The Reason for Expressing Opinions
When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed.
NOTE: Edit for clarity. I am NOT saying all 'opinions' are made in 'anger'/'annoyance'. I was putting forward that all 'opinions' (about things that we care about) originate from an initial position of 'anger'/'annoyance' in reaction to 'fear'.
Given that being logic and rational is something we often hear as being productive in argumentation this begs the question as to why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality.
What is the benefit of such annoyance/anger?
I believe the benefit is to create a feeling of extreme tension, a blind fury within that recognises the need for a paradigm shift - to 'break the mold'. To an extreme opposition one either dismisses outright or contends with in a fury.
In an argument nothing seems to infuriate more than being dismissed, so in the long run if one person dismisses the argument of another they do not decrease net annoyance/anger they might well increase it. The tension will exist for someone due to one person refusing to take the tension on - reasonably so or otherwise.
My minimal conclusion here is that being completely rational beings would make us stagnated and unable to move forward or backwards. The rational mind without an irrational nature is utterly useless.
NOTE: Edit for clarity. I am NOT saying all 'opinions' are made in 'anger'/'annoyance'. I was putting forward that all 'opinions' (about things that we care about) originate from an initial position of 'anger'/'annoyance' in reaction to 'fear'.
Given that being logic and rational is something we often hear as being productive in argumentation this begs the question as to why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality.
What is the benefit of such annoyance/anger?
I believe the benefit is to create a feeling of extreme tension, a blind fury within that recognises the need for a paradigm shift - to 'break the mold'. To an extreme opposition one either dismisses outright or contends with in a fury.
In an argument nothing seems to infuriate more than being dismissed, so in the long run if one person dismisses the argument of another they do not decrease net annoyance/anger they might well increase it. The tension will exist for someone due to one person refusing to take the tension on - reasonably so or otherwise.
My minimal conclusion here is that being completely rational beings would make us stagnated and unable to move forward or backwards. The rational mind without an irrational nature is utterly useless.
Comments (219)
No, no. This is what you should say - "When [s]we[/s] I express an opinion or argument it is because [s]we are[/s] I am annoyed/angry with something that causes [s]us[/s] me distress.
I don't know which is worse, your reasons for participating in the forum, or your chutzpah for thinking you can speak for the rest of us.
Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? If not why comment? What drove you to comment. What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with.
This is kind of the position I am putting up for discussion.
Yes, there was. That doesn't mean that all, most, or many of my posts are for that reason. If you really meant what you wrote, your understanding of philosophy and this forum is shallow and self-centered.
Speak for yourself.
I would have to go back and re-read a lot of old discussions, but it seems like you have presented the "tension" argument before. You seem to suppose that a relaxed resting state is abnormal and that we generate tension to enliven ourselves and our social scene. Conflict, intense emotion, tension, etc. make us feel better.
There is some validity to your view. In times of danger and threat we are on high alert, physically primed for action. Your 'tension' in other words. IF someone presents an opinion that cuts across one's most basic and cherished thinking (somebody says, for instance, that we should institute a forced abortion program to cut own the excess population) we might well experience tension, arousal, and would start marshaling arguments against this view.
Most of the time, though, other people's opinions do not rile us up that way. We can deal with others' opinions without tension developing.
At any rate, I think our "go to state" is one of quiet, restful, homeostasis--most of the time. Still, I recognize that sometimes we like to pick a fight, just for its excitement value--or tension.
After all, if an opinion is expressed that conflicts with one's own and one thinks it to be completely without merit, wouldn't the logical response be to laugh?
Personally I express my views and ideas here to have them scrutinized, and occasionally to help someone.
Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack.
Anyway, have a appointment …
Not sure I would frame it like that. I was perhaps thinking as simple resistance to items that are our ‘axis mundi’ (the core of our existed experience). Maybe such opposition and strong feelings towards something hit at some underlying hidden aspect of us?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes. It is more clear cut in some cases. I did frame this as anger/annoyance rather than plain anger. I am of the belief that we are driven by how we ‘feel’ about something first and foremost and this is where this line of thinking stems from and why I’m looking for argumentation against it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
In which case we ignore them or don’t take them seriously (see reply from T Clark) which then leads to the opening up of anger/annoyance for one party. I would say most of the time someone is riled. If not the discussion/debate/argument quickly dies and can hardly be called such.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why do you think this? What are you basing this on?
It's a trade-off. You can think you're right about everything like and so be immune to criticism or anger, but at the cost of looking like a moron due to being sure of something very wrong. Bartricks is a good example. Or you can think that every view has merit leading to constant doubt and anger when it comes to deeply held beliefs, but also meaning you will constantly improve your point of view and reach greater understanding.
I'm closer to the latter but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the stress.
Right - Truth Paradox.
The desire to be right bespeaks a respect and admiration for truth. To be annoyed when you're contradicted/dismissed implies that you don't care about the truth.
Everyone wants to be right and everyone goes off the deep end when they're told they're wrong.
We both value truth and don't value it.
I think that's a very good point For example, people get furious at anti-vax (or pro-vax) opinions, aware as we all are of uncertainties that could affect life and death. They don't generally pay much attention to the idea that the government is run by alien lizards, being fairly secure in the knowledge that it isn't.
Not for me.
Quoting I like sushi
Not clear to me.
How do we not dismiss each other's positions/ideas/beliefs OR how do we dismiss each other and move on without loss?
We can call someone a crackpot theorist and ridicule them but that will openly encourage anger/annoyance. Ignoring/dismissing them will also cause anger/annoyance. If anger and annoyance are generally counterproductive to rational discourse and rational thought how can we trust our own opinion? If we can to what degree?
Quoting I like sushi
I wondered about that as well. I think the charitable reading is that the OP's question is limited to those opinions that make us angry or upset.
Quoting I like sushi
Thanks for trying the charitable perspective though :)
When I create a thread here, it's principally to survey critique. I'm inviting difference of opinion, the benefits of which are: 1) if my thinking is crap, friends here will demonstrate that, saving me from wasting more time on it; 2) if it's solid, I can demonstrate that to myself by defending it (like a thesis defense); 3) if it's kind of there but flawed, discussion will help develop the bits that need developing.
I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. I think it's generally the mode of discourse that enrages: hypocrisy, bullshitting, etc. If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me.
I started a thread here ages ago that a couple of good people destroyed in no time at all. I thought that was great. It was clearly an incorrect thesis and I'm glad it didn't take 15 pages to realise that.
I agree that doubt and scrutinizing one's own ideas is good for the reasons you listed. I'm not sure if anger is that constructive, though. It seems to often function as a mask to hide one's doubts and inhibit impartial observation.
I was putting forward an argument.
It is up to me to convince you that you do cast out opinions due to anger/annoyance and if I cannot convince you then my argument needs work in some way.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
That is standard. I am looking to rock the boat. If you are convinced you cannot fall out so be it.
I am inviting conflict with what I have put out. I want conflict. I don't see how anyone can be motivated to cast out an opinion without understanding that it is meant to cause conflict. If it doesn't it is going nowhere fast. If no one cares it is frustrating (annoying) as one puts out opinions to test them.
Perhaps I am just being too liberal with the term anger/annoyance for your liking. That is annoying and I can look to correct it.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I think there is a problem here with referring to some ideas as 'horrible'. I don't see ideas as 'horrible' they are just ideas. Some have more use than others. Ideas that have no use are not 'ideas,' but there are certainly people out there who put forward things they call 'ideas' that I don't call 'ideas'.
Either way, I never stated that ideas are the source of anger. I stated that expressing an opinion is due to anger/annoyance. This doesn't have to be external and I'd suggest that is could be more commonly inward anger/annoyance (hence the need to get feedback).
Quoting Kenosha Kid
When people have strong personal opinions they are blind to reason quite often. We are all prone to this in day-to-day life and it is something we're meant to guard against on forums like this (but there are plenty of instances where this doesn't happen I'm sure you'd agree).
Extending to this extreme I concluded that out rational inclination are due to our irrational nature.
Look at this in the light of the first sentence that has bothered people (as it was meant to):
Quoting I like sushi
The 'something' not necessarily a 'someone'. As the strain increases the so does annoyances and frustrations - be they directed where here or there. When the opinion held matters more and more to us then the price and tension is higher. Necessarily that which matters most to us will, inevitably, hold us in place because of a 'something' we will defend to the death (so to speak):
Quoting I like sushi
I think I could have written this much better in hindsight (as I knew would be the case). I did to make a delineation between a mere whimsical 'view' and a strong 'view'. Whimsy has it's place, but I wouldn't really call an 'opinion' a 'whimsy'. Throwing out some random thoughts is not he same as casting out an 'opinion' don't you think?
...except when two people agree, I guess. I mean, two people saying "Hey, I love avocados too just like you!" are not necessarily trying to have a fight about avocadoes.
Stating others' opinions for them without surveying them at all, even to bolster your argument, is dismissive. It also shows a lack in theory of mind.
Quoting I like sushi
From the same post:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
(i.e.there are abhorrent ideas that will always generate anger*)
Quoting Kenosha Kid
On the first:
Quoting I like sushi
It's not uncommon for people even on here to promote ideas that would harm, kill, or constrain the liberties of groups of people that, by definition, the poster could not be counted among. Such ideas are abhorrent, and I believe it's a deficiency of humanity to not feel disgusted by them. Obviously said posters would disagree on both points :)
* Actually there are also _kind_ ideas that will always generate anger too. The same sorts of poster who post abhorrent ideas like the above tend to be enraged by notions like helping others, and enraged by the liberties of others to explore political options. So it goes both ways.
Postmodernism is also a great way to piss people off :rofl:
To repeat ... this was a conscious choice to make a point about people getting annoyed and being dismissive. That is was a carefully laid trap is also part and parcel of my point about being 'angry'/'annoyed'.
If you view some ideas as 'abhorrent' then are you absconding from reason by doing so? Of course I think some ideas are terrible too in life but as an item for philosophical discussion I tend to look at why I feel that way as a point of interest if I can manage it.
Postmodernism has its positive quirks I think :D
But there are other things one can do with language and philosophy. Discussion can be cooperative as well as combative; teaching and learning can be a mutual and shared activity. Personally, I find myself getting angry quite often, but when I notice it, I tend to stop posting for a while, because I learn little when angry.
And to repeat, rationalising why you did it doesn't mean you didn't really do it. And you don't _seem_ to be unconcerned on being pulled up on it given your apparent aim was to be pulled up on it.
Quoting I like sushi
No, I think it's perfectly reasonable to find lots of things abhorrent. Ethics is "practical reason", right?
I'm not sure if that is true, but I think an attachment to views and ideas is unconstructive. Views and ideas should be dismissed the moment they are found to contradict with reality, and generally that dismissal is much easier if one does not feel any attachment to them.
An attachment only to what one can discern to be true! (though, in practice that will usually translate to dismissing everything one can discern to be untrue). While simultaneously aware of the fact that the truth does not need one's attachment or one's angry defense of it - it needs only to be unleashed.
When it comes to arguing with others I lean towards viewing my position as being wrong and any annoyance I feel as a sign there is something important afoot.
This is why I say expressing an 'opinion' is rooted in this.
The replies you are giving here I would call expressing an opinion and I am sure you have vested emotions in your responses and thoughts. I am also sure they are not concrete and where anything isn't concrete we're open to error and missing certain items.
I also understand that we may choose to tell ourselves there is more benefit in understanding what someone is saying, why they are saying and investigating how they arrived at that point. Somewhere in the differentiation there is a drive that shifts us to dismiss some part of their point or question our own. This is necessarily an unpleasant experience. As with physicists who have followed a theory for decades on end putting all their effort in to and then finding out it was completely the wrong path, we too are not simply joyed by the discovery of error we have to let our beliefs die and this is equivalent to mourning.
I believe there are different stages of mourning (or grief) that might point at what I mean more readily. I am talking about 'opinions' that bear some weight to them not some whimsy - certainly things like 'it is my opinion that chocolate tastes good'.
Yes, me too. If I've spent hours, days, weeks on an idea I wish to share on here, it's not whimsy. However I'd still rather it be torn apart than spending yet more time on an unworkable idea. Anger doesn't enter into it, and isn't a metric for sincerity.
People are often mistaken. Changing your mind the second you think it contradicts reality, will lead to changing it too often I think. There is merit in some stubbornness. Too many greats were great precisely because they believed what was irrational for their time to believe, and slowly convinced the rest. Van Gogh believed his paintings were great even when everyone believed otherwise, etc.
It's easy to look back and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational", but really, it usually takes an irrationally stubborn person to break the mold. There will be a future time where we look back at this era and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational".
Legal slavery would've continued to modern times if people never got angry at it.
Entitlement. "I simply have the right to express my opinions, and other must listen to them."
Duty. "I simply must express my opinions, it's what a person is supposed to do."
Compassion and teaching. "Oh, look at those poor sods, how wrong they are. It's high time I tell them how things really are, for their own betterment."
Bewilderment. "I must talk, no matter what, where, to whom."
Boredom. "Meh, I've got nothing better to do, so I'll talk."
Delusions of grandeur. "Look at me, I'm so great, I have such fancy opinions!"
Pugilism. "I'll show those motherfuckers what it means to disagree with my thoughts!!"
Not necessarily. Slavery is instrumental to a type of argiculture or industry that is aimed at producing a lot of the same thing or completing large projects. Such as massive plantations of cotton or sugar cane, or building pyramids. Where, for geographical, climate, or other environmental reasons such monocultures are impossible or are made impossible (such as by long droughts, floods, or pests), the agriculture and the industry need to downsize and diversify in order to survive at all, but by then, are not conducive to slavery anymore, at least not mass slavery.
I responded to your post because I thought you misrepresented my, and most forum member's, motivations for participating. That bothered me. I don't think I have anything of value to contribute beyond that. It is not my intention to dismiss your ideas, although I disagree with them, or yourself.
Is this comment directed at @I like sushi or me.
That's the way it seemed to me, but I wasn't sure.
I can't see how there can be any proposition that cannot be negated. That is, for any proposition A, there is a proposition not A. That would hold true for all propositions, those of opinion, those of fact, those of desire, hope and wish, or any proposition of any kind.
Quoting I like sushi
It is my opinion that dark gray and black cars look the best. If you think light colored cars are better, that really wouldn't matter to me.
Then you wouldn't post this as an argument in an OP would you. I am not talking about some mere whimsical 'opinion'.
None of this would mean slavery would be made illegal. It would just start to become an ineffective farming strategy. But would still be used in things like prostitution very widely I would guess. That would be the outcome if people never got angry at slavery and went to war over it.
Personally, I can’t stand conflict. I don’t like how it makes me feel. In fact, I have never once felt better during or after a conflict ended than I did before it began.
Having said that, here in internet land, it’s easy to feel like almost everyone is looking for something to be angry or irritated about b/c it just seems to be the case.
Anyway, I enjoyed your post OP, “well done”. =)
There's difference between when one finds their ideas in contradiction to reality, and one finds their ideas in contradiction to other people's opinions, of course.
If the latter is the case, by all means stay stubborn. Never yield your points just because a lot of people think differently. Philosophy is between you and reality.
Quoting khaled
Regardless of the time period, the majority of people has always been ignorant and I don't think that will ever change. There are always small specks of starlight in every time period: the Platos, Buddhas, Lao-Tzes of history, who carry the true torch of human advancement.
Regardless of time period, minds which are so inclined will look at the old sages and realize their wisdom is no less relevant today, and the masses no less ignorant, and that human advancement has taken baby steps, not leaps, over the course of thousands of years.
Doesn’t seem very healthy either. A schizophrenic may be absolutely convinced of all sorts of plots and demons. But it would be way better for them to yield because people think differently.
Quoting Tzeentch
If we could so easily extract truth out of reality, we would’ve solved philosophy in an afternoon.
The problem is that we don’t access reality. We access perceptions of reality. Our own and others’. Others’ perceptions are often important if not sometimes more important than our own.
Anyways this has deviated from the topic of anger/annoyance into some vague epistemology.
And my point is that underneath it is essentially about 'anger/annoyance'. This my be self directed.
It looks like what you've hit upon here is indeed some inadvertent self-insight. On the whole, people don't seem to be posting to generate or manifest anger. What next? Are you trying to convince us that we _should_?
Why do you post anything that you care about? To share it? Why? What is the underlying point of sharing something you care about?
I think it is clear enough that you would share something you care about because you expect it will challenge others and because you are looking for conflicting opinions. you might well say that doesn't mean it is posed in 'anger/annoyance' which is NOT what I saying at all.
I am saying that we are at odds with something and believe that our 'opinion'/'view' expressed opens up a path of investigation or even offers a potential solution. Without 'anger'/'annoyance' we wouldn't even recognise a problem. We are not robots operating under some logical method to sustain ourselves in life. We are emotional beings.
Often people put a lot of weight in 'fear' as an orientating force (and I would agree), but it is inhibiting where 'anger'/'annoyance' is not merely inhibiting it is also a drive to act against something.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Read the rest of the opening post and see what the conclusion is and tell me if it is worthy or not.
Quoting I like sushi
Okay, so do you have an auxiliary theory for explaining why people who cast out opinions they care about because of anger like you say they do don't describe themselves as doing that?
If we care about something we are emotionally vested in it. There is a cost and potential loss in caring about something. When met with any form of opposition we will not simply give way if we care about it. The opinion is formed based on a conflict we recognise and feel something towards. If we are all bubbles of joy and happiness about a new 'opinion' expressing it means it is an antidote to something without bubbles of joy - it is a reaction against something. If we oppose something we do so from a fundamentally emotional position and the base of this is 'anger'/'annoyance'.
What is more anyone who offers a counter to what we say is breaking the opinion up because it counters, or could counter, their own opinion that they care about.
Why don't we recognise this most of the time? It can be subtle. We make up reasons for our thoughts/actions all the time for various reasons. Often this is precise where we are not happy about having the rug pulled out from under us so we're talking mostly about fear in respect to the reason for denying our irrational and/or questionable opinions.
Maybe think of 'bravery' as being what I am talking about here. But I think the term 'bravery' is merely one of those trick words used to cover up a base emotional feeling - 'anger'/'annoyance'.
Would you agree that the things we care about the most have the greatest potential to make us express anger? If not explain how if you can. If you agree run with that in terms of what I've been trying to say and see if that is of any use.
