iraq? Oh nonononono we cannot do that, as that would be immoral.
Well, of course different people with have different opinions, on that question.
Wisdom should be use in making the decision, Nancy.
If we stay there to long I think our military will be become a relying dependent to the Iraqis.
And they probably never stand up on their own.
A 51st state maybe the option in the future, if they don't get their s**t together.
Also they need a airforce, to defend their airspace: fighter jets, bombers, bombs, missiles and up to date high tech bombs, to be a modern airforce power, airfore personnel and logictical support that can kick ass, without the possibility of running out of airforce resourses to quickly.
A complex infrastructure, for basic needs.

Also they will require airforce bases, the training of pilots, airforce mechanics, engineers. A army, that is of the high quantity in material equipment like: tanks, vehicles, weapons: missiles, bombs, artillery that is supplied with large resources.
A large quantity of soliders, military personnel to supply logistical support that can protect the whole country from invaders, without the danger of thinning the army resourses to quickly.

Also if we leave, the whole thing can go to hell in a handbasket, I believe we are at the fringes of that already, Nancy.

Somebody in that society got to get off their ass and become a strong and wise leader, that don't have the motivation of money and power, as their driving influence.

Last edited by Windu Chi; 06-14-2007 at 02:25 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 02:24 AM   #66
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it, yet that's not going to be the case.
wah? Live and die by it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
I have to admit, my goals were less lofty than that. Rather than discover something new about morality, I wanted to gather the known factors of morality and relate them in a form of shorthand. I figured having a formula such as that would be an easy reference guide. At least on paper, if not in practice.
Just trying to help you approach morality in a logical manner.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 07:19 AM   #67
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
It still isn't a moral comment to make is it?
No I wouldn't say so. Because it's just a statement about disagreement with another viewpoint. Somewhat uncouth maybe, but the same as "your beliefs don't make sense to me".


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 08:02 AM   #68
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
wah? Live and die by it?
See 'Logically arrived at morality is the only morality'. We disagree with the morality of treating women like meat for example, but for Middle Eastern Muslim Islamists it makes logical sense which makes it moral. The same as they may disagree with us allowing women freedom of speech, religion, ect. Are they wrong? Yes we think they are wrong, that's the problem with relying on some bible to morality such as a mathamatical notation, because that one opinion may not nessecarily agree with someone else's established in society's opinion.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 09:29 AM   #69
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
These "Middle Eastern Muslim Islamists" do not base their "moral" on logic but ancient texts. And that opinions differ is the very nature of them. But opinions and moral are different things. The moral code is not to do harm unto others and while some may find beating a woman is okay and others might disagree with that because cutting her tongue off would be more appropriate, both "moral acts" are simply unacceptable behaviour. Because it does harm to the woman in question and even worse - violates her dignity as a human and living being.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2007, 06:35 PM   #70
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
No question that their treatment of women goes against what we consider fair, in fact I'd go further and say they're wrong by any standered. But our standered of morality comes from ancient texts as well, something I'm sure the mathamatical notation of morality would be based on. The trouble is what is considered moral varies greatly between diffirent cultures, or even the same culture. Example? The moral code is not to do harm unto others. Some people may think there are times when doing the right or moral thing makes doing harm unto others necessary. Rescuing some poor girl from the clutches of a religious cult. Helping fend off a gang running a protection racket. Running goons who have taken control of a small town out. Air marshalls gunning down a plane hijacker. Or, one take on it I quite like is 'take Though Shalt not Kill to it's ultimate and you're expected to go down on your knees and pray as someone puts a bullet in the back of your head'. I'm game if you are.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 06:57 AM   #71
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
No question that their treatment of women goes against what we consider fair, in fact I'd go further and say they're wrong by any standered.
And you conclude they're wrong because?

Quote:
But our standered of morality comes from ancient texts as well, something I'm sure the mathamatical notation of morality would be based on.
MY morality does not come from ancient texts. The oldest books I know are Jules Verne's. It may EQUAL some moral codes found in different ancient texts, though, simply because "don't do unto others blahblahblah" is a good and quick scheme to approximate a moral way to (re-)act. I think the mathematical notion here was an attempt to describe a logical way to find the best moral way to act despite of all texts and their somewhat fixed set of rules.

It's like having a equation y = x or a table having a set of values y for the possible arguments x. It's nothing more and nothing less. Of course the table just offers a finite set of arguments/values, while the equation offers a universal way to rebuild that very table.

In fact to create the table and to find the fixed set of values you need to apply the equation. So if at all, the equation must have been there before any ancient text, not the other way around, because all those texts follow a scheme with their rules.

That means at the end of the day you can either (A) consult a book with a set of rules or (B) use the principle which the book's set of rules is based on anyway to find the most moral way to act.

Quote:
The trouble is what is considered moral varies greatly between diffirent cultures, or even the same culture. Example? The moral code is not to do harm unto others. Some people may think there are times when doing the right or moral thing makes doing harm unto others necessary.
"whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so" See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.

