How Far is "Too Far?" -

[Christ-Chan]

But that's the thing. There isn't an objective basis for ethics. Your philosophy might meet your requirements, but not everyone has the same goals.

I'm not the one to cry "troll" or to attack another poster's credibility or whatever, but I think there's probably very little point in trying to reply to that particular member of these here forums.

 

[Holdek]

The CWCki forums: where poking fun at an incontinent manchild intersects with the philosophical debate on ethics

As it should, I suppose. ]P

I can't see how anyone could disagree with what I'm saying.

And that's your fundamental problem because you are discussing something subjective.

 

[Cwckifan]

There isn't an objective basis for ethics. Your philosophy might meet your requirements, but not everyone has the same goals.

For all practical purposes, we do. After all, are we not all united in our desire to live, and cope with the difficulties of life in a way that we find pleasing? For this reason, shouldn't our wills to do this be respected, and any attempts to hinder our abilities to do so be fairly punished? Really, if there was no objective system of ethics, then there's no basis for rights (which are basically just ethics made into law), and no law to uphold (since that is just a means of enforcing ethics). We all know this is not the case (under normal circumstances), so It's not a stretch to say that there's something solid keeping it all together

 

[Holdek]

I think this thread is going down the shitter soon so I'll just get a shot in before the bell rings.

I really wished I wouldn't have inquired about the circumstances of Marvin's knowledge now that I've seen what a flood of shit I inadvertently released. I never wanted to hear any audio, I never wanted any "proof" of anything, all I meant to ask was "did you guys call Chris, and if so under what guise?". I thought we might get to learn if there were further Jackie calls or whatever, but man did that spin out of control.

So I guess I just want to apologize to the forums for unscrewing that lid.

You're good, man.

What I have a desire for is you to understand that your philosophy is not objectively better than any other.

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better'

Really I think a perfect system of legal ethics could be described in a few steps

 

[Hyperion]

I'm actually more concerned about the greater good. It must be shocking.

 

[Cwckifan]

What I have a desire for is you to understand that your philosophy is not objectively better than any other.

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better'

Really I think a perfect system of legal ethics could be described in a few steps

'Perfect' as in 'solid', not as in 'better'. Really, better is judgemental, which has everything to do with context and subjective impression. Solid has a consistent reasoning, which is based on objective truth

I'm actually more concerned about the greater good. It must be shocking.

The greater good is fine, until you're exploited to serve it. If that happened, something tells me that your opinion would change

 

[Marvin]

There isn't an objective basis for ethics. Your philosophy might meet your requirements, but not everyone has the same goals.

For all practical purposes, we do. After all, are we not all united in our desire to live, and cope with the difficulties of life in a way that we find pleasing? For this reason, shouldn't our wills to do this be respected, and any attempts to hinder our abilities to do so be fairly punished? Really, if there was no objective system of ethics, then there's no basis for rights (which are basically just ethics made into law), and no law to uphold (since that is just a means of enforcing ethics). We all know this is not the case (under normal circumstances), so It's not a stretch to say that there's something solid keeping it all together

Heh, no, we really don't. Your problem here is that you're taking basic facts and leading to a really far off conclusion. Like, basically you're saying, we're sentient beings... therefore we can all come to the same conclusions as far as moral philosophies go? That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

Yes, we're humans and it's probably not a good idea to cause someone pain or discomfort without a good reason. Most people can probably agree on this. But "good reason" is the big issue. That's such a tricky, fiddly issue. You can get into huge debates about that. That's the key. That's why we can't all agree on an objective system of ethics.

I don't know about that as far as rights go. Not everyone needs to agree on rights. Just enough people. But yeah, nah, you can't decide on rights objectively.

 

[QI 541]

For all practical purposes, we do. After all, are we not all united in our desire to live, and cope with the difficulties of life in a way that we find pleasing? For this reason, shouldn't our wills to do this be respected, and any attempts to hinder our abilities to do so be fairly punished?

This is philosophy. Practicality is irrelevant.

The word "ethics" isn't defined as "actions that limit suffering" or whatever other principles you're talking about. There may be a system of ethics that objectively limit overall suffering, and everyone on the planet may agree with it, but there's no objective basis that states that it's any better than another system of ethics.