I take it this bit of your post is the bit that actually answers my question: if the majority believe they do not offer their opinion out of anger/annoyance, they are simply overlooking the fact, right? :rofl:
A schizophrenic or otherwise delusional person is not healthy to begin with and first needs a psychiatrist, not philosophy.
Quoting khaled
I never said it was going to be easy.
Quoting khaled
Sometimes, but only to the degree one can find those perceptions to be concordant with reality. Again, it is truth that leads, not the opinions of others.
That they are schizophrenic is your opinion (and most everyone else's). Not the schizophrenic's. And yet it would not be commendable for him to push on absolutely convinced of what he sees. Even if to him, that is what is concordant with reality.
Quoting Tzeentch
If I believe A and you believe B, that is because I see A as concordant with reality and you see B as concordant with reality. If one of us is wrong, and we only change our minds when we believe that the opposite view is concordant with reality, neither of us will change our view.
It seems like you're employing the justified true belief definition of knowledge here. Or at least the "true" bit. We should only believe things that are true (concordant with reality) and discard those that aren't. But if we had a method for unfailingly knowing what is concordant with reality and what isn't, we wouldn't need epistemology at all.
If we don't have such a method, then we must decide for ourselves what is concordant and what isn't, so saying that we should only change our minds in concordance with reality adds nothing. Everyone will think they're doing it and it's those damn *insert group of different belief here* that are the problem!
I thought wrote I wrote above was at least a much better way to express what I meant but obviously not by your response.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Fact? I am expressing an opinion and one that I am interested about (clearly). Am I angry about the replies? Not particularly. Am I a little annoyed? Yes, because I could've done a better job here and avoided misunderstandings.
What at the core do I care about here? I care about over rationalising, the potential detriment of cantankerous argumentation, the potential of such cantankerousness, and 'emotions' being framed as counterproductive in instances where they may be better viewed as productive.
Maybe working back from my minimal conclusion would make more sense? I summed up by stating that our irrational nature is the reason we're able to progress in any manner. If there is literally no benefit to 'anger'/'annoyance' in argumentation then do we really spend time telling ourselves that it is necessarily a detriment to discourse or could we perhaps question this absolutist position that 'anger'/'annoyance' in philosophical discourse is not actually such a detriment and can help us to understand why positions and arguments are formed and how best to wield such items.
This is what I have done and I have come to see that every 'opinion' and 'drive' I have in life is due to an underlying feeling of 'anger'/'annoyance' brought about by the unavoidable confliction existence brings with it. We are 'roused' to respond and such arousal is 'anger'/'annoyance' after fear slips into the recesses. The age old 'flight or fight' point but viewed on the level of cognition.
Another look would be to answer what interests you? Clearly enough things that we care about and we care about them because they interest us. Why though? Do we care about things that are generally classed as bad or good? A silly question as we care about what is good and what is bad necessarily by how those terms are used. Some things we don't really care about much if at all. Some things that we once never cared about we grow to care about more and more or less and less. How does this variable attitude of caring change? Primarily 'fear' which is followed up by 'anger'/'annoyance' as we attend to the negative experiences more than the positive ones.
And that's fine. Again, I view philosophy as being a personal thing, between myself and reality, and no one else. Other views can help by scrutinizing one's ideas, or open up new avenues of thought, but my own judgement should take precedence. Correspondingly, I don't expect nor want people to adopt my views. If the schizophrenic believes they will be happy amidst their "perception of reality", let them.
Quoting khaled
Yes, and?
Don't these things only matter if one is concerned with convincing others?
Quoting khaled
In practice it often means to discard those things that one can discern not to be reality, along the Socratic lines of knowing one does not know anything, acknowledging one's ignorance, etc.
Quoting khaled
Indeed!
Quoting khaled
I don't see those as a problem. (At least not one that concerns my practice of philosophy)
If individuals wish to remain ignorant, let them. What concern is that of mine?
Quoting Tzeentch
Fair enough. Someone who is not trying to convince or change others does not need anger or annoyance nor do they really need to justify their beliefs further than "Because I think so". I see where you're coming from.
I doubt you will hold this view if the Schizophrenic believes you to be the leader of the operation to assassinate them however.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes. Which I'm sure you occasionally try to do, like on AN threads.
Quoting Tzeentch
Their ignorance can be a danger to you. It is a problem if left alone long enough. Example: COVID. When I see ignorance, I don't correct it not because I don't think it's a problem, but because I either don't think I'm qualified (not sure they're actually ignorant) or because I can't be bothered (Bartricks).
That's really the only problem I have with your view. We're interconnected, we need to agree on some way of determining when someone's right or wrong further than pure individual judgements. Because ignorance is dangerous. But we can't be too strict or else we'll stagnate.
It's a balancing act. Angry activism has its place, and so does calm argument. Neither is redundant.
Yeah I get the first part, it's the I-We transition that everyone has questioned from the start. You have recognised this feature in yourself, so presumably you have been able to compare theory to practice in that particular case. You've then generalised from I to We and the analogous empirical checks have proven negative. You seem to be rejecting pathology as the differentiator as you're sticking with generalising from a sample of 1 above by treating I and We interchangeably.
The question is extremely simple, and I feel you're evading it with verbosity. If you're sticking with that generalisation in spite of the evidence, how do you account for the evidence to the contrary? Is it, as it seems, as simple as:
Quoting I like sushi
? 'We' don't recognise it all the time. 'I' (you) recognise it, but 'We' don't, because it's subtle. If not that, what?
I didn't generalise I to WE I put it forward that this is a human feature. If you don't agree you might get somewhere if you outline why rather than simply stating 'I disagree'. I have outlined why I am saying it seems to be true for everyone but it is an 'opinion' based upon looking at common features of human behavior - so it is general as it has to be.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This is just an example of you not understanding and doubling down on what you think I mean even though I've literally said it doesn't matter if people cast an 'opinion' they care about and do so without anger/annoyance ... that wasn't at all what I was saying and I've stated it and explained it more than once now.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This has nothing to do with anything here other than some weird obsession with you believing I am talking for you - kind of a small stench of annoyance here (as was admitted by the other poster on this subject). Why does it annoy you? You are annoying me right now a little (that's okay, I can be patient).
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This question of 'evidence' is redundant as you're putting forward an argument against something I have no quarrel with. Your 'evidence' is that people here don't feel angry/annoyed when they express an opinion (or at least mostly don't feel this). I already said I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with my point at all as I was not talking simply about how people express themselves in the given moment I was also looking at where the 'opinion' comes from and how it arises. I have laid this out already but apparently it is too verbose so maybe your eyes glazed over whilst reading it.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This doesn't even make sense.
Given that I am putting forward the position there is actually nothing much wrong with saying 'we'. I am saying we do this and I have outlined why and how. If you can counter this with something more substantial than empty opposition we might get something from this.
Do I really need to spoon feed an example? here we go ...
I find myself on a cliff and I feel fear. I carry around a fear of heights but also find myself in a position in the future where something I want for requires me to climb to a height. I feel angry/annoyed at myself for being fearful and this anger/annoyance drives me on to achieve what I need to achieve to reach my goal.
There is a REALLY obvious counter argument to this that I would like to explore with someone other than myself. I am angry/annoyed at myself because I am currently unable to expand on this view.
Maybe this is too subtle for you - I say prodding you ;)
The paranoid schizophrenics are out to get me!
Quoting khaled
I post on this forum to test my ideas, not to convince strangers. Whether people like those ideas or find them convincing is of no interest - only their arguments are.
Quoting khaled
You and I are not connected beyond this conversation. I don't believe in an interconnectedness with people whom I have never met or influenced in any meaningful way.
Allusions to interconnectedness (especially on this forum) sooner or later always seem to turn into impositions of one's opinions on how others should live their lives. Apparently the "interconnectedness" that these people feel never turns into a respect for the views of the people they supposedly feel so connected with, but instead it turns into entitlements - it is a mask hiding a simple desire for power over others. I find such argumentation to come across as incredibly phoney.
Food for thought perhaps; the persons who seem to genuinely feel interconnectedness also seem to have very little desire to inject their opinions into other people's private lives.
PS: A bit of a tangent, but not aimed at you personally.
IOW, reason is a slave to passion (Hume).
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You are putting forward a claim that 'we' behave in a certain way. You check this against yourself and it holds up. You check it against others and it does not. I don't need to prove a whole other general theory in order to refute yours: it's sufficient that the data doesn't fit the theory.
So what I'm asking, and what you seem to be avoiding answering, is: how do you account for the discrepancy? Given that most people don't recognise your statements about 'We' as referring to them, and that you still conflate I and We, what is your thinking?
I won't ask you again to explain. You either have an ability to defend your idea or not, and it's looking like not given that, even when you've been described as evading the point with irrelevant verbiage, you evaded the point with irrelevant verbiage.
Good. Bye.
Extrapolating from 'fear' as a primary drive there are ways to 'cope' with fear. I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).
If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding).
In short: emotional intelligence is about using your emotions, their energy and wisdom. It's not about suppressing our emotions, nor is it about taking them at face value. It's about unbundling them and understanding them.
So what is your anger telling you about the kind of exchanges that happen here on TPF? What do you expect of them, that you are not actually getting? Try and be specific. Are you just angry at a mere disagreement, eg like a believer faced with incredulity? You seem to be saying so in your OP, but surely you must know that philosophy, like politics or religion, is a domain where disagreements are always a plenty, and where disagreement is to be expected, not agreement.
So why are you angry, really?
What anger?
Quoting Olivier5
I am not angry I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' and saying (but not being heard) that when we (we humans) express an 'opinion' we care about we are doing so as a result of something that has initiated 'anger'/'annoyance'. I am NOT saying (and I want to be clear about this again) that EVERY 'opinion' cast about something we care about is done with anger/annoyance. I am saying that the root from which the opinion sprang is from an instance of 'anger'/'annoyance' (which could be anything internal or external).
I am actively seeking disagreement not psychotherapy. Although one could argue they have some similarities ;)
Quoting Olivier5
I'm not. Again, I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' which is not the same as 'being angry'.
I furthered my proposition by stating that 'fear' is the core and that 'anger'/'annoyance' is how we deal with fear in a 'progressive' manner (as in productive rather than curly up in a ball and dying). Something akin to cognitive flight or fight; as an analogy.
The problem the guy had above was to repeat that evidence that someone doesn't feel 'angry'/annoyed' when they express an opinion about something they care about is evidence enough to dismiss that they were led to that point by something other than 'anger'/'annoyance' from which I am saying is the birth place from which we eventually come to express an 'opinion'.
Think of it like this ... we exist. We are at odds with many things around us. Our understanding and capacities are limited. We face problems and we are fearful. We 'cope' with fear by avoiding it or combating it. I am saying 'anger'/annoyance' is certainly a way to combat fear, and I am also putting a bold foot forward and saying it is the only real way.
The floor is yours. What is another way to combat fear? You will know what I mean if you have put some thought into some really dark topics and found things you didn't want to find. Think Jungian Shadow is that helps to get to grips with what I am saying.
Note: Just because I am saying it is the ONLY good way I am not saying I believe it is the only good way. Tell me something else if you can.
Do you mean that if I ask your opinion about TPF, you would express it only if you get annoyed or angry? :smile:
Apparently no one cares to admit that they are anything but curiously serene about practically any thought they've ever had about anything that matters to them.
Maybe I am one in a million with whom it takes more then passive serenity to get anywhere with any meaning. I doubt it I am that abnormal though :D
He's getting somewhere...
Quoting I like sushi
So close!
You aren't understanding. It can be true that people engage with anger without it always being true, and having to be true.
Ok, in general terms then, my first reaction is that you have to include positive tropisms, not just negative ones, among the motivating forces for expressing opinions. Emotions like desire or love must account for something too.
It is clear enough what 'anger'/'annoyance' is and how this makes us act in opposition to a problem. I don't really see how 'love' or 'desire' is a natural response to 'fear'. I want you to argue the point in more depth if you can as I am sure there is weight to it.
If you're using 'love' then I think it would help to outline how this works in the initial stages where fear has a grip of us.
It's not a natural response to fear. It is the polar opposite, conceptually. Think of it in terms of tropisms, a term from botany which means "involuntary orientation by an organism that involves turning nearer or away from some simulation. AKA a positive or negative response to a source of stimulation. Fear is a negative tropism, while desire is positive one.
:up: :100:
Quoting Olivier5
More generally, you may be interested in any of the versions of the "wheel of emotions" out there, to broaden your emotional palette. The concept is from psychologist Robert Plutchik.
Which could make it illegal.
I'm not convinced about this anger angle. It could be anger, or it could be disgust, revulsion, righteous indignation, strategizing, or just plain disagreement.
It's also not clear what anger can actually accomplish. Sure, if those at the top get angry at those below, this can accomplish things. But not the other way around. Getting angry with your boss and letting him know it will probably get you fired.
There is a popular idea, usually only implied, that in order to stand up for oneself, one needs to get angry. Do you believe this, if yes, why?
(As for the US Civil War, it seems that the abolition of slavery was just a "nominal theme", and that the war was actually about a number of other things.)
But you still have an opinion about it! :smile: Also you cared enough to tell me your opinion about my comment! :smile: (I must not expect to get more after this! :smile:)
Opinions are all philosophers have to share. As well, as people in forums. In fact, as everyone else in any discussion.
Quoting I like sushi
There's a huge distance between being "serene" (which is something very difficult to achieve anyway) and being annoyed, angry and in distress, that you are talking about at the start of your topic.
Maybe you you should give it some slack ... :smile:
[quote=Heraclitus]War is the father of all and king of all; and some he shows as gods, others as men, some he makes slaves, others free.[/quote]
[quote=Heraclitus]We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.[/quote]
In terms of this thread I was categorising ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as something that encompasses precisely those kinds of attitudes. It is perhaps easier to see what I mean by looking at an extreme example like slavery (in today’s perspective).
The fault in the position I’ve posed lies in showing that a strong emotional feeling towards something we’re at odds with can be met with anything other than the terms you’ve outlined. The other problem would be delineating between what is an ‘opinion we care about’ and a ‘mere opinion that carries no significant weight/concern’.
Quoting Olivier5
Good :)
In terms cognition and the realm of ‘opinions’ and such ‘fear’ is not something we can avoid. Stimulus can be attractive or repulsive, but we cannot avoid something we don’t know about. A baby will put its hand in a fire and learn to fear fire. Clearly the heat attracts us and the beauty too. We’re curious about the physical appearance of something and stick our hand out to investigate. We do not merely ‘fear’ fire we discover a reason to fear fire. Our immediate reaction is not to ‘desire’ this ‘fear’ though.
To put this concisely. A fear is in place to avoid harm/hurt/death. A desire is not necessarily about avoiding harm/hurt/death. I am sure you can argue against this too so go ahead and assume I can counter either way (even id I cannot!) and proceed …
Looking at the unknown in general we can say something here that touches more on what I think you’re saying. The unknown is laden with intrigue and fear. I am not denying that intrigue guides us too (the need to explore and discover) but I am saying ‘fear’ is a stronger force that needs to be overcome. We fear something because it hurts us or we perceive it as being able to hurt us. The stronger the fear the less likely we are willing to face it. Regardless we are attentive to harm as harm can kill us whereas intrigue and investigation are also helpful they are not to do with an immediate avoidance of harm/hurt they are about overcoming fear though. The strong interest/curiosity in some item that is feared may certainly be a reason to dispute ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as the primary motivator - this was the only other reason I could come up with myself.
From there I asked what is more likely? This can also be framed as what is the most efficient way to deal with a fear. Efficient would be a way to deal with fear immediately - our reactions.
As a quick aside: to be clear I am thinking of still in terms of human evolution and how the physical world and physical harm translate into psychological harm and a cognitive world. No doubt humans are (as Sapolsky puts it) ‘confused apes’ as we’re neither one thing nor another. We are an ‘in between’ species where our sex distinction is minimal (compared to other apes) and our ‘weltanschuaang’ (world view) is not merely about physical presence and preservation. We are ‘hurt’ thoughts not merely physical abrasion.
Anyway enough. Will reply to comment just posted which may help finish off what I wanted to say to you:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I have an ‘opinion’ I care about in terms of caring about how you’re framing ‘opinion’. ;)
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes there is. My counter to this is that ‘fear’ has a stronger impact upon our behavior than (as framed above) ‘desire’. Meaning attraction as opposed to repulsion. We repulse from something dangerous to stay alive whereas we are attracted to something else and somewhere else that has less unknowns and therefore less ‘fear’/‘danger’ but still some. Note: talking about cognition here not merely chemical interactions.
An example might help here. Let us say that some evidence comes to light that your opposite sex is superior in every way and that they’ve been repressed due to some random circumstances. The education system is changed and your opposite sex is elevated in status far above you (every member of this sex). If you voice any opposition to this new educational scheme that will effectively turn you into someone with vastly diminished rights and powers would you do so with fear in your heart or not? I would say you would be fearful as it is something that is potentially going to cause you harm/hurt/death. You would clearly care about this too so your opinion would matter to you. Is your initial reaction one of serenity and calm or are you confounded by such news and instantly opposed to it? For myself I would most certainly be instantly opposed to such a thing as it threatens my immediate life. If considered in a broader scope I may bring myself to look at it in a different light and rather than face the fear I may just move into something else beyond ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ and adjust my attitudes.
My point is this. My concern is absolutely embedded in the proposition of harm/hurt/death to me though not in investigation. Even if we’re talking about ‘intrigue’/‘curiosity’/‘exploration’ we are treading on ‘feared’ ground in that it is a journey into the unknown. The higher the cognitive appreciation of how ‘unknown’ said ground is the more ‘fear’ there is present. We will choose the lesser ‘fears’ and tell ourselves they are ‘voyages of discovery’ rather than admit they merely contain just the right amount of fear to make life seem bearable.
The serene logical and emotionally void stance is perhaps worse than the raging, wrathful defiance in opposition to something truly horrific. The serene path is denial, passivity and avoidance, the ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ path is denial and confrontation.
The most intriguing thought I find from this (if it holds up at all!) is that maybe it is our denial and stubborn optimism that allows us to fight the losing fight and somehow (beyond previous knowhow and logic) prevail and persist. The ‘serene’ mind will just unwittingly wither away.
