Philosopher's Guild: Everyone is Welcome to Gather and Discuss

[Shogun]

I think, I am to oh yeah God definitely exists

Maybe not most but quite a few

Worth considering he was writing in a time and place where sayin god didn’t exist could get you killed.

Maybe not worth throwing everything out on some atheist avenger tip.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Worth considering he was writing in a time and place where sayin god didn’t exist could get you killed.

Maybe not worth throwing everything out on some atheist avenger tip.

Well yeah for sure. Angering the church was something to avoid. I may have actually noted that earlier in this thread or somewhere else. That was my first thought after reading Meditations

 

[Kenny West]

It’s hard to speak in absolutes. There’s some people (albeit not many) that like pain. They think it’s good.

I would argue that those people discriminate the pain they like and the context they would like it in

If you began inflicting near mortal injuries on that person they would not like it and would avoid it. Thus they discriminate (at the very least) who to inflict that level of pain to as they understand that the action is negative universally.

The only reason I feel confident in the absolute here is that every function of our physical body (besides reproductive i guess) is pushed toward keeping you alive. If you are a human this is absolute. You dont have to command your heart to beat or your lungs to draw breath. They will function regardless. And pain is served as an indicator toward both those functions and your mental functions. Its always bad in order to make you react or at least acknowledge possible injury or danger.

There’s some pain that is good for us (i.e. exercise). To your point, if experiencing pain (like getting stung by a bee) teaches me to avoid bees in the future...then perhaps that pain was good. I learned from it, and am now a more cautious person.

This is what I covered as justification in my previous post. A better word would be rationalization. These rationalizations would only be necessary if pain is initially always registered as negative. You would not feel postively if you felt the pain of a full body workout when you havent done so in a month.

As for the objectivity of morality, I think it’s impossible because it assumes we can predict the consequences of our actions. Were doctors in the 17th century immoral for using bleeding to try to heal people with plague? Their intention are good, but the unintended consequences were not.

This is a good point. Perception kinda skews it as an absolute. For the purpose of the absolutism arguement ill say that people in that (and any) moment can choose between their hard action with good intention and a universally negative action like cutting off the patients fingers for no reason. So with that in mind the good intention doesnt make them immoral, I assume they made what was the most postive decision they had available to them among the limited and shytty options.

Still, good point.

I guess this is a consequentialist argument, but it becomes really difficult to speak in any sort of absolutes. You know, “I think therefor I am”, and all that. His point was that the only thing he can objectively prove to be true was that he exists because he was thinking. Everything else is subjective.

Even in that exercise Descartes first affirms that mathematics and logic are also absolutes before he comes to the conclusion on his self.

This matters because your rational self will deduce based on observed logic.

So anyone who thinks therefore is can follow the rationale of pain and negativity. Rationalization is used to determine what is tolerated and what is not and in that arena is where the subjectivity is introduced. But that only happens when negativity/bad is affirmed.

Idk its hard for me to beat that logic in my head what yall got

edit: hella typos, i was distracted

 

[Shogun]

I would argue that those people discriminate the pain they like and the context they would like it in

If you began inflicting near mortal injuries on that person they would not like it and would avoid it. Thus they discriminate (at the very least) who to inflict that level of pain to as they understand that the action is negative universally.

The only reason I feel confident in the absolute here is that every function of our physical body (besides reproductive i guess) is pushed toward keeping you alive. If you are a human this is absolute. You dont have to command your heart to beat or your lungs to draw breath. They will function regardless. And pain is served as an indicator toward both those functions and your mental functions. Its always bad in order to make you react or at least acknowledge possible injury or danger.


This is what I covered as justification in my previous post. A better word would be rationalization. These rationalizations would only be necessary if pain is initially always registered as negative. You wouldnt be would not feel postively if you felt the pain of a full body workout when you havent done so in a month.




This is a good point. Perception kinda skews it as an absolute. For the purpose of the absolutism arguement ill say that people in that (and any) moment can choose between their hard action with good intention and a universally negative action like cutting off the patients fingers for no reason. So with that in mind the good intention does make them immoral, I assume they made what was the most postive decision they had available to them among the limited and shytty options available.

Still, good point.