Really, if there was no objective system of ethics, then there's no basis for rights (which are basically just ethics made into law), and no law to uphold (since that is just a means of enforcing ethics).

You're forgetting about non-objective systems of ethics. Perfectly possible to use those as a basis for rights and laws.

 

[Cwckifan]

You're forgetting about non-objective systems of ethics. Perfectly possible to use those as a basis for rights and laws.

And what would those be?

 

[Holdek]

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better', but rather show that there is an objective basis for ethics. Think of it like this; my philosophy doesn't justify harming innocent beings, excessive punishment, or being held responsible for not helping problems you have nothing to do with.

And it has been pointed out to you here by others that:

1. Your definition of "innocent" is not university accepted

2. Nor is "excessive punishment"

3. Nor is your claim of being detached from the problems that you have a very real involvement in creating, at least in combination with others

Do you know that folks like Henry Thoreau would be appalled that you pay taxes to fund a government doing unethical things, and that you elect rulers on whose orders those things are carried out?

That there is a movement to abolish imprisonment as a punishment because they consider incarceration inherently inhumane?

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

"Something tells" you? How do you know? The only thing you know about me is what I've said online and I haven't posted much about my opinions on the balance between individual rights and coercion for the greater good. You would be surprised.

 

[QI 541]

You're forgetting about non-objective systems of ethics. Perfectly possible to use those as a basis for rights and laws.

And what would those be?

Every system of ethics that exists.

 

[Cwckifan]

There isn't an objective basis for ethics. Your philosophy might meet your requirements, but not everyone has the same goals.

For all practical purposes, we do. After all, are we not all united in our desire to live, and cope with the difficulties of life in a way that we find pleasing? For this reason, shouldn't our wills to do this be respected, and any attempts to hinder our abilities to do so be fairly punished? Really, if there was no objective system of ethics, then there's no basis for rights (which are basically just ethics made into law), and no law to uphold (since that is just a means of enforcing ethics). We all know this is not the case (under normal circumstances), so It's not a stretch to say that there's something solid keeping it all together

Heh, no, we really don't. Your problem here is that you're taking basic facts and leading to a really far off conclusion. Like, basically you're saying, we're sentient beings... therefore we can all come to the same conclusions as far as moral philosophies go? That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

Not really; more like, we're all beings with a will, so we should all be allowed to peruse that will to our liking, and not stopped if it's causing no harm. So Marvin, are you saying we have no basis for laws or rights? Does that mean that if someone stole your stuff, cheated you, hurt you, or attacked you, there is no basis by which they could be in the wrong for doing so?

Yes, we're humans and it's probably not a good idea to cause someone pain or discomfort without a good reason. Most people can probably agree on this. But "good reason" is the big issue. That's such a tricky, fiddly issue. You can get into huge debates about that. That's the key. That's why we can't all agree on an objective system of ethics.

So, on what basis is our shared status as beings who'd like to cope and live as we'd like, not a good reason? Hell, isn't the whole issue of consent and will the reason why speeding is punished less harshly than murder, though they're both illegal?

I don't know about that as far as rights go. Not everyone needs to agree on rights. Just enough people. But yeah, nah, you can't decide on rights objectively.

Well, seeing as how everyone can agree that things that cause harm are bad (although the nature of that harm differs and shifts), I disagree. For what it's worth, though, I've said my piece, and there's no reason for me to keep repeating myself. Really, I don't know how you find justification in using the authorities to go after those who wrong you if there's no objective basis by which they can, but it must be indeed a very interesting way of acting

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better', but rather show that there is an objective basis for ethics. Think of it like this; my philosophy doesn't justify harming innocent beings, excessive punishment, or being held responsible for not helping problems you have nothing to do with.

And it has been pointed out to you here by others that:

1. Your definition of "innocent" is not university accepted

Not universally accepted? Neither is the existence of color, but that doesn't make it untrue.
2. Nor is "excessive punishment"
[/quote]
See above
3. Nor is your claim of being detached from the problems that you have a very real involvement in creating, at least in combination with others
[/quote]
Nobody with a functioning mind can say that I've ever killed any of my food, so that's a moot point. Really, the point of being 'responsible for' has been stretched so thin, that's it's basically meaningless. Hell, based on what I've seen, if someone assaults you for wearing something you didn't know was offensive to them, you're 'responsible' for that too!