I admit the middle ground is unclear. There is a spectrum. Extremes may act in utterly different ways and adhere to different rules than more fuzzy areas.
Maybe this entire thread is a fearful reaction to ‘wokeism’? I don’t pretend to know where it came from only that ‘fear’ has a habit of defining the paths we walk down and so I am looking at things considered more ‘negatively’ and reframing them as useful ways to understand how and why ‘opinions’ are expressed.
Indeed, a desire is rather an attraction for pleasure, confort or happiness. Think positive!
But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance. This is neither a negative nor a positive view of human existence. It is just how things are in terms of how we are driven to live another second rather than die. Living in a constant heightened sense fear would cause both mental (cognitive thought) and physical death prematurely as would locking oneself in a room of ‘comfort’ free from anything likely to over stimulate and cause fear. Although I would admit the body might survive longer but the mental (cognitive thought) part of us would be dead just as quick if not quicker. Thankfully we all seem to live at least long enough to learn to crawl, then walk and eventually talk and question how and why we function the way we function.
OK. I think the issue has grown out of proportion. My fault.
Would you have any evidence for that, or it is just the way it looks like on your end? Why attribute to fear (or anger, in other posts) a sort of privileged place at the top of all emotions?
Do try and broaden your emotional palette. It's not all about fear.
I'm not sure I understand your point? There are explicit dangers in the world that we are fearful of because we generally are trying to stay alive. I hope you can agree with that. So 'fear' is the means of warning/recognising dangers (harm/hurt/death). We are not filled with joy when faced with a hungry tiger lunging towards us (the reaction is physiological and out of our control). We seek to 'avoid' extreme danger (mortal danger) more often than not. Yet, we also seek out novelty but also understand that something completely alien to us is an unknown and therefore may or may not pose a mortal threat to us. We do not run headlong into the darkness screaming and flailing our arms around. We move with caution and a degree of 'fear' but we also are impelled to do so because we seek out novelty (intrigue/curiosity/exploration) which are also helpful for more long term survival due to 'learning'.
So why not refer to 'desire' as a seeking out something 'better' but within limitations (which are bound by 'fear'). We would eventually die if we just ran headlong into the future without any 'fear'. I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. You seem to be asking why I wouldn't frame this in terms of desire. This is quite simple. Does it make sense to view 'fear' as 'maximally efficient avoidance of desire'? If it does to you then I'd have to call you the negative ninny :)
Do I need to offer evidence for choosing to define 'desire' in terms of 'fear'? I'm not sure what that evidence would look like other than what I've offered already.
An 'opinion' about something we care about is formed - at base - by something that that is at odds with us. This is just necessary by definition. If we are not at odds with something why would we show any care or concern about it? Certainly down the line we can just be curious for curiosities sake (bring in the cat if you must). I am saying regardless of some intrigue further down the line the point remains that 'opinions' we care about necessarily sprout from a root in reaction to 'fear' (dangers - harm/hurt/death) because we're animals trying to stay alive rather than trying to die.
If you can take that in then let's go back to the reaction to 'fear'. Again, I am looking at 'fight or flight'. Flight is the avoidance of this dangerous and perhaps 'novel' experience. Fight is to face it. As I think I noted earlier (?) the physiological associations with 'anger' and 'excitement' are quite similar (I've convinced myself to switch from one to the other quite quickly several times in my life). We are primed and ready to react the overtly novel situation (dangerous or otherwise). For the sake of life preservation 'anger' takes precedence over 'excitement' and 'flight' (avoidance of 'novelty'/'potential death') you could choose to frame as 'desire not to die' if you wanted to. I would argue that a 'desire' not to die is an avoidance of death/fear not a target in and of itself.
Abstracting this to cognitive thought is quite a leap you might not even be bothered getting into. Fair enough. That is how I got to where I got. The minimal conclusion further on from this is that acting irrationally is merely helpful it is our primary mode of being and the reason rationality can come to be. I do not see how this is contrary as it would be harder to swallow that we're primarily rational beings and that irrational behavior arises from our rational behavior.
In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. If you will The 'desire' to beat down fears and face reality as starkly as we can manage to. Maybe Hobbes would say it isn't 'courageous' as that is just a convenient mask for 'anger'/'annoyance' that sits well with us in the silly childish world of 'civil behavior' and 'good manners'. This isn't about having a 'positive' or 'negative' mindset. It is about looking at how and why things happen in the manner they do an dhow else we can look at them.
Right, which is why there is not much anger or annoyance here. Because it isn't very important to either of us what the other thinks.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think that's backwards. The people who are genuinely connected are connected because they agree much more often than not, or agree on the most important things. They don't need to inject opinions because they already agree.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is.... exactly what they are used for. Sometimes that is needed. For instance, I would definitely impose on a driver not to drink and drive, especially if I'm in the car. And I think I would be right to do so.
Traffic laws, property laws, obligatory schooling, etc. There are many instances where one is right to impose.
Is it illegal to farm without advanced farming equipment? No. Something being inefficient doesn't make it illegal.
Quoting baker
I would think those all fall within the domain of what we're talking about. The main topic isn't so much anger explicitly but simply intense emotion, and whether it has a place.
I doubt disgust/revulsion (same thing), strategizing, or plain disagreement could get someone to shoot someone else however. Have you ever shot someone for not showering?
I can't imagine someone who freely volunteers in a war without being angry at the enemy.
Quoting baker
If enough people get angry with their bosses you get the French revolution. I'm sure that had at least a small impact on those at the top.
Quoting baker
No. I believe in order to go to a war you need to be angry. And that in order to try to change another's mind you need to be at least mildly annoyed. There is a difference between standing up for yourself and actively trying to change others' behavior. The latter requires some hostility.
No, it does not make sense. But to define desire as avoidance of fear is equally ridiculous.
There ARE several different emotions. They do exist, and there is no reason to see one type as trumping the others . So why focus only on fear?
That is a different debate. Not everyone would agree that they 'exist' rather that they are created.
That is not what I said.
Why focus only on fear, at the exclusion of all other emotions?
Are you a fearful person? Do you often feel afraid? If not, why the fear fetishism?
I answered. I said because sustaining life is generally paramount so not dying is the first thing an organism aims for. Primarily avoiding immanent death is the go to.
I was reacting to the idea that I am supposedly connected to paranoid schizophrenics who are a "danger" to me, which is why I supposedly should care about their opinions.
I don't believe in connections to complete strangers, and as I said, most people who profess as much use it as a pretense to meddle in other people's lives; it's a desire for power and control over others. ("We all breathe the same air, so would you kindly breathe a little less?")
Individuals who seem to genuinely feel connected to strangers or "mankind" out of understanding and compassion do not impose. You said it yourself; one cannot know if they are fit to impose their opinions on others, one may be unknowingly ignorant.
Quoting khaled
And it is my view that this has nothing to do with connection and everything with individual desire for power.
Quoting khaled
If it works that way, why shouldn't I get to impose what I believe is right on everyone I "feel a connection" to?
I'd like you to stop driving altogether, for traffic accidents form a tangible risk to my health, and so does the pollution coming from your car!
The simple answer is, what is "right" is decided simply by whoever has the power to impose (in your example, you wouldn't be imposing anything - the state would).
In other words: might makes right, is the underlying principle of what has been proposed, and it just so happens to coincide with your view, which is why you seem to support it. Would you be as eager for impositions if it didn't?
Many reasons. One would be that your imposition harms me more than it prevents harm from you such as here:
Quoting Tzeentch
But if I don't drive I can't get to work, and I can't make money, and I can't live. So sorry, afraid I'll have to drive. If you don't want the risk stay at home, you don't need to impose on me to avoid said risk.
Others could be: It doesn't actually benefit the group (just another way of stating the first one). Or that it is unnecessary to impose as there are other ways of removing the risk Ex: If you don't like the risk of traffic, don't go outside. You don't need to impose on everyone when there is an alternative solution. Or if you don't like chips, don't ask people to stop producing them, you can simply not buy them. Etc.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't understand why you ask me a question if you're going to decide the answer yourself... If you want to ask a question, wait for an answer, then ask further questions, I'm happy to do that (it's known as discussion). If you want to ask me a question, answer it for me, then attack the answer you made up, I'm not interested.
Quoting Tzeentch
The covid situation hasn't changed your mind? It's a struggle to get any hospital beds now. As someone with an autoimmune disease, it is tangible to my health. Complete strangers are in fact affecting me.
Quoting Tzeentch
One may also be right. And sometimes you're justified to believe that.
Quoting Tzeentch
Power and control over others isn't necessarily evil, nor is a desire of it. Example: Is forcing a child to go to a school evil? Is wanting your child to listen to you when you know they're about to do something stupid evil? Is forcing a criminal into jail evil?
I know you didn't say it was, but I got that message from your tone.
In order to reproduce, one generally needs to find another organism with whom to mix up one's DNA. One can't do that just by being afraid of dying. One has to want to live, love, fuck and kiss babies...
Fear not.
That idea could be based on an entirely ignorant idea of reality.
Quoting khaled
So because you desire things, you gain a right to impose?
Quoting khaled
Debatable. I don't drive and somehow I am still alive.
Quoting khaled
If you don't want to deal with people who drink and drive, stay at home then!
Quoting khaled
No.
Quoting khaled
In what way?
Quoting khaled
I thought the answer I gave was more relevant than the question, but I am still interested in your take on it.
This is quite simple yet maybe too obvious.
I said Quoting I like sushi
Meaning a balance between too much novelty and too little, between staying within a 'comfortable' boundary and exploring the unknown. Going to one extreme or the other would be suboptimal (as I went on to explain).
To completely avoid any fears is not optimal. We have to 'cope' with them sometimes as we cannot avoid them all.
Let's look at this then it might help:
- If we avoid desires it is due to fear/danger.
- If we avoid fear/danger it is due to desires.
At this simple level I don't see how desires can be met free of charge. What is the cost? I think we can certainly desire something enough to overcome fears and/or ignore fears. This might look like a good argument but I can only repeat that we have to account for where the desire comes from. I respond by saying 'desire' comes due to 'fear'/'danger' and that 'fear'/'danger' does not magically appear once we have formed desires.
Quoting Olivier5
One thing come before another. Being alive is necessary for life activities. Being dead doesn't do much. Ergo not being dead means other things can happen so it probably makes reasonable sense that organisms are primarily coded to not instantly die due to environmental pressures. Be they hungry predators or noxious gases.
So could the opposite, so I don’t see your point. Very weird critique. Literally any action could be based on an ignorant idea of reality. So we shouldn’t act or what?
You sound like you think any imposition is bad because “we could be wrong”. Is that right? Would you impose a law to not drink and drive if there wasn’t one and you could?
Quoting Tzeentch
Sometimes. Again, it’s not as simple as “me want X so me take X”.
Quoting Tzeentch
You must not need to drive to work.
Quoting Tzeentch
There is a difference. The people who drink and drive gain nothing from drinking and driving. They can simply drink after they’ve arrived or take a cab. I can’t help but drive to work (in reality I don’t drive, I’m just going with your example).
In other words, forcing people to not drink while driving harms them much much less than the harm they cause by being allowed to drink and drive.
Quoting Tzeentch
All the hospital beds are filled with idiots that think masks are the devil, getting treated for tens of thousands of dollars instead of taking a semi free vaccine.
Quoting Tzeentch
That what is right is determined by who’s strong? Dumb.
Similarly obvious is the fact that every living creature ultimately dies. Nobody actually avoids death.
Hence reproduction is the only way to 'stay around' a little longer, vicariously through your offspring. Reproduction trumps death.
No thanks. bye bye
The things you are putting forward aren't entirely insane. Is there a context in which an opinion is delivered adversarially? Certainly, but can't you also deliver an opinion confirming a shared reality? Do you find yourself in angry agreements? Probably not. So, step one that you flew past (in the context of a philosophy forum) is to establish the context you intend to discuss. If you had started out with " When considering opinions delivered in anger; to pontificate x,y,z. Then, you have your discussion; no one will fight you on supposing a hypothetical for the sake of discussion. But, instead you've announced your particular context of interest as a universal statement. It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting.
So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not?
That has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Quoting Cheshire
Probably in a new thread. I managed to open up some new thoughts in my head about this but I’ll let them be for a while.
Yeah, I could’ve done a much better job with the original post. I did think about editing but thought it would be messy.
From the reader's perspective it is the question being begged. Hence the early opposition.Quoting I like sushi Seems honest. I can respect that.
I sometimes get annoyed if people are not providing arguments to support their positions, or are being condescending or seem obviously to be projecting their own motivations onto others, or are putting words into my mouth, etc.. But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance; I post in order to clarify to myself what I think about things and in the interaction with other minds, hopefully improve my own thinking.
I don't think anyone does. My proposition was not that all 'opinion' is expressed in 'anger'/'annoyance' it was that the root of this 'opinion' can be found in 'anger/'annoyance'.
Anyway, I partially got what I wanted from this thread so I just need to mull over new thoughts I've found and refine how I word my next thread on this topic.
I view the use of force as categorically undesirable and immoral, and if I were ever to feel that the use of force is the only option, I would have to tread extremely carefully.
It rarely is the only option. What makes individuals choose to use force is generally because they find it preferable over the alternatives. (Which is the case with the car/work example).
Quoting khaled
No, I have no desire to impose anything on anyone.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
It is my suspicion that whatever "sometimes" entails is dictated by governments and by majority opinion of whatever society one happens to live in. So whether you realize it or not, it rests upon the principle of "might makes right", as does everything that is imposed by governments or majorities.
Quoting khaled
That seems to be your opinion, however the opinion of the person who wishes to drink and drive could be completely contrary. Perhaps they are of the opinion they can drive perfectly fine and have never caused an accident while intoxicated. (And who knows, maybe they are right?)
What makes one opinion better than the other?
One opinion takes into account the context of drunk driving. The public pays for the roads and as a result should claim some right to use them. A critical mass of drunk drivers would make roads unusable; in a normal sense. Really, it's the intoxicated driver imposing their will in other's space.
A former law partner once told me that "Reasonable minds can differ." I said "BS. If you disagree with me, your mind is unreasonable." :rofl:
I want to be understood. And if people disagree, it must be because they don't understand. So I try harder, and harder, to make them understand. But some people don't care what I think. I'm beginning to agree with them.
Don't believe everything you think.
So does the drunk driver.
Quoting Cheshire
A critical mass of cars would also make the roads unusuable.
Quoting Cheshire
I would say that depends on the drunk driver. Some drunk drivers may drive perfectly safe while intoxicated. But maybe you are right. So when someone imposes, that gives another a right to impose as well? After the drunk driver is imposed upon does he then also get a right to impose back? How does this system work?
When someone imposes on society, by using roads they don't solely own in a fashion that indicates they feel otherwise; then yes, it gives some agent - reason- to act on the right to limit another's actions. If the drunk driving public wants to gather the political will to provide drunk driving certifications and resulting emergency care; then they are free to act in their interest.
Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose?
Quoting Cheshire
What's the source of such a right?
The individual was the first to impose, hence society.
It is the case. You asked, I answered.
Quoting Tzeentch
The second is not a wrong.
:100:
Depending on the situation it sure can be.
Quoting Cheshire
It is what you are implying, by stating impositions are right in circumstance A, and wrong in circumstance B.
So again I'll ask:
Quoting Tzeentch
Personally, I'm not sure. Some folks argue nature, others argue nurture. I hear a lot of philosophy has been haggling over that question for millennia. But if you take the cloths off it, and get down to the nut:
Regardless of source, "might" is the tool.
If you were a total bad ass and I was a total wimp, and you pushed me away from the fire and took my club, then that was the first imposition: individual on individual. It may be that, as a wimp, Darwinian evolution might say I had it coming. But I may wrangle the group with my superior rhetorical skills, call BS, and incite them to give you a beat-down. Hence society. Wolves, chimps and others have it too. The nature argument is that we are a social beast, a pack animal. As relatively hairless, toothless, clawless, bi-pedal pussies, we need to work together to survive.
What is the original source of the group's indignation toward your behavior? I don't know. But I side with the group and against you. I win.
Can the group go overboard? Hell yes. But can your fear of that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles be grounds for the group to cede power back to you, the individual? Hell no. Your rhetorical skills aren't that good. You aren't Hitler. The best you can hope for is a Bill of Rights (that we also find to spring from nature). And we will check ourselves in response to your propensity for transgression, or your actual transgressions.
If you want to argue about whether the severity of the response is right, or just, that is fine. But the responding is right, not another wrong. It is not, in and of itself, a so-called "transgression" just because your total bad ass ass has been given a beat down. Oh, and that beating serves as a lesson to other would-be initial transgressors.
I think we'd have to settle this before making further progress. Where's the limit? At the extremes any perceived opposition to one's will becomes another's "imposition". Suppose I refuse to stand aside while you walk down the sidewalk. Has my mere persisting as a physical being managed to become an "imposition" by unnatural definition?
That is an imposition.
Quoting Cheshire
Yes, for it was not a mere persisting. The refusal implies to consciously attempt to deny.
Quoting Cheshire
Whenever other individuals are made the subject of one's desires, impositions almost always follow.
So an individual's desire to not be imposed upon is itself an imposition when cast upon others?
Excellent, so there is a differentiation. If the situation were the same but I don't see you or block your path by happenstance. Then, what would I call it?
I don't know. What would you call it?
Well then, I think we may have reached a point of agreement, at least in theory.
We could drill down on the subjective issue of "reasonableness" of the perception of imposition, and whether that is relative. Some might say that any imposition at all is unreasonable. Others, not so much.
Is standing your ground and refusing to move out of the way of someone walking down the sidewalk an imposition? Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition? Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground?
I'd like to get into whether society politely asking an individual to mask is akin to an oppressive beat down, or is that is a subjective and unreasonable perception of imposition? But that's another thread. Suffice it to say, I agree that an individual's desire to not be imposed upon can itself be an imposition when cast upon others who don't want to get sick.
A Tzeentchian-imposition by principle?
Not immediately. But as technology advances, so do the legal matters concerning the use of it.
For example in the EU, a registered dairy farmer must have a licence for milking cows, it's illegal for an unlicensed person to milk cows at a registered dairy farm.
Nowadays, one needs a qualification or other license for most jobs. Such a requirement for qualifications and licenses is incompatible with slavery (as it was practiced in the past).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528
In that case, the topic is too general.