Quote:
Rescuing some poor girl from the clutches of a religious cult. Helping fend off a gang running a protection racket. Running goons who have taken control of a small town out. Air marshalls gunning down a plane hijacker.
If possible in any way the most moral way to act would be to help and NOT use violence or at least not use deadly violence to clear the situation. For instance you must not necessarily kill the hijacker in question to put him off "duty". It might not be possible though. But as long as you've at least tried to act non violent or defensive, you've been more moral than if you would just have put a bullet in his head.

Quote:
Or, one take on it I quite like is 'take Though Shalt not Kill to it's ultimate and you're expected to go down on your knees and pray as someone puts a bullet in the back of your head'.
I'd say "Let's just put the prayer stuff aside already, m'kay? Who are you trying to force your beliefs down my throat or what shut face damnit!" And of course I'd try to save myself, especially if I'm about to die anyway. And in case I want to be truly moral from there on, I'd not go and kill the spoothead, even more, I'd have to try to do as less harm to him as possible. However I could imagine to serve him one of those classic one liners I've learned from Arnold when I was a youngling, like "I need your clothes, boots and your motorcycle."

Seriously, where does it say that "thou shalt not kill" means "thou shalt not try to save your threatened life"?

Ain't it more like "yah mon get your butt out there asap but do me a favour this time try to keep the body count nice and low at zero bro kthxbye" eh?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 07:49 AM   #72
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I think the mathematical notion here was an attempt to describe a logical way to find the best moral way to act despite of all texts and their somewhat fixed set of rules.
When you form a math formula is set with rules when it is written, until it become useless, or need to be corrected when knew knowledge is gain in the future.
The updating of formula seem to be a never ending task.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
It's like having a equation y = x or a table having a set of values y for the possible arguments x. It's nothing more and nothing less. Of course the table just offers a finite set of arguments/values, while the equation offers a universal way to rebuild that very table.
You forgot the constant of proportionally y = kx when you measure relationships, Ray.
constant of proportionally: the experimental determine constant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.
I disgree, Ray.
In some dire situtations violence must be use if negotiation fails or there is no time for negotiation, to save lives.
So, I don't think it always that black and white.
Every rule even math formulas, will always need revision, and will eventually fail, I believe.
People shouldn't always stay dependent on any rules.
People should use wisdom when putting trust in the stay of rules.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 09:32 AM   #73
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windu Chi
When you form a math formula is set with rules when it is written, until it become useless, or need to be corrected when knew knowledge is gain in the future.
Err, y = x is not describing a physical law. It's a simple equation, thus does not underlie possible change. It just says y is always square of x.

Quote:
You forgot the constant of proportionally y = kx when you measure relationships, Ray.
No I did forget nothing. First of all it's f(x) = y = ax + bx + c, second a =1, b = 0, c = 0, thus and third y = x

Quote:
In some dire situtations violence must be use if negotiation fails or there is no time for negotiation, to save lives.
WRONG. Violence MUST NOT be used. No one is forced to use violence. Not seeing another way, or to prefer using violence over behaving non-violent doesn't make violence necessary. Just because you act violent against the immoral, who is using violence himself, doesn't makes it moral. Reasonable maybe but not moral.

Quote:
So, I don't think it always that black and white.
Yes it is. Use violence - be immoral, don't use violence be less immoral.

Quote:
Every rule even math formulas, will always need revision, and will eventually fail, I believe.
People shouldn't always stay dependent on any rules.
Again, mathematic equations and laws do not underlie changes. A formula describing a physical process maybe, but not the mathematic principles it is based on. One and one is two, period.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 11:37 AM   #74
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Err, y = x is not describing a physical law. It's a simple equation, thus does not underlie possible change. It just says y is always square of x.
I know it is not describing a physical law, Ray.
But when you have functional relationships, there is always a constant of proportionally, because y=x don't work alone, that is a line equation with slope m=1, so y=mx or y=mx+b that form a 45 degree angle respect to the x and y axis, when graph, also b is the y-intercept; in this case b=0.
Now with functional relationships:
To make sense with it, when you graph it; you have to add in a constant of proportionally like k for example: y=kx a directly proportional relationship; solve for k; k=y/x now k is the constant of proportionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
No I did forget nothing. First of all it's f(x) = y = ax + bx + c, second a =1, b = 0, c = 0, thus and third y = x
It still need a constant of proportionally, to scale the function on a graph; that function when graph form a parabola curve, that can be intergrated to find the area if you set limits on it's two curve paths, from the vertex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
WRONG. Violence MUST NOT be used.
It's not always simple as that, Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
No one is forced to use violence.
I know that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Not seeing another way, or to prefer using violence over behaving non-violent doesn't make violence necessary.
Sometimes it's not another way, like when the clock is constantly ticking, warning you that the situation is becoming desperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Just because you act violent against the immoral, who is using violence himself, doesn't makes it moral. Reasonable maybe but not moral.
Ok, Ray we aren't going to come to agreement on this.
So, forget it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Again, mathematic equations and laws do not underlie changes. A formula describing a physical process maybe, but not the mathematic principles it is based on. One and one is two, period.
It's not that simple Ray!

But forget it!