Even in that exercise Descartes first affirms that mathematics and logic are also absolutes before he comes to the conclusion on his self.

This matters because your rational self will deduce based on observed logic.

So anyone who thinks therefore is can follow the rationale of pain and negativity. Rationalization is used to determine what is tolerated and what is not and in that arena is where the subjectivity is introduced. But that only happens when negativity/bad is affirmed.

Idk its hard for me to beat that logic in my head what yall got

Let me think on it

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I would argue that those people discriminate the pain they like and the context they would like it in

If you began inflicting near mortal injuries on that person they would not like it and would avoid it. Thus they discriminate (at the very least) who to inflict that level of pain to as they understand that the action is negative universally.

The only reason I feel confident in the absolute here is that every function of our physical body (besides reproductive i guess) is pushed toward keeping you alive. If you are a human this is absolute. You dont have to command your heart to beat or your lungs to draw breath. They will function regardless. And pain is served as an indicator toward both those functions and your mental functions. Its always bad in order to make you react or at least acknowledge possible injury or danger.


This is what I covered as justification in my previous post. A better word would be rationalization. These rationalizations would only be necessary if pain is initially always registered as negative. You would not feel postively if you felt the pain of a full body workout when you havent done so in a month.




This is a good point. Perception kinda skews it as an absolute. For the purpose of the absolutism arguement ill say that people in that (and any) moment can choose between their hard action with good intention and a universally negative action like cutting off the patients fingers for no reason. So with that in mind the good intention doesnt make them immoral, I assume they made what was the most postive decision they had available to them among the limited and shytty options.

Still, good point.

Even in that exercise Descartes first affirms that mathematics and logic are also absolutes before he comes to the conclusion on his self.

This matters because your rational self will deduce based on observed logic.

So anyone who thinks therefore is can follow the rationale of pain and negativity. Rationalization is used to determine what is tolerated and what is not and in that arena is where the subjectivity is introduced. But that only happens when negativity/bad is affirmed.

Idk its hard for me to beat that logic in my head what yall got

edit: hella typos, i was distracted

1. Wouldnt that make it subjective?
2. Sure, the person that is experiencing the pain in that situation would try to avoid it. But what if that person is a pedo experiencing retribution? Would that pain being delivered be considered objectively bad? What if that pedo is confined to prison for life but never gets physical pain inflicted on them in prison? The mental anguish the pedo receives for being in prison for life wouldnt be considered good to the pedo but would be considered "fair" to the public. Im not sure that the morality of "pain" can be determined just by how the recipient feels about it. One may not like the pain, but in the big picture it may be considered good if justice is being delivered..and that justice would also be considered subjective as a significant amount of people oppose that form of justice.

There are too many examples of "pain" being considered subjective for it to be considered objectively bad.

 

[Kenny West]

1. Wouldnt that make it subjective?
2. Sure, the person that is experiencing the pain in that situation would try to avoid it. But what if that person is a pedo experiencing retribution? Would that pain being delivered be considered objectively bad? What if that pedo is confined to prison for life but never gets physical pain inflicted on them in prison? The mental anguish the pedo receives for being in prison for life wouldnt be considered good to the pedo but would be considered "fair" to the public. Im not sure that the morality of "pain" can be determined just by how the recipient feels about it. One may not like the pain, but in the big picture it may be considered good if justice is being delivered..and that justice would also be considered subjective as a significant amount of people oppose that form of justice.

There are too many examples of "pain" being considered subjective for it to be considered objectively bad.

1. No, it makes our rationalizations subjective. Objectively, pain hurts and that makes it bad to everyone.
2. To answer the bold point, yes the pain is objectively bad. The subjective rationalization is that the pain is neccesary for punishment. If that pain was subjective you wouldnt reserve it for pedos and others who have comitted offense as it could be assumed some may like it. If pain is subjective why not bash your grandma's face in like you would a robber's? If its subjective, there would be a possiblity she enjoys it right?