Did you ever go to school? People revile eachother for all kinds of things.
On the contrary. A considerable portion of armed forces (in countries where miltary service is voluntary) are people who joined the military because for them, that was the only way out of poverty. Some join military causes out of ideas of heroism, or even boredom (such as Lord Byron). After WWI some artists in Europe looked forward to a war, because they believed this would be a "big cleanse"; some even joined and realized too late how brutal an actual war is.
The French Revolutionaries were not ordinary workers, they were the (upper) middle class (who looked down on the rabble).
I think those are popular beliefs, but I don't agree with them.
Like I said earlier, entitlement, compassion, grandeur, and some others can also motivate one to engage in open conflict with others or to change them.
Anger and hostility are very common, but hardly the only motivations.
Yes.
Quoting James Riley
Yes.
Quoting James Riley
Societies don't impose. Individuals in that society do. In many instances, it is the societal structure that gives those individuals the power to do so.
Okay, I'm seeing "life = conflict." Meh. Agreed.
Some time ago I researched the writing of screenplays and learned about conflict as a critical and necessary aspect of story. I wondered if it was possible to write one without conflict. It's not.
I'm resolved that the operative question is the one I raised about reasonableness of the perception of imposition. It's not that there there is no imposition. There is. Rather, is the perception of that imposition reasonable? There are whiners and there are those who roll with the punches of life. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. Courts generally default to the jury on a finding of reasonableness. So it's kind of a collective, social construct. I'm good with that. The "defendant" sometimes gets to choose judge or jury. So that's on him.
You didn't consider my first post in this thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528
Why not?
Quoting I like sushi
In the short term, probably. In the long term, it's education and strategizing.
Quoting Tzeentch
Would you let a psychotic killer kill you or a member of your family?
Quoting Tzeentch
What "sometimes" practically entails is different from what it should entail. Might makes what happens. Might doesn't make right.
Yes governments or even majorities can determine that Jews don't deserve to live. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics.
Quoting Tzeentch
The data, for one. Of all the people that think they can drive fine while drunk, a majority are wrong. A majority of drunk drivers think they can drive fine but still run into accidents. Etc.
Also the simple fact that measurable deterioration in your performance exists when you're drunk.
I ask you that question. Do you think no opinion is better than another? That's self defeating.
What else could act out better in the short term? What alternatives weak/strong are there you can muster?
No. Like I said, there are situations where force is the only option, but even then I'd regard the use of it as immoral and as a personal failure.
Quoting khaled
Ok, so then we're back to the same question I asked ; if we have established that might cannot make right, then what determines what is right? What is the source?
Quoting khaled
Data is often open to multiple interpretations. What determines which interpretation is the right one?
Quoting khaled
Is that true? How many people drive while intoxicated and how many of those cause accidents? And apart from that, what justifies the use of force to impose on all drunk drivers, when only a part of them would go on to cause accidents?
Quoting khaled
Sure, but where one draws the line is a subjective matter, and not every drunk driver is the same (and we're not testing all of them).
Quoting khaled
Opinions are all equally silly (including mine) and should never be a basis for the use of force.
Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict.
Quoting James Riley
Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all.
Before we start, are you just the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks no objective truth is possible in anything? Just want to get that out of the way.
Quoting Tzeentch
It cannot be immoral if it is the only option and you’re doing it reluctantly.
Quoting Tzeentch
Our moral intuitions.
Quoting Tzeentch
Statistical analysis, methods of sampling, etc. There are classes on that if you’re interested.
If I test 10000 people under controlled circumstances and find that 3 of them would NOT have deteriorated driving skills while drunk, it seems the interpretation that drinking deteriorates driving is much more likely than the interpretation that it doesn’t, and that it was simply coincidence.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes though the experiment wasn’t done as I described (not that I know of). Because that’s not needed. We already know that drinking would impair driving from studying its effects elsewhere.
Quoting Tzeentch
Because a formal system to distinguish people that are ok to drink and drive and people who aren’t will inevitably be abused leading to more people drunk driving and more accidents. It’s a practical limitation.
Quoting Tzeentch
False. There is a medical definition:“ Intoxication is the term used to describe any change in perception, mood, thinking processes and motor skills that results from the effect of a drug(s) on our central nervous system.”
So technically any alcohol consumption counts. But there are also accurate tests. There are field sobriety tests taught to cops, and there are medical tests that can detect if you’re intoxicated or not.
Quoting Tzeentch
That’s a silly opinion, and so I have no reason to listen to it. (Self defeating as I said)
Considering everything you observe has to go through the subjective filter of your mind, it is a given that objective truth ("ultimate reality") is, and I'll put it cautiously, extremely difficult to access for humans.
Quoting khaled
Well, it's not really the only option, is it? Besides, one may wonder whether the choices one has made have lead them to a situation one is put in harms way of deranged individuals. There's a nice parallel with citizens and governments.
Quoting khaled
What happens when those intuitions conflict?
Quoting khaled
Results from these methods would not be open to different interpretations? I think they clearly are. Is there even any real discussion as to whether they are? It's one of the first thing I was taught in academics.
Quoting khaled
According to the subjective opinion of whom?
Quoting khaled
By that definition half the world is driving while intoxicated when they step in the car every morning after they've had a cup of coffee. It should be obvious that such definitions don't deal in anything objective. They are practical tools and not all that relevant for philosophical ends.
Quoting khaled
It's arbitrary, based on convenience. That's not a justification, which is what I asked for.
Quoting khaled
And yet, here you are.
Quoting Tzeentch
"Objective" means "true for everyone". As in after passing the filter, everyone gets the same thing. That's not very difficult. Example: 2+2=4. When our filters are working properly that's the answer we get.
There is just something about 2+2=4 that transcends pure subjectivity. No one can really think 2+2=3 assuming we're using the same definitions and arithmetic. And if someone thinks so, they are quick to admit they were wrong after being shown the correct answer. That "thing" is objectivity.
For instance: Genociding a race is evil. That's like the "2+2=4" of ethics.
The claim is that there is also such an "objective morality" in the sense that there is a best answer that everyone would agree to provided the filters are working correctly.
The definition you use is "the thing in itself" by Kant. That's impossible to access yes. Also highly inconsequential.
Given this: Are you still the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks objective truth is impossible in everything? Is 2+2=4 not objectively true given an understanding of the operations and numbers ?
Quoting Tzeentch
Your words not mine. It is certainly the best option sometimes. Objectively.
Quoting Tzeentch
I take this to mean you agree that the source of morality is moral intuitions yes?
Usually people fight, sadly. But even conflicting intuitions do not mean that there is no objective answer. The objective answer would be the one that satisfies the most intuitions.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not always very variable. In some instances it is clear. For instance: Being drunk makes you drive worse.
Quoting Tzeentch
The second thing I was taught after that is not to then dismay at the impossibility of any objective answer. Sometimes there is an objective answer (true regardless of what we think).
There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. What you're doing is an example.
Quoting Tzeentch
Me and almost everyone else. But there are some scientists that think that "Intoxication (which deterioration in motor skills) leads to driving worse" is debatable. So here are a few studies:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2014/607652/
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/63-78.htm
Do you actually believe that drinking doesn't affect driving ability?
Quoting Tzeentch
It's completely unjustified. It's a practical limitation. If we could effortlessly detect who can drive while intoxicated safely, and chose to still ban them from drinking while intoxicated, that would be wrong. It's unfair that such alcohol immune individuals are banned from drinking and driving. But it would be far more unfair to the innocent victims to create a system that would allow drinking and driving in some cases (as it will be abused).
It's the (much) lesser of two evils. I would think that counts as justification but apparently not.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, I'm arguing against the silly opinions not listening to them.
Mathematics, like language, is a mental game we practice. Saying "2 + 2 = 4" is no different than saying "this is a sentence = this is a sentence". It's a means of communication. These concepts do not exist outside of the human experience, and thus are completely subjective.
Quoting khaled
The question is, how would you ever know that you have stumbled upon objective morality? And second, if one, by some miracle, was able to verify that their idea of morality was objective true,does that give one a right to impose it on others?
Quoting khaled
The source? Definitely not.
Intuition may give us some hint to what is moral and what is not, but it doesn't create morality, nor is it preferable over reason. Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
It seems that the desire to impose one's opinions on others always leads there, yes. Food for thought, perhaps.
Quoting khaled
That is a very poor definition of something objective. If 51% of intuitions think A, and 49% of intuitions think B, is A objective?
Quoting khaled
Not really.
I'm simply not taking the shortcuts you are taking.
What you're doing is essentially saying "There's all these problems with my ideas, but I'll call them all irrelevant and dismiss them for practical reasons", and then be surprised when things don't work out very well. As you said yourself:
Quoting khaled
What a surprise then that the world is filled with suffering and injustice, if we allow ourselves such liberties.
But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists, and that calling things "practical limitations" is a way we make our methods match our desires.
Non sequitor. Again, "2+2=4" is true regardless of who you are or what you think (assuming you know how to do arithmetic). That makes it objective, by the definition I gave.
If you don't want to use objective like that then let's call it "inter-subjective". Something that is subjective yet is the same for everyone (like 2+2=4). There is an inter-subjective morality.
Quoting Tzeentch
How would you ever know you have stumbled upon an objective anything? You don't, but some guesses are better than others. For instance: "Gravity doesn't exist" is an attempt at an objective statement. It is easily found to be false. "Gravity exists" is a better attempt.
You approach it, but never know you got there. Do you think there is such a thing as "moral progress"? What about progress in physics?
If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)?
Quoting Tzeentch
If they found morality objective and found said objective morality? Of course.
Quoting Tzeentch
Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why?
Quoting Tzeentch
Non sequitor. There is the word "usually". It is doing something.
Quoting Tzeentch
False. The system that provides as much as it can of both is objective. If for instance, 51% of people think A is the best president and 49% think B is the best president, the best thing to do, objectively, is to have the 51% be under A and the 49% be under B. That’s clearly not feasible, but it’s the ideal solution is it not? Do you have a better solution in mind?
Quoting Tzeentch
How did you get this? How did you get that there is no such thing as unreasonable doubt?
Quoting Tzeentch
You're the only one seeing problems. If anything, to you, what counts as a problem is entirely subjective. So what authority do you have to make such a strong statement? Or are you simply stating your opinion?
ANY system needs premises or a starting point. These aren't "problems". For instance: You think impositions are always wrong. Why is that? Whatever answer you give, I can keep asking "why" until you can't give an answer. That's all you did here, acted like a 3 year old. You didn’t point out any problems, only starting premises.
Quoting Tzeentch
Do you seriously think there will be LESS suffering if the "horrible imposition" that is traffic laws isn't there? All impositions cause suffering?
Ok think of the following scenario:
You must kill at least one person. If you press the red button, Jeff lives. If you press the blue button, Sarah lives. If you press neither, they both die. What is correct here?
There is no choice where you don't impose here. And this is very common if you do some living. How does your "system" address such scenarios?
Quoting Tzeentch
Really? So we can all have everything we want without hurting anyone else? Why this is groundbreaking! Would you care to explain your ingenious method by which we can satisfy everyone for all time without any practical difficulty?
If Mr X wants to kill you and adopts a zero negotiation policy, and you want to live, how do you resolve this such that both get what they want without any practical difficulty?
That person would have to give way. That is all the state asks. Give way. Be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others. If only individuals would do that, there would be no conflict.
Quoting Tzeentch
Those who come to power have to deal with people who think a 1 oz piece of cloth is a trip to the gas chamber. So it's really a battle of wills where the individual refuses to stop imposing and it escalates from there. The state wins so yeah, it appears to the unreasonable loser that the reasonable winner is being unreasonable.
If only all individuals would be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others, there would be no conflict and no state. Utopia!
I think the answer you are looking for is our Ego.
The closest the issue is to our core beliefs the angrier we get defending our opinions about it, indeed.
From the dreadful fear that we will have afterwards to question-face our own selves and beliefs.
And yeah that fear is more than enough to make us go irrational and totally ignore logic.
:chin: So assuming you know how to play the game according to the rules that you believe it should be played by, it is true?
Mathematics is not objective.
Quoting khaled
If the whole world believed the same lie, it wouldn't make it true.
Quoting khaled
Maybe so, but they're still only guesses, and the brightest minds have been wrong on countless occasions about things they thought were true. Horrible things have been done under the guise of ignorantly believing one has all the answers.
Again, I see no justification for the use of force.
Quoting khaled
Debatable.
We don't know what gravity is, so we don't know if it exists or not. We found a way to predict how a certain phenomenon works to a degree that is accurate enough for our practical purposes.
It would be more prudent not to fool oneself and state "I don't know if gravity exists". To know one's own ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.
Quoting khaled
Are all premises moral intuitions?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Because moral intuitions differ of course. If I had a moral intuitions that makes me believe stoning women for adultery is fair and just (In certain parts of the world a lot of people even agree with me - must mean I have some "better guess than others"), should I just start imposing that on the people around me because I believe it is right?
Quoting khaled
You and I must have a wildly different idea of what the word "objective" means.
Quoting khaled
I don't need to come with solutions, because I am not in the business of wishing to control other people. I cannot give solutions to fix something that is fundamentally broken.
Quoting khaled
You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not.
Quoting khaled
I must nothing.
My tip would be, do not get involved in situations that have only bad outcomes.
Quoting khaled
Sure that is possible, unless one's desires require one to impose them on other individuals. Then hurt is very likely to follow. Sadly, this is the case for much of humanity and the pursuit of their desires will inevitably lead them to cause much suffering.
It's a bit of an ironic question, isn't it? How can I have everything I want without hurting anyone else? Maybe you cannot have everything you want.
Quoting khaled
If you feel the need to get personal, maybe it is time you sit on the time-out chair for a little while.
The example features two fools.
The fact that one of the fools wisens up, does not cure the other of their foolishness.
I'm really interested in your answer to this before we move on:
Quoting khaled
I see a performative contradiction between what you say and the fact that you're still replying.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes
Quoting Tzeentch
Uh, ye it is. <---- This is as valid as the above statement.
Make an argument, or don't say anything. No one is interested in admittedly silly opinions.
Quoting Tzeentch
But you think "true" in an objective sense doesn't make sense in the first place. Ok. Agreed. Now can something be "intersubjectively true"? As in after passing all the different filters everyone still gets the same thing.
Quoting Tzeentch
So let me get this straight: Do you believe that we have no right to impose because of a lack of objectivity?
That still leaves you with the problem of what to do when not imposing is not an option. That's the fundamental problem with your philosophy. You believe in every situation there is the "aggressor" or "imposer" and the victim. You believe one can choose "Don't impose" at every turn. What you don't recognize is sometimes inaction IS imposing, like with the buttons example.
Imposition is unavoidable. You can either pretend it's always wrong, and so have no rules to stop you or anyone else from doing it (because stopping an imposition is an imposition so is wrong), or you can actually try to do philosophy.
Quoting Tzeentch
So what do we do about this? Not act until we're sure? You're acting right now. If the brightest minds have been wrong before what chance do you or me have of being right? How do you know you're not imposing unknowingly? Perhaps you are. Maybe we should just not act? Another performative contradiction.
You begin by saying we can't be 100% sure of anything (objective knowledge is inaccessible), then go on to say that we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure. Then you act. And when asked how you justify your action you don't respond.
The only disagreement I have is with the "we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure" bit. Clearly you don't believe it, so why pretend you do? Or do you think any action is wrong for it could possibly be an imposition without us knowing? (again, making the whole conversation moot)
Quoting Tzeentch
No, where did you get that?
Quoting Tzeentch
First off, quote where I said that agreement of a large group is what makes a better guess. Or stop putting words in my mouth. Again, if you want to argue against made up arguments, do so alone.
But no, clearly you shouldn't. Because large agreement doesn't make something right. It's a factor, not the end all be all.
Now let me ask you a similar question: If someone had the belief that women should be stoned, period, and so started stoning a close family member would it be right if you just imposed on him by stopping him just because you believe he's wrong and you're right??!?!??!??!?!?!
Quoting Tzeentch
How about "things fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path" vs "things don't fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path". Is one a better guess than the other?
Stop being tedious.
Quoting Tzeentch
Even if true, there would still be many more problems in your philosophy than mine, as well as a slew of performative contradictions. Why is mine the only one getting critiqued here? Just the pot calling the kettle black.
The problems created by ignoring some "philosophical" issues for practicality (which only you seem to think is what's happening) are much fewer than the problems created by thinking no answers are possible at all.
And I'll ask you the same question again: What gives you the authority to decide what's a problem and what isn't? Or are you simply stating another admittedly silly opinion? What do you hope to gain by doing so?
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok. Say you got kidnapped in your sleep and forced in that situation. Now what? Should we not sleep so that may never happen?
Stop dodging the question. It's prudent and more wise to recognize the limitations of a broken system than to dodge any attempt at critique.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well this seems to be the case. So what is to be done by your system? Or is it so useless it only tells us "if no one has an intention to impose on another then the right thing to do is to not impose, but the second one desires to impose on another..... dodge the question!"
Quoting Tzeentch
What was this about then:
Quoting Tzeentch
(looking back I took this to mean that you think no practical limitations exist at all, maybe that's not what you meant in which case ignore this)
Quoting Tzeentch
What's personal about it? I'm stating a fact. Asking "why why why" tends to stop at a young age as children realize it's a pointless exercise.
If you're getting aggravated maybe you should heed your own words:
Quoting Tzeentch
How would one not be a fool? To not stand or walk on a sidewalk? I don't like cities; some folks do. But I don't think I or they are fools simply because we walk or stand on a sidewalk when we are there.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which one wised up? The one that gave way, or the one that refused to go around?
I had to say something. :lol:
I state my opinion because I get a bubbly feeling in my gut that says: Say it, or wallow in dissatisfaction!
Its never had to do anything with anger/annoyance.
In fact, I have never really cared about whether I was right or wrong. I just like to talk a lot.
Also wouldn't this belief state that all opinions are reactionary? What about opinions that start a conversation?
I explained already:
Quoting Tzeentch
_______________________
Quoting khaled
Can many people believe the same thing? Sure. I don't see how that is particularly relevant, though.
Quoting khaled
My view is that you have no right to impose, period.
Quoting khaled
Non-interference is not an imposition.