Do you know that folks like Henry Thoreau would be appalled that you pay taxes to fund a government doing unethical things, and that you elect rulers on whose orders those things are carried out?

I have no choice on taxes, and I don't vote, so he has nothing to fear.

That there is a movement to abolish imprisonment as a punishment because they consider incarceration inherently inhumane?

So according to your reasoning, if anyone gets attacked by a criminal because of their actions, they're all responsible. I hope none of the people they help release is a murderer, because if anything happened they'd all be eligible for the chair

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

"Something tells" you? How do you know? The only thing you know about me is what I've said online and I haven't posted much about my opinions on the balance between individual rights and coercion for the greater good. You would be surprised.

So you're saying that you wouldn't be bothered if the federal government took your land without paying you, because you must serve what it thinks is the greater good? That you'd be okay with a criminal who attacked you getting off scot-free because it was 'your fault' for being in a place where it could happen, though you were minding your own business? That you'd be considered an accomplice to a crime, simply for not wanting to talk for fear of your life? Well if so, you'll have to teach me your ways, because if I would give my left arm to be that calm and centered.

 

[CatParty]

is pretty funny. (I don't think that's too far)

 

[Cwckifan]

And it has been pointed out to you here by others that:

1. Your definition of "innocent" is not university accepted

Not universally accepted? Neither is the existence of color, but that doesn't make it untrue.

2. Nor is "excessive punishment"

See above

3. Nor is your claim of being detached from the problems that you have a very real involvement in creating, at least in combination with others

Nobody with a functioning mind can say that I've ever killed any of my food, so that's a moot point. Really, the point of being 'responsible for' has been stretched so thin here, that's it's basically meaningless. Hell, based on what I've seen, if someone assaults you for wearing something you didn't know was offensive to them, you're 'responsible' for that too!

Do you know that folks like Henry Thoreau would be appalled that you pay taxes to fund a government doing unethical things, and that you elect rulers on whose orders those things are carried out?

I have no choice on taxes, and I don't vote, so he has nothing to fear.

That there is a movement to abolish imprisonment as a punishment because they consider incarceration inherently inhumane?

So according to your reasoning, if anyone gets attacked by a criminal because of their actions, they're all responsible. I hope none of the people they help release is a murderer, because if anything happened, they'd all be eligible for the chair

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

"Something tells" you? How do you know? The only thing you know about me is what I've said online and I haven't posted much about my opinions on the balance between individual rights and coercion for the greater good. You would be surprised.

So you're saying that you wouldn't be bothered if the federal government took your land without paying you, because you must serve what it thinks is the greater good? That you'd be okay with a criminal who attacked you getting off scot-free because it was 'your fault' for being in a place where it could happen, though you were minding your own business? That you'd be just fine with being considered an accomplice to a crime, simply for not wanting to talk for fear of your life, and not having anything to do with it? Well if so, you'll have to teach me your ways, because if I would give my left arm to be that calm and centered.

 

[brooklynbailiff]

So what's going on in here?

 

[Cwckifan]

So what's going on in here?

Ethics debate. I'm no trouble-maker, however, so if you'd like me to move it or stop, I will

 

[brooklynbailiff]

I just see people who won't agree with each other so why it continues to go on beats the hell out of me. But I don't care as long as everyone's civil.

 

[Marvin]

For all practical purposes, we do. After all, are we not all united in our desire to live, and cope with the difficulties of life in a way that we find pleasing? For this reason, shouldn't our wills to do this be respected, and any attempts to hinder our abilities to do so be fairly punished? Really, if there was no objective system of ethics, then there's no basis for rights (which are basically just ethics made into law), and no law to uphold (since that is just a means of enforcing ethics). We all know this is not the case (under normal circumstances), so It's not a stretch to say that there's something solid keeping it all together

Heh, no, we really don't. Your problem here is that you're taking basic facts and leading to a really far off conclusion. Like, basically you're saying, we're sentient beings... therefore we can all come to the same conclusions as far as moral philosophies go? That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

Not really; more like, we're all beings with a will, so we should all be allowed to peruse that will to our liking, and not stopped if it's causing no harm. So Marvin, are you saying we have no basis for laws or rights? Does that mean that if someone stole your stuff, cheated you, hurt you, or attacked you, there is no basis by which they could be in the wrong for doing so?