Last edited by Windu Chi; 06-16-2007 at 07:26 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 06:32 PM   #75
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Clearly it's wrong because it puts the woman through harm and suffering, it's degrading. Imagine pouring hog fat on Muslim Islamists and what that would do to their sensitivities. It's the same thing.

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.

In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed. Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.

Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life. Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do. I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard. So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.

With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral. What about pride? What about being able to walk the streets safely? I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2007, 10:47 PM   #76
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Clearly it's wrong because it puts the woman through harm and suffering, it's degrading. Imagine pouring hog fat on Muslim Islamists and what that would do to their sensitivities. It's the same thing.

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.

In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed. Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.

Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life. Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do. I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard. So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.

With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral. What about pride? What about being able to walk the streets safely? I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.
Are you talking to me here, Nancy?
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2007, 09:06 AM   #77
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Ray Jones actually, need to get back into the habit of quoting in my posts.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2007, 04:59 PM   #78
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.
Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

*reboots*

Phew. That was close.

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. (C) The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

See this thread for further Nazi discussion ~tk

Quote:
In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed.
Huh? Egypt?

Quote:
Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.
Defending your life is not acting violently. It's defending your life. You can reject violent acts without acting violent yourself.

Quote:
Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life.
I seem to be unable to read "you cannot defend your life" into the above quotes. Of course you can. But when you start to act violent, you're not defending anything anymore, you act violent.

Quote:
Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do.
I think you mean if it's the moral thing to do. Sure. Stopping terrorism seems to be a good idea. Maybe using violence is one way to achieve that. It would be immoral though.

Quote:
I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard.
Evil? Immoral.

Quote:
So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.
What answer do you want? And why? And why do you want to change what?

Quote:
With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral.
Yes it would. Ain't the real problem another one? I don't think the question is how to stop those thugs in action. It's "Why are they there?"

Quote:
What about pride?
Yeah, what about pride? I mean. Yeah! Pride! I am proud because my four year old one can write like eight words, and she can count and add numbers.


Quote:
What about being able to walk the streets safely?
Don't know about you but I like it. Where is the point?

Quote:
I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.
These people are not allowed to act however they want, at least in my country. No need to kill yourself.



Last edited by tk102; 06-20-2007 at 02:10 PM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2007, 06:48 PM   #79
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Here's a couple of links explaining the Nigerian 419 scam.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/25...roducer_k.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078489/
http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio...ria-fraud.html

Go back up and look at my example of what to do if you confront someone threatening a woman with a shotgun. Plead with them to please not to kill them, bang, she's dead, the thug turns and kills you. Even police, a life saving organisation, would use deadly force in this situation, the gun's up, a civillian's life is in imminent danger. And sure, it might be a strawman. And? What else? It happens to be true.

Again, someone has a gun on you, reasoning doesn't work, you can't run, and they want you dead. How are you going to save your moral hide?

I'm sure if the Taliban in Afghanistan would have just allowed America to just waltz in and shut down their terrorist camps, plans for another 9/11, ect then the situation could have been resolved without using violence. The murder, let's be clear here, murder of thousands of innocent people with promise of further attacks seems to suggest that wasn't going to happen.

Immoral then, I've recieved no answer to whether or not I'm immoral. What type of answer? Some sign, for there to be something that makes me think that such acts are wrong, God to speak to me if he exists, anything.

Why are they there? They might be there because they have been able to intimidate people enough that they have the run of things, that they can act how they like. Attack someone because they want to fight. Go into some store and take what they want because no one dares to stand up to them, or call the police, their violent acts to get them to this point had seen to that. And no this isn't a strawman, this happens.

The point is there are times when action must be taken to ensure the safety and protection of society. Sic vis pacem parabellum. It might be harsh to apply such a term to protecting your neighbourhoods, your cities, they don't call it a war on crime for nothing.

Last edited by tk102; 06-20-2007 at 02:12 PM.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2007, 11:35 PM   #80
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
The Nazis nearly took over all of Europe and spread their influence to Africa, allying with the Japanese who attempted to conquer the Pacific rim they did a pretty good job of taking over the world until we started fighting bsck, plus there was things such as the Holocaust. I guess we should have ignored all that though.
I going to struggle to try to bring this back on topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
So how do we measure the morality of an action? It is inversely proporational to the amount of distress, D, the particular act, x, causes...
m(x) = 1/D(x)
So for simplified purposes let's say we could either act or not act. So which was more moral? That is to say which would cause less distress (D). True, our actions involved violence (high distress) to the Nazis, but we believed m(action) > m(inaction) because inaction would have led to greater distress.

Now that's obviously oversimplified, but it illustrates a point I think you're missing Nancy Allen``. Just because violence is big negative of the morality scale, it doesn't mean that under certain circumstances, that a violent act couldn't be the most moral action available to a person. There just has to be no other alternative available that wouldn't end up causing more distress.

And that last part is critical. It often seems that people who choose violence are not trying to discern other alternatives for whatever reasons: they're too angry or paranoid, they're too impatient, they don't care about morality, whatever...

Do you understand that regardless of any argument or scenario that you propose, there is always an action that causes the least amount of distress to others? Whether you're able to figure out what action is and whether you decide to act accordingly is up to you.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.