Quoting khaled
Maybe so. That does not stop it from being inherently wrong, and something that should be avoided at every opportunity.
Quoting khaled
Indeed.
Quoting khaled
There is no contradiction.
Quoting khaled
I never stated that.
___________________________
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
___________________________
Quoting khaled
It's what your arguments seem to boil down to every time you try to explain what constitutes a "better guess". But what constitutes a better guess, then?
Quoting khaled
The first guess will probably serve you better as a predictive model, but still does not answer the question of what the phenomenon we call gravity is and whether it exists according to our view of it.
Quoting khaled
I'll be as tedious as I need to be.
Quoting khaled
Debatable. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't take shortcuts and apply principles consistently.
Quoting khaled
I don't claim to hold any authority. I state the things the way I see them.
Quoting khaled
Try to escape?
This question has already been answered, I guess you simply didn't understand the answer if you claim I was dodging it.
Quoting khaled
Don't impose.
I find it a bit odd that the idea of not imposing on others seems so alien to you. I've lived most of my adult life according to that idea. It's how most constructive human relations are shaped.
__________________________
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
What people believe to be practical limitations are just a projection of their desires. A pretense.
We want things, so we find justifications to want those things.
Quoting khaled
:roll: Is a civil tone of conversation too much to ask?
Sorry for buttin' in but how far are you willing to go with that maxim? I guess I'm getting mixed up between regulation and coercion. It happens, right?
Remember:
1. What one wants to say
2. What one thinks one said.
3. What was actually said.
4. What was understood to have been said.
All different things. Bring them into alignment.
All the way!
Quoting TheMadFool
An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. Force can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be mental, etc.
Regulation is coercion, unless the regulation depends entirely on genuine agreement.
Second, to have a right implies a justification. A justification implies goodness. It is my view that ends never justify means and that the use of force is inherently an unjust means, therefore is never good or justified, therefore is never someone's right.
The one caveat I have with all of this is the protection of one's physical body from direct assault. While I don't believe the use of force in such a situation to be Good or just, perhaps it is not unjust either (thus perhaps some form of neutral) since one is protecting that which belongs unequivocally to them from an imposition (which is in itself unjust).
Quoting Tzeentch
Then there is no right to self defense.
I've been following you in this thread and find what I perceive to be your lack of understanding of your own arguments. Bending over backwards in an effort to make sense of what you say, the best I can come up with, is a notion that "rights" don't exist. There may be no right to impose, but, by your arguments regarding what constitutes imposition, there can be no rights. The sidewalk example was where we left it. Just fools imposing or failing to defend against imposition. Hmmm.
Quoting James Riley
Quoting Tzeentch
That will be my last extension of grace.
There is no grace in your failure to explain your consideration of the fools on a sidewalk, as I requested you to do. Crickets.
I'm not sure how compelling you will find it , but the point was to isolate what happens in the physical from your perception and argue these claims of imposing seem to translate as measures of either ego or willingness toward dogmatism. In one case I'm blocking the sidewalk and in the other I'm blocking the sidewalk. However, I am only imposing upon you in one case. So, I submit the definition is problematic.
Where the sidewalk, as a state construct, might be distracting to one uncertain about his own views, lets go to hundreds of square miles of short-grass prairie, 5k years ago. X is standing there, in the middle, minding his own business. Y, completely unaware of X, has been marching west for days. He comes over a rise and sees X, quite coincidentally, standing right in the path that Y is on. The same facts then unfold as we had in the sidewalk situation. Only one need be wise, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his wisdom? Only one is a fool, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his foolishness? But wait! We are told they are both fools! Hmmm. An unexplained pivot. What do we do with this pivot?
We discern than there is no right of anyone to impose, under any circumstance. But wait, there is a caveat: self defense. But we agree that self defense is imposition in response to imposition. So there was a first? A "He started it" argument, like a child defending his actions to a mommy who is chastising both, for failure to get along? But even if that is a sound argument, which one, X or Y, was the first to impose before a justified self defense was launched in response?
Again, if everyone was kind, considerate, respectful, as in a Utopia, then this would not be an issue. One, or both, would yield to imposition, without defending against it. But alas, we don't live in Utopia. And where imposition need not be physical, but merely mental, or argumentative, the best we can do is say there is no right to be right, but there is a right to be wrong. And two wrongs can indeed make a right. My being right is apparently an imposition and, in being kind, considerate, respectful and wise, wrong has agreed to step aside. I am a fool for being right, and my learned opponent is wise for being wrong.
I guess it's better than mommy coming in and giving both a spanking.
One cannot seperate these things, even if one wanted to. One never experiences the external world directly - everything goes through the mind.
Quoting Cheshire
I stated that in both instances there was an imposition.
In the other instance where there was no desire to block the sidewalk, there was no imposition, because there was no desire to impose anything. Desire plays a key role, which I think I've highlighted.
Did I point that out?
I don't think impositions made by the rulers or electorates of democracies are justified.
I thought you did. it seems implied.
Quoting Tzeentch
I get where you're coming from. Is regulation just an euphemism for imposition? :chin: Dysphemism is appposite too and somewhere in-between hides the truth.
I would say so. Regulations, when broken, are met with punishments. In the case of state law, when one resists these punishments because, for example, one disagrees with being punished, the punishment will become more and more severe with incarceration as the end station.
As such, law is based on coercion and, in my view, clearly imposition.
Is this ambiguous or contradictory? You can't always tell whether some one desires to be in the way.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sure you can. There is the thing and your beliefs about it. Even the statement above imposes your understanding that a frame of references is not the thing.
If we're just arguing for sport, then that's all well and good. But, it's looking more untenable to deem things unfair do to a perception of impositions when rather convention suggests it's the other way around.
Quoting Tzeentch
My apologies
Quoting Tzeentch
But you believe that any idea is as good as another. What does “testing” mean then? All the ideas are just as good what is there to test?
Quoting Tzeentch
There is no such thing as non interference sometimes. But let’s test this theory. You see a train barreling at someone who’s tied to the tracks. By this principle of non interference, it would be wrong to attempt to remove them. Do you agree with that?
Quoting khaled
Context.
Quoting Tzeentch
Where did you get that? What argument is the one that boiled down to that?
Quoting Tzeentch
Closer to truth.
How do we tell when that’s the case? Very difficult. But better than not trying.
Quoting Tzeentch
This would get everyone killed. Have you not been paying attention? Do you still believe this is the right answer?
Quoting Tzeentch
The problem is that you don’t follow this. Admittedly, you would impose sometimes. You just pretend to think it’s wrong to do so in those times.
Quoting Tzeentch
What shortcuts am I taking?
And no you don’t. Admittedly, you would stop a psychotic killer barreling towards you.
And a separate problem is that these principles cannot be applied consistently. There are situations where inaction is an imposition. Or do you not think so? The example of someone standing in the way and not moving is good. He’s not doing anything to you, is he? How is he interfering? You’re the one that wants him to move. So he’s not imposing correct?
I want to understand how exactly you define an imposition. Because “non interference” doesn’t seem to be it.
Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma?
Emit conservative values and infuse yourself with anarchic values.
:chin: Life is, after all, a masquerade ball.
That dilemma is not all that relevant to me.
Whether it's anarchy or oppression, it's the result of the collective behavior of individuals. I can't and don't want to decide for others what they must do.
I can however look at these systems and ponder their nature, and whether I want to live my life in accordance to their principles.
Yep. Your position on the issue is not as radical as some have made it out to be. What happens when we grow up? Regulations/rules ease from being 5 years old and being 18+ years old. It's just that people are irresponsible with their freedom and hence laws.
Of course I fail all the time and stubbornly refuse to adhere to what other people do as what I should do because that is how things are done :D
Ideas can approximate reality to varying degrees, and the closer they approximate reality, the "better" (for the lack of a better term) they are. Obviously I believe some of my ideas approximate reality more closely than others, otherwise I would not have those ideas. I realize however, that I am fallible and have no way to confirm, therefore I shall not impose those ideas on anyone.
Quoting khaled
I haven't proposed a principle of non-interference. I have however stated that I do not think non-interference is an imposition.
In your example I would say it is not wrong to remove someone from a train track who is clearly being held there against their will. I also don't believe choosing non-interference (leaving the person on the track) is wrong; perhaps it is nothing. Perhaps it is simply neutral. And perhaps freeing the person from the train track is good.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have stated that when one gets the sense one's ideas are closer to truth, one gets a right to impose them.
Example:
At a moment in time, a person conducted an experiment to determine the effects of alchohol on driving skills. Lets say they found that 10% of subjects could still drive at an acceptable level under the effects of alchohol, whereas 90% of subjects could not.
You may state that because 90% of subjects could not drive at an acceptable level, the other 10% may rightfully be imposed upon. I would disagree. Since the study found no proof that they could not drive at an acceptable level after alcohol consumption, their existence in fact undermines the study's claim to truth.
The line of reasoning continues: but it is not practical to determine on a case by case basis who should drive after alcohol consumption and who shouldn't. So because it is not practical for the majority, the minority may rightfully be imposed upon: might ("we are with more") makes right.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Debatable. I'm sure you're aware of what happens when collectives disagree on what is the better guess.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
How?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I do follow that, since I've never been in the highly unlikely situation that my life is directly threatened and the only means of survival is to defend myself.
However, in such a situation one could argue that one is not imposing. As I've stated earlier:
An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. Force can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be mental, etc.
In the case of directly protecting one's own life, is one really imposing desires on someone else? Is it even volutary? Or is it a biological reflex? One may argue that the will to live would be a desire one is imposing, but is it really that simple? Then there's the fact one is responding to an imposition on something that belongs unequivocally to them; the individual and their body are inseperable, they live as one and die as one. I think the instance of direct protection of oneself is more complicated than that, but these are all fair questions.
Then again, maybe the right thing to do is to sit there and accept one's fate - to turn the other cheek. Perhaps that is what Buddha would do. And didn't Jesus carry his own cross to Golgotha to die on it? I'm willing to consider that option.
Quoting khaled
We've spoken about this. You realize that knowledge of ultimate reality is outside of the human grasp, yet for practical considerations you make do with "a sense of the better guess" and consider it just grounds for impositions on others.
What do you do when some fool comes around with "a sense of the better guess" and starts imposing on you? These ideas are all fine and good, until someone comes around to uses them against you, and that is essentially the root of all human conflict.
Quoting khaled
I do not think so.
"Non-interference is not an imposition." - Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Correct, assuming the standing person is not consciously attempting to deny the other person of this space. If it is a conscious attempt to deny, it is an imposition.
Inner chaos, outer order. :up:
Ok. So at least we're past "all opinions are equally silly" yes? I can agree with the above.
But I'm not sure you answered the question anywhere. Can I assume you mean to say that your goal here is to arrive at ideas that approximate reality even better?
Quoting Tzeentch
An important thing to point out: The idea that we should not impose because we're fallible is just as susceptible to being wrong as any other idea. Agreed?
Quoting Tzeentch
My misunderstanding.
Quoting Tzeentch
But it's not clear if they're being held against their will or if they're there by choice. Maybe it's actually a very expensive movie shot, and the tied person is an actor and by attempting to remove them you would ruin the shot. What to do then?
In other words, what do we do when we're not sure if we're imposing or not?
And I would like some further clarification on what makes an imposition: If I do something to someone, not knowing it was their intent to do so anyways, have I imposed? If, for instance, I wake someone up not knowing whether or not they wanted to be woken up, and it turns out that they actually did want to wake up at that time because they have an appointment, have I imposed?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes. Though one also has a duty to do as much research as they can to make sure their idea is actually closer to truth.
Quoting Tzeentch
Does this apply regardless of the potential damage and ease of the act? If, for instance you had a button that could cure all strains of COVID, is it morally permissible not to press it and just walk away?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's not quite it. The problem is that it's a choice of either imposing slightly on 10% of drivers or imposing on everyone a much higher risk of accidents (including said drivers in the first place). This gets difficult to discuss without a clear definition of what an imposition is. Is refusing to instantiate a law that you know will benefit the community an imposition? Or is instantiating it the imposition?
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Isn't attempting at getting a better answer better in your eyes too? If it wasn't, why would you comment here?
If we didn't try to get at better guesses, any guess would be just as good. Wars happen when large amounts of people disagree on something. Imagine what would happen if everyone disagreed on everything. That would be worse wouldn't it?
It seems to me you believe that if we recognized our fallibility, and thus gave up on trying to approach objectivity, people wouldn't be trying to impose as much. I think the opposite will happen, people will try to impose more.
Quoting Tzeentch
Because that's the described situation. Either you press a button that kills Jeff. You press a button that kills Sarah. Or you press neither (escaping would involve this) and both die. (I'm not sure if I kept the same names)
I could make it a bit more obvious. Let's say one button would impose on Jeff by pinching him. The other button would impose on Sarah by burning her alive. Walking away leads to both being burned alive. Now in all situations, you're imposing correct? Or do you think that walking away here is not an imposition? Incidentally, do you think non interference is right here too?
Quoting Tzeentch
I said you would impose sometimes, so you don't follow that maxim. Point is that you would be willing to break it at a specific degree of inconvenience. Just that yours is supposedly much higher than most. You claimed that you apply the principle consistently but to say that you must seriously believe self defense is morally wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's what I would argue, but I've been using your definition of imposing this whole time, and it seemed to me that you counted even self defense as imposition, so I didn't question it.
Quoting Tzeentch
This seems to fit the bill here too though. One of your desires is for the psychotic killer not to kill you. And you impose that one desire on the killer through the use of force do you not? I don't think your definition leaves much wiggle room.
Quoting Tzeentch
In ethics it all depends on your starting premises. Do you truly believe that turning the other cheek is always the correct thing to do? Some people do. Some people would just sit there and die. But neither of us would, so we seem to agree that turning the other cheek is not always the correct thing to do. Pointing out that others disagree is not helpful for this conversation because we both disagree with said others.
Quoting Tzeentch
Impose on him by stopping him because I have the better guess.
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh I don't doubt that they're the root of human conflict. But I maintain that your ideas would lead to much more conflict. If the fool believes in my ideas as I do, he would cease his imposition the moment he realizes his guess is bad. He would even apologize and thank me for showing him a better guess.
In your case, there is nothing that can be used to stop the psychotic killer or the fool. I would try to imagine a world where everyone think all impositions are wrong but I can't really do so without knowing what you mean by imposition, which brings me to the next point:
Quoting Tzeentch
This doesn't help much. I noticed you also ignored my question on what constitutes an imposition.
I'm sat in this chair right now. Right now I am denying you the space I am sitting in. Is that an imposition? I doubt it. What if the stander doesn't see it as denying? After all, what of the person trying to pass? Isn't he consciously trying to deny the stander that space as well? Isn't he the one asking the stander to move?
The stander would tell you the walker is imposing, by trying to deny him that space. The walker would tell you the stander is imposing, by trying to deny him that space. Who's right here? Both only see the other as imposing because they feel entitled to that passage. Who's entitled to the passage? This is why I asked for a clarification on what imposition is.
Incidentally, this is why I believe your system would lead to more conflict. People believe they're being imposed on all the time. People believe they're entitled to all sorts of different things. If we didn't try to systematize these beliefs, and lay out clear boundaries for acceptable and unacceptable activity, there would be way more conflict, not less. Even if this systematization sometimes inevitably makes some feel like they're being imposed upon, a lack of it would mean virtually everyone feeling they're being imposed upon.
:lol:
Yes? Someone called mu name? Hello!?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
In practice, it more often translates into discarding ideas that when scrutinized appear unfeasible.
Quoting khaled
Indeed.
However, because one will not impose their ideas in the first place, it does not matter if they are wrong.
Quoting khaled
Inaction is always an option.
Or act according to your best judgement, and risk being wrong. Humans are fallible after all.
Quoting khaled
Yes, but by coincidence you haven't done harm.
Quoting khaled
Ok, so I do my duty, I do all I can to come to a "sense of the better guess", and then start imposing my ideas on you. They just happen to be wildly different from yours, but that doesn't matter, because I did my duty and because I feel I'm right, I get the right to impose. All that stops me is whether I have the power to force you to do those things I would like you to do.
Is this how it should work? Might makes...
Quoting khaled
Yes, as long as one doesn't impose of course one can try to find better answers to their heart's desire. I would even encourage it.
Once one starts imposing based on their conviction on having the better guess, that's when things get muddy quickly. That's what I meant with saying it is debatable.
Quoting khaled
Yes.
Quoting khaled
It is not a slight imposition. A law is an imposition made under threat of violence.
Quoting khaled
What wasn't clear in my definition?
Quoting khaled
Inaction is not an imposition.
Creating a law is an imposition almost by definition, because laws are only created for things that people need to be forced to do or not do.
Quoting khaled
It would be perfectly fine if people didn't impose their conflicting ideas on each other.
Quoting khaled
I never said one should give up on trying to approach objectivity.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I thought you were talking about the example where I am being held against my will.
In the case of the button, if there are no good choices to be made, then inaction is fine. Both would die, but it is not my responsibility to save them - I didn't put them there nor did I voluntarily accept any task to care for their safety.
Perhaps one could try to talk to them, to see if either is willing to make the sacrifice.
Quoting khaled
Inaction would not be wrong. It is also not right. It is neutral.
In this instance one could use their best judgement to conclude that pinching Jeff is a meaningless imposition that does not compare in any way to being burned alive, and thus choose to impose on Jeff and save Sarah. Jeff will probably agree and thank you for it. If he doesn't, you have made a terrible mistake, but alas people aren't perfect.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I don't disagree with them at all. In fact, I am willing to consider that they are right. It would be consistent with the rest of my ideas.
I'm also willing to consider that the direct protection of one's physical body deserves a clause.
Then again, scenarios involving psychotic killers are so unlikely that they're hardly worth the time and effort. I'll deal with the matter when one comes on my path.
Quoting khaled
And thus begins the viscious cycle of human conflict.
Quoting khaled
Doubtful. I'll maintain that the more conflict-prone individuals there are, the more conflicts there are. And the more conflict-avoidant individuals there are, the fewer conflicts there are.
Quoting khaled
That undoubtedly happens sometimes, yet human conflict is as rife as ever. Perhaps convincing fools that imposing is right is the work of fools?
Quoting khaled
Reason? Kindness? Compassion? If all else fails, simple avoidance?