No, I'm saying there's no objective basis.

Yes, we're humans and it's probably not a good idea to cause someone pain or discomfort without a good reason. Most people can probably agree on this. But "good reason" is the big issue. That's such a tricky, fiddly issue. You can get into huge debates about that. That's the key. That's why we can't all agree on an objective system of ethics.

So, on what basis is our shared status as beings who'd like to cope and live as we'd like, not a good reason? Hell, isn't the whole issue of consent and will the reason why speeding is punished less harshly than murder, though they're both illegal?

It might be a good reason to some people. But it's not a basis from which you can perfectly derive your beliefs from. Other people might interpret it differently. They might not regard it as an important issue. You can't claim that your beliefs are completely objective.

I don't know about that as far as rights go. Not everyone needs to agree on rights. Just enough people. But yeah, nah, you can't decide on rights objectively.

Well, seeing as how everyone can agree that things that cause harm are bad (although the nature of that harm differs and shifts), I disagree. For what it's worth, though, I've said my piece, and there's no reason for me to keep repeating myself. Really, I don't know how you find justification in using the authorities to go after those who wrong you if there's no objective basis by which they can, but it must be indeed a very interesting way of acting

Everything has to be 100% objective for it to be OK for you? I think it's impossible to have a completely objective system of morals. In fact, I think past the "don't harm people without good reason" belief, nothing's objective. We can agree on most stuff. But we'll never have a point where you can claim your system is perfectly derivable from logic, without setting some base judgments to build on.

And I'm OK with subjecting a few people to a system that they don't agree with. It's pretty easy to justify. My goals in my moral beliefs are to avoid harming people without good reason and to keep myself comfortable. I think most people can agree on basic laws about theft and assault and things like that. And I don't care about the opinions of the people who don't agree, because that's such an obscure position that I'm not really worrying about it.

 

[Cwckifan]

I just see people who won't agree with each other so why it continues to go on beats the hell out of me. But I don't care as long as everyone's civil.

Ethics and philosophy is serious business, yo

No, I'm saying there's no objective basis.

So if there's no objective basis, how can they be wrong? Hell, isn't the whole idea of crime and law built on the 'understanding' that there's an objective basis for both? So if the cops though your being wronged wasn't a problem, you couldn't be compensated? How could you be okay with that?!

It might be a good reason to some people. But it's not a basis from which you can perfectly derive your beliefs from. Other people might interpret it differently. They might not regard it as an important issue. You can't claim that your beliefs are completely objective.

It's stable and solid, so I can't see how it's not at least very good. The basis on which I make them is, however, and there's really no room for interpretation, I'd contend.

Everything has to be 100% objective for it to be OK for you? I think it's impossible to have a completely objective system of morals. In fact, I think past the "don't harm people without good reason" belief, nothing's objective. We can agree on most stuff. But we'll never have a point where you can claim your system is perfectly derivable from logic, without setting some base judgments to build on.

Basically, yes. I mean, if you agree that 'don't hurt others without good reason' is pretty 'objective', then why not then move on to what those good reasons are? They're basically in the same vein, and it's good to have no ambigouity when dealing with ethics and law

And I'm OK with subjecting a few people to a system that they don't agree with. It's pretty easy to justify. My goals in my moral beliefs are to avoid harming people without good reason and to keep myself comfortable. I think most people can agree on basic laws about theft and assault and things like that. And I don't care about the opinions of the people who don't agree, because that's such an obscure position that I'm not really worrying about it.

I agree with your morals, and our main point of contention is that nobody could ethically chastise or punish you for that under my philosophy, but not so under yours. Since it has served you well, however, rock on

 

[Batman VS Tony Danza]

My mind is closed on this subject. Mmyeah.