I'm entertaining this line of the discussion because I'm curious just how water-tight I can make my argument, but if we're willing to open the Pandora's box of a right to impose based on the supposed existence of unavoidable psychotic killers, we are past a certain point, aren't we?
It's a bit ironic actually, that our system to "stop unavoidable psychotic killers" involves individuals sitting behind a screen dropping bombs on people like it's a computer game. It's almost like we have become the unavoidable psychotic killers.
Ends don't justify means.
Quoting khaled
I've provided a straight-forward definition in the very post you replied to. Please, lets keep our discussion honest.
Quoting khaled
I would put it this way:
If you are sitting in your chair, consciously trying to deny someone else from sitting in it, you are imposing. The fact that there's no one to notice it only stops you from doing harm, so the imposition is meaningless, but it is still an imposition.
Intention matters.
If I try to kill someone, but I fail and the victim never notices I tried to kill them, was I not wrong for trying to kill them?
Quoting khaled
Neither. They're both imposing on each other and thus both are wrong. It only takes one of them to wisen up and step aside, but they both choose not to. It's a conflict of egos.
Quoting khaled
A solution which seeks to mend feelings of being imposed upon with actual impositions seems self-defeating.
When someone feels I have imposed on them in some meaningful way, they will probably tell me, and we can work things out. Seems like constructive human interaction to me.
I'll try to keep it shorter this time. If I miss anything important, quote it and I'll address it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Would you say it is wrong to press either button here? Let's for a moment agree that inaction here (leaving them both to die) is neutral, though I find that ridiculous. Thus we have 3 alternatives:
1- Pinch Jeff
2- Kill Sarah
3- Allow both to die
The first 2 are undoubtedly impositions. The last is supposedly not. Since impositions are wrong that leaves us with the conclusion that it's wrong to pinch Jeff and so save both of their lives, and that the morally correct option (relatively, it's a neutral option with 2 bad alternatives) is to allow both to die. Do you agree with this?
Quoting Tzeentch
Is it right to refer to better judgement, even if it involves imposing? (different way of asking the same question as above)
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok. Next question: Is such an imposition wrong regardless of how certain we are that the victim will not mind it?
Quoting Tzeentch
I think the alternative, where one doesn't impose whatsoever, is much muddier.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why would it not matter? My having wildly different ideas should be reason to reevaluate the quality of your research. Clearly someone should be careful before imposing, I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the idea that it's always wrong to impose.
If I thought that stabbing a power outlet with a fork would produce candy, please, kindly impose on me and stop me. By your system, such an imposition would be wrong. That's what I'm against.
Quoting Tzeentch
Banning people from drinking while they're driving is very slight. They can drink afterwards. Or get a taxi or a friend to drive them. That's what I meant by "slight", not how strongly it's enforced.
Quoting Tzeentch
No offense, but I don't much care for what you're "willing to consider" and I mean this in the nicest way possible. I'm interested in what you're arguing. If you argue that imposition is always wrong, that means there are no such clauses.
If you change your argument by adding said clause, I would ask why you added this specific clause, and which other clauses may be added.
Quoting Tzeentch
If so, then why did you claim that my ideas were "the source of all human conflict" if it's only about "conflict proneness"?
Quoting Tzeentch
I apologize. I didn't mean to be dishonest. It's just that you also tried to argue that stopping psychotic killers is not an imposition, when it very clearly is by that initial definition. That's why I asked for clarification.
Quoting Tzeentch
So are you saying that, by denying you this space (where I'm sitting) I am imposing on you? You also maintain that all impositions are wrong correct? Wouldn't that mean that I'm doing something wrong by being sat here? I suspect I misunderstood you, I can't quite tell what you mean here.
Since someone will always occupy some space, and if doing so is an imposition, how would one go about not imposing in your system? Does your system not permit someone to not be wrong?
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed. Is this intended as an analogy for sitting in chairs?
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok, how about we generalize a bit. Say A tries to impose X on B, and B tries to impose Y on A. In this scenario, it seems your system would produce that both A and B are wrong, regardless of X and Y correct? And if A wants to not be wrong, he should cease trying to impose X and if B wants to not be wrong he should cease trying to impose Y. Do you agree with this?
And the real answer is, I don't know.
However, one could use their judgement to assume that Jeff would want one to press the button to pinch him and save Sarah, in which case there is no conflict of desires and no meaningful imposition was made.
That judgement could be completely wrong though, and if it is, one has made a mistake.
Obviously in a more realistic situation one goes into dialogue to determine these things before one makes a decision.
Quoting khaled
The crucial factor here, as mentioned in the previous line, is that one doesn't know if one is making an imposition. One can reasonably assume that Jeff agrees pinching him is much better than Sarah dying, but again, one could be wrong in which case one has certainly made an imposition, which is wrong.
Inaction is not a "morally correct" option; it is neutral. One doesn't get involved, one refuses to be part of the moral dilemma.
Quoting khaled
Certainly not categorically.
One could imagine a situation where the other may be grateful for the imposition afterwards - lets say I push someone out of the way of a moving car. But in this example am I imposing my desires on someone, or simply acting on behalf of theirs? Either way, it is a risk.
Quoting khaled
If one consciously attempts to use force to make someone act in accordance to one's desires, it is wrong regardless of the outcome. If one knows it will not affect the other, then one requires no force.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I reevaluated my research and came to the conclusion that I am still right, and you are still wrong. Let the impositions begin!
Quoting khaled
As stated a few lines above, it is not clear to me whether we are in this instance imposing our desires on someone, or attempting to act on behalf of theirs. While we cannot be sure, circumstances may prompt us to take a risk, and if the subject thanks us afterwards perhaps we have made the right choice. If we are scolded and cursed afterwards, we must have imposed and then we have done something wrong.
Quoting khaled
Then I'll change my argument to "Imposition is wrong, except in the case of direct protection of one's own physical body where I am not sure."
Quoting khaled
We can come back to this, if we can get on the same page with everything else. I think you'll agree that the discussion is getting a bit unwieldy already.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
A desire to impose and being conflict-prone are almost synonymous, but I'll restate it:
"The more imposers there are, the more conflicts there are. The more non-imposers there are, the fewer conflicts there are."
Quoting khaled
I haven't argued that, because it clearly would be an imposition. The question that remains is whether it is also immoral to impose in such a situation.
Quoting khaled
If you're doing it with the express intention of denying me, then yes.
Quoting khaled
Again, intentions matter. You just sitting in your chair is not an imposition. You sitting in your chair with the intention of denying someone else a place to sit is an imposition (even if the other person isn't aware or even affected).
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Sure. If I try to deny a person from sitting in a chair by sitting there myself, and the person just walks by and never noticed I attempted to impose on them, was I not wrong for trying to impose on them in the first place?
Quoting khaled
Correct.
Quoting khaled
Sure.
But pinching Jeff is undoubtedly an imposition, yes? Does this mean that you're not sure if all impositions are wrong anymore?
Quoting Tzeentch
Is this a form of consequentialism? It sounds to me like you're implying that an imposition is wrong only if it ends up conflicting with the victim's interests. Am I correct?
Quoting Tzeentch
I believe there is a contradiction here. Remember I asked you already:
Quoting khaled
And you answered:
Quoting Tzeentch
But here you say that one "doesn't know if they're making an imposition", implying that if Jeff had been fine with getting pinched to save him and Sarah, then pinching him is not an imposition.
Additionally, by your original definition, pinching is certainly an imposition. So which is it? Is doing something to someone without consent, and it happening to coincide with their intentions, an imposition or not?
Perhaps now you understand why I often ask for clarification.
Quoting Tzeentch
This seems to be your original definition of imposition, which is always wrong. We can agree that pinching Jeff falls here yes? (Desire: save Jeff and Sarah, Force: Pinch) If so that would make it wrong. But you said at the start that you're not sure.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not sure why that would matter, could you elaborate? So far, your ethical system ruled out all impositions as wrong. So I'm not sure how intention factors into it. And intentions aren't mentioned in your definition of imposition as far as I can see.
Quoting Tzeentch
I thought you did here:
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
If you claim that all impositions are wrong, and that this (self defense) is an imposition, what question remains? Isn't the answer clearly that it's wrong? Which statement would you change (either not all impositions are wrong, or self defense is not an imposition)
Quoting Tzeentch
I certainly don't think you're always wrong. If you owned the chair, I would say you are definitely not wrong for instance. Do you believe that you would be wrong even then?
Again, I see contradiction between that and this:
Quoting khaled
In one you claim that an imposition is an imposition regardless of the intent of the victim. In the other, you claim that the victim's intent is "key to determining whether something is an imposition". Which definition shall we proceed with?
No, not undoubtedly. As I tried to make clear, there must be a conflict of desires or the impression thereof to make it an imposition.
In this example one can reasonably assume Jeff would want to be pinched if it meant saving Sarah, and thus one may choose to take that risk. But it is still a risk.
If it turns out Jeff disagrees, one has made an imposition.
Inaction is the only safe option here.
Quoting khaled
No. As I said, intentions matter. Just like when one intends to kill someone but fails, that is still an immoral act.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
The key here is in the first instance one is acting regardless of the subject's desires and end up, by accident, not doing harm.
In the second instance one is making an estimation of the subject's desires and acting in accordance with them.
Again; intention.
Quoting khaled
Not by definition. If one attempts to act in accordance to the subject's desires rather than impose their own, it is not an imposition assuming they are successful.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
If one's intention is, to the best of their judgement, make a decision that is in line with Jeff's desires it is not an imposition.
The issue here is that Jeff's desires are unknown and therefore this decision does entail a risk. If it turns out we were wrong about Jeff's desires, we have imposed.
As I tried to make clear, the use of force implies a conflict of desires. If there is no conflict of desires or impression thereof, there is no imposition. One would still be able to make bad decisions that affect others, but those would be of a different nature that have to do with ignorance and not imposition.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
I left that open-ended on purpose. We discuss the details after we have agreed on everything else.
Quoting khaled
I ammended my claim, leaving the question of self-defense unresolved for now. Why skip over that?
Quoting khaled
Yes.
There are few things as subjective as ideas of what belongs to whom, and those ideas certainly don't bestow a right to impose on the holder.
Quoting khaled
There is no contradiction.
If it is one's desire to impose, it is an imposition regardless of the subject's desires.
If it is not one's desire to impose, but one for whatever reason feels forced to make a judgement call, the desires of the victim and one's ability to accurately determine them become key.
I find very little I disagree with in this comment.
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok let's go with that. I'm assuming we're still using "all impositions are wrong"
Quoting Tzeentch
But the question is whether or not taking the risk is permissible. Is it permissible to risk imposing when our best judgement shows that it's the best option?
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't intend to. I misinterpreted it. I thought you meant to say that the morality of self defense is unknowable, not unknown, so I tried to show how it's clear from your definitions that it would be wrong.
Now let me change the situation a bit, because I'm not convinced that this:
Quoting Tzeentch
Is the end all be all. I'm not sure it's purely the imposition victim who has to be taken into account but rather also the victims of not imposing
Suppose Sarah is Jeff's ex-wife and he hates her with a burning passion. So much so, that he doesn't mind dying with her, and so verbally and loudly opposes your decision to pinch him to save both. Now does it become immoral to pinch Jeff? By the current formulation, you know you'd be opposing Jeff's intent, and so it would be an imposition, and so wrong. Do you agree with that?
Or another situation, imagine the Jeff is stoned out of his mind and mumbles something about how he hates blue so much so don't you dare press the blue button. Incidentally, that's the button to pinch Jeff. Would it be wrong to press it then?
The question of whether it was permissable lies solely with whether one was able to accurately determine the desires of the subject.
If one did, it was permissable. If one didn't, it wasn't. There's no way to determine the morality of such an act beforehand, hence the risk.
Quoting khaled
Yes.
Inaction is the safe option.
Quoting khaled
This is a situation where one could reasonably assume that the desires expressed by Jeff are not his true desires but a result of a deteriorated mental state. One could take the risk.
Whether that decision is right or wrong can only be accertained after Jeff sobers up.
Quoting khaled
The issue with this is that it implies that inaction is immoral, which in turn implies that one has to spend their every waking moment and ounce of energy solving what one perceives to be the world's problems (despite the fact that one may be completely wrong in their judgement of what constitutes problems and solutions). Every moment spent in rest or thought would be akin to inaction, and thus immoral.
This makes no sense to me.
Incidentally, before I begin, you’re an antinatalist correct? Or am I misremembering?
Quoting Tzeentch
A consequentialist answer then? One cannot tell beforehand if what he’s about to do is permissible or not.
I don’t see how you square it with this however:
Quoting Tzeentch
The first quote implies that an attempt at murder is never wrong (“there is no way to determine the morality of the act beforehand”). Successful murder is itself only conditionally wrong (wrong only if the victim wants to live)
The second implies that the attempt itself is wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
I find it curious that if Jeff is drunk then we shouldn’t respect his intentions, but when he’s malicious we should.
If it was 20 people in that room, and Jeff was purely evil, would it still be wrong? If there were 100 would it still be wrong? What about if it was between Jeff’s wish to cause death and the entirety of the human race on the other end? Would it still be immoral to pinch Jeff?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes I do believe inaction is sometimes immoral, but I don’t see how that means that we must spend every waking moment trying to fix things. As to why I believe inaction is sometimes immoral (one of the reasons):
There is no fundamental difference between action and inaction.
Let’s return to Jeff and Sarah. We say that the action is pressing a button correct? Let me coin a new verb: “sserp” and it means “to not press”. So now, Sarah can accuse you of imposing on her by sserping the button.
The split between action and inaction is a trick of the language.
This idea hasn’t gone under much scrutiny I’ll admit, so I’m curious what you’ll say. What is it about sserping that makes it an inaction as opposed to an action? What separates them in general?
Is standing still an action or inaction?
Depends on what you mean with anti-natalist.
I'm not campaigning for people not to have children. I am however seriously considering the possibility that the act of having children is immoral.
Quoting khaled
Yes, in the context of what we've specified that is true.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
An intent to harm can by itself be immoral.
However, when the intent is benevolent, but the outcome is wrong, it can also be immoral.
So it stands to reason that actions cannot be judged solely on either intent or outcome, but by a bit of both.
Quoting khaled
This is how I would personally judge this hypothetical situation and I could of course be wrong. Maybe Jeff's anger is entirely out-of-character in which case one could take a risk, just like when he was intoxicated.
Quoting khaled
Yes. In essence you are imposing on Jeff to sacrifice himself on behalf of others. I don't think sacrifice can be morally imposed on anyone (no matter how alien their dispositions seem to be).
If we make the judgement that somehow, because we perceive the pinch to be only a minor sacrifice, we are justified in imposing on Jeff we open a box of Pandora.
Quoting khaled
Because if inaction towards a perceived problem is immoral, then every moment not spent solving the problems one perceives is immoral.
Personally, I think inaction is only immoral towards those situations one has voluntarily taken responsibility for.
For example, if one chooses to have a child, one must care for its well-being and inaction is not morally permissible.
Quoting khaled
I think there is, and I also think it is fundamental.
Quoting khaled
Sarah has no grounds to demand (impose) one's involvement in their predicament.
When I have a problem, I cannot simply make people part of that problem and then accuse them of imposing on me for not solving my problems.
Quoting khaled
Standing still is an act(ion). But while one is standing still, one may also be in inaction. For example, one is not running.
It is as fundamental as the distinction between that which is and that which isn't.
I think the trick of language is one you're playing on yourself here.
This is what I mean. But by the current standard, you cannot tell the morality of an act beforehand. So having children would only be wrong if the child grows up hating their life wouldn't it? Assuming of course that the parents don't have malicious intent with their children. What further consideration is needed?
Quoting Tzeentch
Well then it looks like further amendment is needed. It's not just about the consequence anymore, the morality of an act also depends on the intent before it takes place. What to do when those contradict?
If one has a benevolent intent but the outcome is bad, was the act immoral? Was the morality of the act determined after or before the act in this case?
On the other hand, if the intent is malicious, but the outcome is good, was the act immoral? Was the morality of the act determined after or before the act in this case?
What's the "timeline of morality" here? Is the morality of the act initially determined by intent but then we "add" the consequence after the act is done and recalculate the morality of the act? If so, what's the point of this extra addition and recalculation? That's the best I can make of this so far.
I've never come across a system that determines the morality of the act both before (intent) and after (consequence) the act, so I'm confused on what to make of this.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think the idea that no matter how minor the sacrifice, it cannot be imposed, is a much bigger Pandora's box. I understand one should be very careful if they intend to impose a sacrifice, but not so careful that it's always wrong.
Besides, doesn't saving Sarah fall under "benevolent intent"? So the outcome could be wrong (benevolent intent, but the act ends up contradicting Jeff's wishes). What makes you so sure it is wrong? What variables determine when benevolent intent overrides the consequences of an act and when it doesn't?
Quoting Tzeentch
Couldn't you say this regardless of how out of character the anger is? There is always a chance that Jeff doesn't mean what he says, or a chance that it's actually not Jeff speaking but you hallucinating. What if one bets on those chances? Can your system definitively state that imposing a sacrifice on Jeff is wrong? I don't see how it could given that morality is determined after the act is done, and given that the intent in this case is benevolent (save Sarah).
But you also seem sure that it is wrong. Why is that?
Quoting Tzeentch
Correct. Now how would this imply that one has to spend all their time fixing things?
In your system, action can be immoral if it's against the victim's interest. That doesn't mean that one has to spend every waking moment checking if their actions have imposed or not does it? You typed many responses to me, did you once ask me if you were imposing?
One doesn't need to spend every waking moment checking if their inaction is immoral for the same reason you don't spend every waking moment checking if your action is immoral.
Quoting Tzeentch
And how does responsibility work? Many would argue that you have a responsibility to save Sarah in that scenario.
Can one ethically have a child and choose not to take on the responsibility associated? If not, then it is not clear that responsibility is entirely voluntary.
Quoting Tzeentch
What is it then?
Quoting Tzeentch
But they are involved aren't they? They're sserping the button! They're causing her death!
Quoting Tzeentch
Well this doesn't help much. If the same act can be an action and an inaction, what tells you that sserping is an inaction, instead of an action?
I'm not sure what the example implies. Do you mean for example, that if I have an intended act X, then doing X is an action and not doing X is an inaction? What's the principle at work in the example?
The question has now become, what constitutes a moral act.
This is my idea about that:
1. The intention of the act must be just.
What constitutes justice is a seperate discussion, but for now it will suffice to say just intentions have the well-being of their subject at heart.
2. One must possess the power and wisdom to make their intentions reality.
Without these things, the person would be incapable of the intended act to begin with, and thus one would be acting ignorantly.
3. The intended outcome.
This is essentially a confirmation of 2.
Assuming the parent is well-intentioned and wishes the happiness of their child, there is a myriad of matters one is fundamentally ignorant of and powerless over.
A few examples:
- The parent does not know what constitutes the happiness of their child.
- The parent does not know the countless factors that will affect the happiness of their child, and is powerless to influence many of them.
- The parent does not know the effects of their upbringing on the child.
- The parent does not know the effects of their child on the world.
The course of a human life is simply too complicated to oversee, and the factors too diverse to control. The degree to which intentions of the parents coincides with the outcome relies mostly on luck.
Even if criteria 1 can be fulfilled and the parents accurately estimate the desires of the child, criteria 2 cannot be fulfilled, for no other reason that the actor of has very limited control and little to no knowledge over the outcome.
That is to say, having children cannot be a moral act. The question is then, is it always immoral? To me this is unresolved. Perhaps making such a decision on the basis of so much ignorance and so little power is irresponsible and immoral to begin with.
The next question is, what constitutes an immoral act.
An act that has a malicious intention, is immoral, regardless of the outcome.
An act that has a harmful outcome, is immoral, regardless of the intent. One could say that even if the intentions were good, the immorality of one's deed stems from their ignorance, or hubris.
But what of the act that is well-intentioned, and has a good outcome, but not by power or wisdom of one's own but by mere coincidence.
This would be the case for the well-intentioned parent that happens to raise a happy child. (Note: since the child is a creation of the parent, their actions will be their full responsibility, so the actions of the child will be another factor in determining the (im)morality of having the child).
It cannot be a moral act, because as we have determined: a parent fundamentally lacks the power and wisdom to have created a happy child. It is simply largely outside of their control.
But is it immoral? The same ignorance and hubris are present, with all the risks they bring, yet the intentions were good and no harm has come of it. Maybe it is not immoral. Or maybe it is. Unresolved.
Quoting khaled
I don't think a system could make any sense without taking both into account.
Quoting khaled
The fact that one intends not only to save Sarah but also impose (sacrifice) on Jeff is what makes it wrong. The intention must be good, not half-good, half-bad.
Quoting khaled
Of course, and one could always bet on those chances if one felt they had ample reason to do so.
One risks making a misjudgement, though, and thus a major mistake.
Quoting khaled
In the situation we have specified, yes.
Quoting khaled
See my earlier explanation of what constitutes a moral act.
Quoting khaled
It rests on the assumption that one is interested in living a moral life. If one isn't interested in that, this entire discussion isn't relevant to them.
Quoting khaled
If impositions are in any way meaningful, one may expect some kind of signal from the person who one supposedly imposed on. If the imposition is not important enough to let one know, then one can assume no meaningful imposition was made.
But if you take this discussion as an imposition on my part, and you find it impossible for yourself to stop partaking in this conversation for whatever reason, let me know and I'll stop.
Quoting khaled
Like I said, responsibility can only be an effect of situations one has caused voluntarily.
Quoting khaled
It should be obvious that if the choice to have a child is voluntary, one cannot choose not to take responsibility for its well-being.
Quoting khaled
And I disagree. After all, I haven't put Jeff and Sarah in this predicament. Whoever did that, is responsible.
Quoting khaled
Whoever put them in their predicament is causing their death.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I explained; the difference between action and inaction is similar to that which is and that which isn't.
Quoting khaled
It refers to something that isn't.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Couldn't this be applied to all acts? After all, if by criteria 2, you mean the power and wisdom to make intentions a reality with 100% chance, then no act at all fulfills that criteria. People aren't omnipotent or omniscient. Let's take giving to charity. There is always a chance that the money I send gets stolen and used to fund the Russian mafia. I do not have the wisdom or power to ensure that that will not happen with 100% certainty. Therefore donating to charity is not moral by this formulation.
It seems clear to me that 100% certainty is not maintainable, or else all acts are not moral. So how certain should we be before an act with benevolent intentions becomes justified?
Also, what is the difference between "not moral" and "immoral"? Is it ok to do "not moral" acts?
Quoting Tzeentch
I have two important questions:
First, what happens when these criteria contradict? So what happens when one has benevolent intent, and has enough certainty that they'll succeed (so the act is moral) but the act has a negative consequence (so the act is immoral)? Or conversely, when one has benevolent intent, but not much certainty (so the act is not moral) but the act turns out ok (so the act is not immoral)? Until this is answered there are many things I cannot address.
And second, what counts as the "outcome" exactly? If, say, I help an old lady cross the road (out of benevolent intent), but then 3 years later she ends up murdering 5 people, have I done something wrong or right? How far into the future do we need to look?
Quoting Tzeentch
So? By the current formulation, this hubris and ignorance have no bearing on whether or not an act is immoral. Why do they factor in?
If the presence of this "hubris" makes the morality of an act undecided, then the morality of all well intentioned unharmful acts is undecided, since you consider anything less than 100% "hubris"
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
And this is the issue. Your system cannot say "this is wrong". Only "this was wrong". Who cares about the latter? It's already done. What does knowing that an act happened to be wrong accomplish? It doesn't guide you towards living morally.
Quoting Tzeentch
But as I explained, since your system also has the morality of acts depend on their consequences, you never know the morality of an act before it is done. So by the same logic shouldn't you spend every waking moment tracking the consequences of every act you have ever committed to ensure that they didn't have bad consequences that would make them immoral? Do you do that?
And let's say you do manage to track act X to have resulted in a negative consequence (putting aside the "how far into the future should we look" question), it doesn't seem like that fact alone (that an act happened to turn out wrong) would have any bearing on future behavior. If it doesn't impact your behavior surely it doesn't lead you to live a more or less moral life? So then, how does your system lead to a more moral life if doesn't impact behavior?
Quoting Tzeentch
Even then, one can bet on the chance that they're hallucinating that particular signal, once again making their intention benevolent. And since the morality of an act is only determined by its consequence at that point, they are free to do anything. The "intention" requirement is trivial to fill. And the consequence requirement doesn't deter an act. Resulting in an ethics that cannot say anything is immoral until after it's committed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Hypothetically, if someone found your holding this belief that impositions are wrong, itself an imposition on them, and asked you to stop, would you? If not, why not? What justifies that imposition?
Quoting Tzeentch
Multiple things can cause the same event correct? It's not just the person that put them in their predicament, but also the person that supplied him with the tools, and the person that supplied him with funds, and so on. You sserping the button is also part of the causal chain. Any change in these variables could have prevented the event. However some people are responsible and some aren't.
Let's take the person who built the pods to trap Sarah and Jeff. If said person knew what their use would be, and built them anyways, is he wrong? Now, importantly, if he didn't know, and they happened to be used for evil, is he wrong?
By your system the answer would be yes to both correct? Because if the consequence is bad, then the act is wrong regardless of intention. How might one ever act morally then? Or conversely, if every single act can be immoral or moral assuming benevolent intention, isn't every act done with benevolent intention justified?
Quoting Tzeentch
That doesn't help very much. I can cite one of many differences between existence and non existence. For one: Existing things can be detected, non existing things cannot. Can you similarly cite a difference between action and inaction?
Quoting Tzeentch
How so? What is the "something" in this case?
I don't quite understand this critique as you've already claimed that the same act can be an action or an inaction based on.... I don't know:
Quoting Tzeentch
But now you claim that there is a category for action/inaction that depends on "whether they refer to something that is/isn't". So is standing still an action or inaction now? Does it refer to something that isn't or something that is? Maybe if you answer these questions I could better understand what you mean by "refers to something that is/isn't"
If we take justice to mean what I said it meant: actions that have the well-being of the subject at heart (this is too simple, but it will suffice for now) then no. If there is no one's well-being to take into account, then there's no moral act to be done.
Quoting khaled
Chance is simply a guise for fudging what we don't know, so that first part is meaningless to me. One either knows and has the power, or they do not. The result of their actions will confirm or deny that.
But if you're implying there's always an element of risk involved, I would agree with that. That's something I have tried to highlight throughout our discussion, and why I have advised caution when making decisions on behalf of others.
Quoting khaled
Donating to the mafia, even if it is due to ignorance, is not moral, clearly. My advise would be, before donating to charity, figure out where the money goes.
Perhaps more importantly, aim to do good in ways where one actually possesses the wisdom and power to see it through. Do good in small things - that also is a sign of humility.
Quoting khaled
It only becomes justified if the act leads to the desired outcome. It cannot be justified beforehand. It entails a risk.
How certain should you be? That's up to the individual and how much risk they're willing to take. That question deserves much consideration every time one acts.
Quoting khaled
In the context of our discussion, there are three kinds of acts:
- Moral
- Neutral
- Immoral
So "not moral" means either neutral or immoral.
It's not good to commit immoral acts, obviously. Neutral acts, in the context of our discussion, are inconsequential. I hope that answers your question.
Quoting khaled
Then they weren't as certain as they thought they were and they committed injustice. It's an immoral act. It is overconfidence; one tried to meddle in things that they had not the wisdom to comprehend or the power to influence positively, and one made someone else pay the price for their ignorance.
All criteria must be met for an act to be considered moral.
Quoting khaled
In the example of the old lady, one has not caused the old lady to murder those people. One has only helped her cross the road.
However, if one saves the life of a murderer, and that murderer goes on to murder many people during the rest of their life, that is a consequence of one's actions. One shares responsibility for that suffering, and one has committed injustice.
Quoting khaled
Essentially what you are asking here is who cares about the consequences, which can only be acertained after the act, of their actions.
I do. And I assume you do as well. Like I said, I cannot think of a moral system that makes sense, that doesn't take consequences into account.
Quoting khaled
One would assume it gives much reason for pause, humility, reflection.
Quoting khaled
Nothing I have shared in our discussion so far has been aimed at moral guidance, but only analyzing ideas. (What is an imposition, what is a moral act, etc.)
Moral guidance is an entirely seperate matter. Interesting to be sure, and perhaps something to be kept for later. I doubt my ideas of moral guidance will be of much use if we do not agree on/understand each other's premises.
Quoting khaled
I would certainly advise to spend a great deal of time reflecting on one's actions and their consequences, and if one suspects they have committed injustices unknowingly, to acertain these things.
However, whether one knows the consequences of their actions or not does not change the nature of the injustice, for it already has been committed.
So no. I don't believe such a moral duty exists, for it would imply one has a moral duty to rid oneself of all ignorance, which is clearly impossible. Ignorance however, is its own punishment, so I would consider it to be in the individual's best interest to rid oneself of as much of it as possible.
Quoting khaled
That depends on the individual. If one sees they have committed an injustice and it does not prompt them to change in some way, that says a lot about the individual, and very little about that which I have proposed.
Quoting khaled
I guess so. But the choice whether we let our actions and their consequences (the ones we are aware of) impact our future behavior is a choice one makes.
I guess maybe your point is that the consequences one is ignorant of cannot influence their behavior, and that much is true.
Quoting khaled
We are discussing the basic premises of the system, and haven't yet touched upon the question of how it can contribute to living a more moral life. Lets agree on/understand things first before we move on.
Quoting khaled
It has to be genuine, of course. If one is simply putting up an act, one may fool others as to what their intentions are, but they cannot fool reality, so to speak.
If hallucinations are being used as a pretense, then obviously the intent is not benevolent at all.
Quoting khaled
If one isn't interested in living morally, then yes. In that case, one should do whatever one wishes.
Obviously someone interested in living morally would never come to the conclusion that they should use their ignorance to justify their every act. The consequence would be an immoral life.
Quoting khaled
It is certainly not trivial. An unjust intention categorically excludes an act from being moral.
Quoting khaled
How does it not? Shouldn't the thoughtful person deeply consider the consequences before they act? Frankly, the idea that the morality of an action can be determined before the act, that is to say, without knowing the consequences, is entirely untenable.
If anything this emphasis on consequences should prompt the individual to carefully consider before acting.
Quoting khaled
That would not match my definition of an imposition, namely the use of force to make the subject act in accordance with one's desires.
Quoting khaled
Certainly, and they all share some moral responsibility.
Quoting khaled
Certainly not. It does not influence the casual chain.
Quoting khaled
Yes. And while you make it sound like this is some alien concept, it is actually very common that producers are held liable for the harm caused by their products, even if it was never their intention. This is not the same, but similar.
Quoting khaled
By ensuring the consequence matches the intention, and yes, that requires much care and deliberation before one attempts a moral act, that is to say, before one attempts to influence another's well-being. Maybe technically one could say one is never completely certain, so it entails a risk.
No one said living a moral life was easy.
Quoting khaled
If the consequences do not match the intention, there is no moral act or justification. If the consequences actually cause harm instead of the intended benefit, it was in fact immoral despite the intention.
To be clear, an intention can never justify an act. It would be crazy to say one's actions with harmful consequences were somehow justified because of one's ignorance.
Quoting khaled
You can detect me standing still (existence/action), and while I am standing still you cannot detect me running (non-existence/inaction).
Quoting khaled
You haven't read carefully.
One can be in action and in inaction at the same time. I haven't argued that the standing still and not running are the same act.
Quoting khaled
Standing still is an action. It is something that one is doing, and thus refers to something that is, assuming the individual is actually standing still.
I have a general question about your system. If one can choose between a morally risky option (say, 50% chance of harm) and an even riskier option (say, 70% chance of harm), is one ever justified in picking the latter? Is it wrong to pick the latter?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right but the charity example that I gave did have that. Do you believe donating to charity is not moral? I have the receiver’s interests in mind, but I can never be sure my donation actually furthers those interests.
Any “moral act” as you put it is not moral by this definition, since no one is ever certain they have the power to being their intent about
Quoting Tzeentch
Clearly they don’t. If I have never touched a computer in my life, but for some reason was convinced I can hack into the pentagon, and by sheer chance pressing random buttons I succeeded, does that mean I “knew and had the power” to bring about my intentions?
The problem is that there are two alternatives, both of which lead to ridiculous outcomes:
1- If possessing the wisdom and power to accomplish intentions means that there is a 100% chance of success, then no one possesses the wisdom or power, and there are no moral acts
2- If possessing the wisdom and power to accomplish intentions means some degree of certainty (X%) that's less than 100%, then one may possess the wisdom and power to accomplish his benevolent intent, but still fail to do so, leading to a negative outcome (with a (100-X)% chance), leading to some acts being both moral and immoral by the current criteria.
Quoting Tzeentch
Doesn’t this mean no one has the power you require for an act to be moral?
Quoting Tzeentch
But I can never be certain still, can I? After all, maybe all the evidence I found showing this charity is legit, or that I have the power to see this act through, is a hallucination. It’s possible isn’t it? Therefore no act is moral, as no one can be certain they possess the power to do as they intend 100% of the time
Quoting Tzeentch
But it doesn’t though. If I save someone’s life and he goes on to murder others in one instance, and I save another’s life and he becomes a very benevolent philanthropist, what am I to conclude?
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed. But it’s not every waking moment is it?
Similarly, inaction being wrong would mean you must spend every waking moment checking if you’re being immoral.
And in any case, what kind of argument is it to claim that since inaction being wrong would imply more effort, inaction is not wrong?
Quoting Tzeentch
Let’s say I bought a piece of candy, like I have been doing for years. As a result, the person selling them makes enough money to buy a new tv. As he goes to buy the new tv he gets killed on the way. I know this happened. Now how would you suggest I change my behavior?
If I happened to be so unlucky that this happens every time I buy a piece of candy, how should I change my behavior then?
This is what I mean when I say that the mere fact that an act turned out wrong doesn’t really tell you what to do. Maybe it was just bad luck. Maybe it actually caused the harm.
What you have is correlation. But you shouldn’t change your behavior based on correlation alone should you?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not even the ones you’re aware of can always influence it. That’s my point. So what exactly is the point of keeping track of these correlations?
Quoting Tzeentch
Absolutely. But that’s not what your system advocates. Your system doesn’t judge the morality of the act based on a prediction of likely consequences, aka, before the act is committed. It judges the morality of the act based on what actually ends up happening.
You can’t actually state that murder is wrong by a system that judges after the act. Maybe the person was suicidal. Then it’d be good. But if we’re judging by the likelihood of each outcome, before the act is committed, you can unquestionably say the murder is wrong, as it’s very unlikely to result in a good outcome. This is true regardless of whether or not the victim is suicidal.
Judging by outcome doesn’t invalidate any act, as maybe it turns out good. Judging by expected outcome is what I’m advocating. As it will actually allow you to say X is wrong before doing X
Quoting Tzeentch
Frankly, I chuckled while reading this. I really don’t understand how you can think so.
If I am a fire fighter, and save a 100 people. Then the 101st turns out to be a serial killer and kills a 102 people, have I done something immoral in acting exactly as I’ve acted the 100 times prior all with good results? If so, what should be my takeaway? Am I obligated to retire? How should this new data be interpreted?
Quoting Tzeentch
Why not?
Quoting Tzeentch
Only when they’re demonstrably negligent. If I put rat poison in candy and sell it, anyone can tell no good will come of that. In other words, only when one can expect that the outcome would be bad.
If I make tables for a living but for some reason, people always kill each other with my tables, I wouldn’t be held liable unless you can demonstrate that I had some reason to expect this outcome, and made the tables anyways.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, why is sserping an inaction?
Quoting Tzeentch
Sarah can detect you sserping (existence/action) and while you’re sserping she cannot detect you pressing (non existence/inaction)
What’s wrong with the above?
Taking a risk implies one lacks the wisdom and/or power to produce the intended effect and must rely on luck. It cannot be a moral act, thus there's no point in talking about justification.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
It seems we can go two ways:
One can conclude that certainty is impossible, and thus moral acts are impossible, and the best one can hope for is to refrain from immoral acts. This would be a similar to approaching truth by discarding things one recognizes to be untrue.
Or one can leave the possibility for certainty, thus some form of communion with ultimate reality, open.
I lean towards the latter. Perhaps certain certainties are possible, but definitely not to the extent that we can divine the future life of a person. I believe morality consists of small acts of humility, kindness and compassion, and not of "saving the world".
Perhaps a better word for certainty would be "wisdom".
Quoting khaled
As I said, criteria 3 is a confirmation or criteria 2. If criteria 2 cannot be met, then criteria 3 (ergo the result) is irrelevant.
Quoting khaled
That one has no idea of the consequences of their actions, I suppose.
Quoting khaled
I'm arguing inaction isn't wrong, and pointing out the inconsistencies that arise when one tries to argue it is wrong. The most obvious being, if inaction is immoral, and one is unavoidably in inaction towards many perceived problems at any given time, one is always immoral.
These are questions you'll have to answer yourself if you wish to hold the view that inaction is wrong.
Quoting khaled
If you suspect that the act of buying candy is actively causing people's deaths, it would certainly be a good idea to stop doing it.
In this instance you are already hinting towards the fact that your buying of the candy is not causing people's deaths, just like not pressing the button to save Sarah does not cause her death; whoever put her in the situation causes her death.
Quoting khaled
It determines based on both.
Quoting khaled
Not if the intent was to murder, obviously. Then the act is wrong from the outset. We have already been over this.
Quoting khaled
That would mean one's ignorance can justify any of one's actions, and that is not a meaningful way of constructing a moral system.
Perhaps this clarifies:
Criteria 1 discerns between benevolence and malevolence.
Criteria 2 discerns between wisdom and ignorance.
One needs to both benevolence and wisdom to do Good.
To do not Good ("Evil") is much easier: one only needs malevolence or ignorance.
Quoting khaled
That depends, if one wishes to live morally (or avoid immoral behavior) one should probably ensure one isn't enabling serial killers, should they not? And if they cannot guarantee one's behavior isn't enabling serial killers, then maybe one should cease that behavior.
Quoting khaled
Because it refers to something one isn't doing?
Quoting khaled
No, she cannot. One cannot detect the non-existence of something - at most one can infer it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I expected I didn't have to go through this tedium, but alas here we are:
Example A:
I intend to help another person, but instead I end up killing them.
A just intention, but a harmful outcome. Clearly this act cannot be considered moral.
Example B:
I intend to kill another person, but instead I end up helping them.
An unjust intention, but a helpful outcome. Clearly this act cannot be considered moral either. The unintended outcome is a result of ignorance.
Both intention and outcome have to be regarded to determine the morality of an act.
I'm asking if it's immoral to take the higher risk option. You answered that it is not moral. That doesn't answer the question as it could still be neutral.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is contradictory for our purposes. If you claim that sometimes we can be certain that our actions will lead to our intentions, then we need to be able to divine the future life of the person who we're acting upon. If we cannot do that this reduces to:
Quoting Tzeentch
The certainty you require for moral action is precisely the certainty to divine the future life of a person.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is very relevant. If I lack the wisdom to do something, and attempt it anyways, that's not moral. However, if it doesn't result in a negative consequence that's not immoral leaving us at neutral. Again, there is a world of difference between neutral and immoral acts.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's the problem with your system. Since one has no idea of the consequences of their actions, any action is as justified as another when the only criteria to judge immorality is consequence.
Quoting Tzeentch
I know, and I'm saying these "inconsistencies" are just as present in your system of consequentialism. To be moral, one needs to not do immoral things. In your system, what is "immoral" (as opposed to not moral, which is determined by intention) is determined only by consequences. Thus, any time you act with good intent, you would be required to keep track of all the consequences of your actions. Do you do so? Do you have some flowchart keeping track of all the consequences of every action you've ever taken? No. You don't spend all your energy tracking the morality of every act you take.
Thus for the same reason, if inaction is wrong, that doesn't mean I have to spend all of my energy tracking the morality of every time I choose not to act.
Quoting Tzeentch
False. I don't perceive a problem I can help with that I'm not helping with at the moment. If there was such a problem, say, a beggar approached me and I had a million dollars to spare, it would be wrong not to help them
Besides, I could very easily argue that spending every ounce of energy tracking whether there is a problem I could help with I'm not helping with doesn't help anyone, and so the best strategy is to just check every once in a while as most do.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm very interested in knowing why I am causing people's deaths in the first example, but am not causing it in the second. What is your definition of "cause"? In both cases mind you, I'm not the one doing the damage, it's the murderer or the kidnapper that's responsible respectively isn't it? So why am I causing deaths in one case but not causing it in another?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right, but the intent could always be benevolent. The murderer could bet on the 0.001% chance that the victim is actually suicidal and wants to be killed. You can't say the act is wrong until after it is done, and inevitably the 99.999% is what happens. THEN it becomes wrong.
Let's say there is an extremely lucky serial killer. The killer always has the benevolent intent of helping out suicidal people, or sending as many people to heaven as possible. The killer picks targets randomly, but by some statistical miracle they all turn out to have been suicidal and wanting to die. Assume the killer wants to live morally. Should the killer continue to pick randomly?
Quoting Tzeentch
Can you guarantee that you waking up in the morning isn't enabling serial killers? Maybe someone has broken into your house with the intent to kill you but are hesitating. If you startle them by waking up, they will kill you and start their serial killer career. If you don't, they'll come to their senses and become an upright member of society.
See the problem?
Assuming one wants to live morally it's either:
1- One is obligated to pick the option least likely to harm. Meaning (by your system) that one must always pick inaction and must never pick action. But you already disagreed with this in the original Jeff and Sarah example (where Jeff doesn't rebel against pinching), where you argued that pinching Jeff is not wrong.
2- One is not obligated to pick the option least likely to harm. Meaning a benevolent serial killer who wants to live morally is justified to kill randomly. As despite the fact that the act he commits has a 0.001% chance of being moral, he is not obligated to pick the 99.999% alternative, so is justified in picking the very unlikely act. Even after the 99.999% alternative happens, he's still not obligated to change his behavior as again, even if he recognizes the very low chance of success he's not obligated to pick the less risky alternative.
Quoting Tzeentch
Let's say there is an alternate world history, where "sserping" was defined first. And "pressing" was defined as "Not sserping". Does sserping now become an action?
Pressing refers to not sserping. So are pressing and sserping both inactions?
Quoting Tzeentch
Let's say I'm pressing a button. What's the "something" whose existence is detected?
I'm trying to understand what is the "something" that is missing and so can't be detected in sserping, but is present and can be detected in pressing. Or simply, the difference between action and inaction.
Quoting Tzeentch
Disagreed. That's precisely the point of disagreement. But I'm far more interested in the internal workings of your ethical system right now, than a highlight of its differences from mine.
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed. Because the intent was to do an act that has a very low chance of helping.
Quoting Tzeentch
You do understand this isn't a majority view or anything right? There is a whole separate form of ethics called deontology which doesn't take into account consequence at all. The idea that both matter is far from a settled conclusion. And I don't intend to debate it right now, I'm interested in your consequentialism specifically.
That depends on the outcome. It could be neutral, I suppose.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
By performing an action that involves another person, we must be able to foresee the consequences as far as our actions cause them. Of course that can be a complicated matter, depending on the ambition (or hubris) of one's action.
When one saves another person's life, the rest of their life will be a consequence of this act. In that case, I would agree certainty is impossible thus it is not a moral act. That doesn't automatically mean it is immoral though, or incapable of having desirable effects.
Quoting khaled
Certainly. I never intended to imply otherwise.
Quoting khaled
Or the intentions. And whether consequences can be known is up for debate. In a lot of cases I would argue they cannot, but perhaps in some cases they can.
Quoting khaled
It seems we are talking past each other.
If one's intentions are malevolent the act is unquestionably immoral.
Quoting khaled
In so far as the consequences of that act go, I would like to think so, yes. But also, I am not here claiming I am a perfectly moral being. Far from it.
Quoting khaled
Ideally one makes such a "flow chart" before one acts, to the best of their ability. Think before one acts. If one cannot act with wisdom, do not act. It is why I advocate to seek to do Good in small ways, that are overseeable.
As for the idea that one is obliged to track the consequences; I don't see how that follows. The deed has already been done. What would the point be of tracking the consequences? Lessons?
That would imply ridding oneself of ignorance is a moral duty. While I think it is certainly advisable to do so, I doubt it would make much sense to turn it into a moral duty.
Quoting khaled
If inaction is wrong, then every moment spent in inaction towards the problems one perceives is wrong. I think there's no way around that.
Quoting khaled
If inaction is wrong, how do you justify your inaction towards all the thousands of beggars and poor people you know exist?
If inaction is wrong, how do you justify ever sitting on the couch watching tv when you know there are people out there that need your help?
Quoting khaled
So inaction is only wrong every once in a while? :chin:
Quoting khaled
If you save someone's life, you cause the rest of their life, no? Thus you are responsible for it.
In your example of the person dying in traffic you don't cause anything. This is either a result of the person's bad driving or another person's bad driving.
Quoting khaled
So criteria 1 is met, and criteria 3, but not criteria 2. A moral act is an impossibility and whether it is immoral comes down to whether people got hurt by the killer's ignorance.
By some miracle, the killer has caused no harm. Are his actions neutral? Maybe. Or maybe his gross ignorance and risk-taking are of themselves immoral. (Same question was raised about having children)
How would he know? Well, that's the problem with ignorance: one often doesn't realise it.
Perhaps due to his astronomical luck he continues to be neutral, ending up in some limbo of ignorance. Or his luck runs out, which I guess is more likely.
Quoting khaled
Of course. Don't be ridiculous.
Quoting khaled
Of course not. If one can discern their actions will have a positive effect, surely one can choose to act. The question is whether one can discern it.
I think in the instance of Jeff we agreed that if Jeff agrees to be pinched to save Sarah, it is not wrong by virtue of imposing on Jeff, because no imposition took place. It can still be wrong for a myriad of other reasons.
Quoting khaled
I don't know of what obligation you are speaking here. No one is obligated by anyone to live a moral life. If individuals want to go out and take incredible risk because of contrived reasons presented for the sake of winning an argument, who will stop them?
The likely result will be they live an immoral life, and if we agree that living a moral life (or at least approaching it as we can) is something we are interested in, that prospect of failure should serve as a deterrent in itself.
Quoting khaled
No. It refers to something that isn't.
Darkness is the absence of light, whether we call it darkness or "not-light".
Quoting khaled
Your action is detected.
Quoting Tzeentch
If one does anything to another person the rest of their life will be a consequence of that act. You can't be certain of how much of a butterfly effect any act had. This means there are no moral acts in general. That's unavoidable I think.
Quoting Tzeentch
I understand. I thought I corrected my comment and added "acts with benevolent intent" everywhere but I seem to have missed one. Or two.
But what is to be done when the consequences cannot be known? What's the takeaway? Say someone drops a bomb from an airplane, with the benevolent intent of reducing the crime rate by eliminating criminals, and there is no news coverage of the event. Now they don't know the consequence of their action. What's their takeaway?
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't disagree. I explained why I don't act to solve every problem I see. I said it's the same reason you don't track all your consequences. Which is:
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Ideally I would, yes. But I am not here claiming I am a perfectly moral being. Far from it.
I see a contradiction here:
Quoting Tzeentch
But you also say:
Quoting Tzeentch
So is one obligated to track or not?
Quoting Tzeentch
Correct. Why is this strange? You have it so that action is wrong only every once in a while. I'm saying both are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'll be as ridiculous as I need to be. I outlined exactly how it could here:
Quoting khaled
If certainty that the act you're about to do is harmless is what you require, then you will never be justified in acting. Where have I made a mistake here?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right, this is what I'm asking you to resolve. Which is it?
Quoting Tzeentch
Let me change it then:
1- One is obligated to pick the option least likely to harm which they discerned to the best of their abilities. Meaning (by your system) that one must always pick inaction and must never pick action since everyone can discern that inaction is safer since it has a 0% chance of failure in your system. But you already disagreed with this in the original Jeff and Sarah example (where Jeff doesn't rebel against pinching), where you argued that pinching Jeff is not wrong.
2- One is not obligated to pick the option least likely to harm which they discerned to the best of their abilities. Meaning a benevolent serial killer who wants to live morally is justified to kill randomly. As despite despite thinking that the act he commits has a 0.001% chance of being moral, he is not obligated to pick the 99.999% alternative, so is justified in picking the very unlikely act. Even after the 99.999% alternative happens, he's still not obligated to change his behavior as again, even if he recognizes the very low chance of success he's not obligated to pick the less risky alternative. (may change depending on your resolution of the above)
Quoting Tzeentch
Moral obligation.
Quoting Tzeentch
We're discussing what's right or wrong by your system not what practical actions a person abiding by your principles would be motivated towards or deterred from.
Quoting Tzeentch
We're discussing what's right and wrong not how enforceable right behavior is.
Quoting Tzeentch
One could also define light as "not darkness" could they not? There is no third alternative, it's either light or dark. So what meaning is lost by defining light as "not darkness"? Which of these two "exists" and which is the "non existence of the other" and why can't these criteria be flipped?
Quoting Tzeentch
I ask you what makes an action. You say something is detected for action that's not detected for inaction. I ask you what that something is. You say action. See the problem?
Let me try something else since this is going nowhere:
Say A operates a gate by pressing a button. When he presses it the gate opens for a few seconds then closes. B is walking and wants to pass through the gate. B cannot operate the gate (can't get to the booth as it's on the other side of the gate). A refuses to let B through. A is denying B space. Is A imposing on B?
I think "yes" is the unavoidable conclusion, since this is the exact same scenario with the walker and stander, except I just changed the mechanism by which the stander is impeding the walker. If so you have an example where sserping a button is an action (since inactions can't be impositions since they can't be wrong). Now we can clearly see that sserping is sometimes an action. So, what makes it an inaction in Sarah and Jeff's case?
That is an expansive topic, and I don't think it is constructive to branch out our discussion even further. Lets keep this subject for when we have reached an understanding on the other topics.
Quoting khaled
It seems this idea equates every type of interaction to a cause or consequence of every thing that follows. I don't necessarily agree with that. In terms of the butterfly effect; does a butterfly cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, or is the flap of its wings a tiny influence in an ocean of influences that cause that hurricane, not all of which are meaningful in the context of our discussion.
But on the other hand, it is a possible conclusion that morality functions like truth. We cannot know truth, but we can aspire to live in accordance with it as much as possible by discarding those things we can discern as not true. Thus living morally would translate into avoiding immorality. It seems consistent.
Quoting khaled
No idea. Should there be one?
Assuming the goal of this hypothetical person is to live a moral life, then one would assume they will at some point be moved to reflect upon their actions. Hopefully they realize that their aspirations of doing Good far exceed their limited wisdom.
How to make one see their own ignorance? Some seem to lack that ability entirely, thus a moral life is probably out of reach for them. They're doomed to do harm, and learn very little. A tragic reality, I guess.
Quoting khaled
So why is inaction wrong in some circumstances, but not in others? And why is it wrong in the case of Sarah and Jeff?
One instance in which I can agree that inaction is wrong, is when one has taken voluntary responsibility over the well-being over another individual, which is the case for having children.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Track, no.
To make a serious consideration of the consequences before one acts, yes. If one is interested in living morally/avoiding immorality, it would certainly be advisable to say the least.
But this inevitably raises questions of what constitutes enough consideration, whether one can ever be certain, whether every consequence is meaningful, one's ideas on cause and effect, etc.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
Since not much of a case has been made as to why this distinction should be made.
Quoting khaled
I don't think that follows from my argument. The main issue seems to be with whether one can know and/or be certain.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
The fact that this "risk" one would be taking is likely to end up with a neutral result, because the possibility of something like this happening is astronomically low.
Quoting khaled
Ok, but do you think the fact that you need to be ridiculous speaks in your argument's favor or mine?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
It's unresolved. We have already established that.
Quoting khaled
I don't think this problem can be understood through something like chance, which in itself is a faulty representation.
I get your point though: if certainty is impossible, and one is obligated to choose the option with the least risk of harm, then it would follow inaction is always the correct option.
To an extent I agree. When in doubt, inaction is the safe option.
However, I don't think the impossibility of certainty, at least certainty to a degree that is meaningful in the context of our discussion, is a given. Nor do I think chance and risk are constructive ways of looking at this problem, because they inherently contain ignorance to causes.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
I don't believe such a thing exists.
Quoting khaled
In that case I think I've answered your question:
Doing things that are incredibly irresponsible and risky with good intentions:
Very likely to be immoral, with a lot of luck neutral.
Or perhaps categorically immoral if we were to conclude there is some level of risk-taking that is immoral in and of itself. That has remained unresolved.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting khaled
We could call darkness purple and it would still refer to the absence of light.
Quoting khaled
Photons exist, and the absence of them is what we refer to as darkness. Strictly speaking darkness does not exist. it is what we call the absence of photons and it is by their absence that we infer what we know as darkness.
I don't think going further down this sidetrack is constructive.
Quoting khaled
No, I don't. Action is like light, and inaction is like darkness.
Quoting khaled
Assuming it fits our earlier definition of what an imposition is, ergo this is a conscious effort of A to deny B entry, then yes.
Quoting khaled
What this determines, and I thought we had already agreed upon this several posts ago, is that inaction can be an imposition.
What makes an imposition is the use of force (including various non-physical categories of force) to make someone act in accordance to one's desires.
In the case of Sarah and Jeff, one chooses not to get involved at all.
Similarly, if A does not operate the button so as to not involve himself (with the caveat that inaction can be immoral, in the circumstances we have discussed), then it is not an imposition.
Quoting khaled
As I said, the linguistic trick is one I think you're playing on yourself here. I understand the confusion, but I don't see the point and it's honestly getting a little tedious.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Tzeentch
I can't tell if your sense of morality is warped, or if you're just insistent on not "losing an argument". I'll just answer your questions and leave.
Quoting Tzeentch
Inaction is not wrong when action is risky, for one. For Sarah and Jeff, pinching Jeff despite his protests is not nearly as risky as walking away and killing two people for sure.
Quoting Tzeentch
Lead with that. Save everyone some time.
English versions, according to the above link:
The Chinese had something to say about it too:
[quote=Laozi]He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak.[/quote]
Furthermore:
Silencium universi (Fermi Paradox).
Radio Silence (EMCON).
Aphasia (an illness!!)
Compulsive talking (also an illness!!)
This is the perfect moment for The Golden Mean aka Madhyamaka.