The idea of punishment in general i think lends credibility to my argument. I've never heard of torture/physical punishment methods being ineffective because people enjoyed them. Within the infinite possiblities of subjective opinions and personalities, have you ever met someone who likes being waterboarded? Stabbed? Whipped hard enough to cause bleeding and scars? Nobody. Pain as a function of our bodies is not supposed to have a postive context at all, and thats why seemingly all organisms respond similarly to it (avoidance)

Inflicting pain is used for punisment because of the universal assumption that its an unpleasant experince for EVERYONE.

 

[OsO]

I think there's a basic level of morality that is objective. Do No Harm no others comes to mind. And not your perception of harm but their perception of harm.

To me, not killing anything should be a basic level of morality, but humans tend to put plants and animals on a lower tier of existence.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

1. No, it makes our rationalizations subjective. Objectively, pain hurts and that makes it bad to everyone.
2. To answer the bold point, yes the pain is objectively bad. The subjective rationalization is that the pain is neccesary for punishment. If that pain was subjective you wouldnt reserve it for pedos and others who have comitted offense as it could be assumed some may like it. If pain is subjective why not bash your grandma's face in like you would a robber's? If its subjective, there would be a possiblity she enjoys it right?

The idea of punishment in general i think lends credibility to my argument. I've never heard of torture/physical punishment methods being ineffective because people enjoyed them. Within the infinite possiblities of subjective opinions and personalities, have you ever met someone who likes being waterboarded? Stabbed? Whipped hard enough to cause bleeding and scars? Nobody. Pain as a function of our bodies is not supposed to have a postive context at all, and thats why seemingly all organisms respond similarly to it (avoidance)

Inflicting pain is used for punisment because of the universal assumption that its an unpleasant experince for EVERYONE.

Im not saying its pleasant. The discussion was whether it was "good" or not

 

[Kenny West]

Im not saying its pleasant. The discussion was whether it was "good" or not

Thats the point tho, it is unpleasant and universally so. Even the examples of good pain are only good because there is a context to rationalize it, but even those rationalizations have to initially acknowledge pain as bad, every time. For example "my body hurts (negative) but its ok because this is whats supposed to happen after working out (rationalization)" Or even for bsdm "getting hit with a whip hurts (negative) but its fine because im also receiving sexual pleasure (rationalization)" Every "good" pain will follow this logic.

So given that concious humans understand implicitly how pain is something negative/bad, they can also understand that afflicting pain onto others is objectively bad. The subjectivity is in rationalization or empathy. But the recognition of inflicting pain is universal.

And it shows in how people prepare/react when doing so. Nobody cops pleas when doing good deeds. Nobody prepares for retaliation when helping someone. Because they can infer how the other party will react based on their own experiences experinces with pain

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Thats the point tho, it is unpleasant and universally so. Even the examples of good pain are only good because there is a context to rationalize it, but even those rationalizations have to initially acknowledge pain as bad, every time. For example "my body hurts (negative) but its ok because this is whats supposed to happen after working out (rationalization)" Or even for bsdm "getting hit with a whip hurts (negative) but its fine because im also receiving sexual pleasure (rationalization)" Every "good" pain will follow this logic.

So given that concious humans understand implicitly how pain is something negative/bad, they can also understand that afflicting pain onto others is objectively bad. The subjectivity is in rationalization or empathy. But the recognition of inflicting pain is universal.

And it shows in how people prepare/react when doing so. Nobody cops pleas when doing good deeds. Nobody prepares for retaliation when helping someone. Because they can infer how the other party will react based on their own experiences experinces with pain

Ok for arguments sake ill grant you what youre saying

But is that enough to say morality is objective?

Its hard to argue against cultural relativism. Different cultures have different norms and one thing could be deemed morally bad in one place and considered good in another.

I think there can be instances in which things are objectively moral or immoral but i think there is enough nuance to be found that still leads me to believe that morality is all in all subjective

 

[Kenny West]

Ok for arguments sake ill grant you what youre saying

But is that enough to say morality is objective?

Its hard to argue against cultural relativism. Different cultures have different norms and one thing could be deemed morally bad in one place and considered good in another.

I think there can be instances in which things are objectively moral or immoral but i think there is enough nuance to be found that still leads me to believe that morality is all in all subjective

I cant say the totality of it is objective. Its both I think.

down to a atomic scale there is an objective sense of good and bad. But the exisitence of a man's will and the rationalizations that follow allows the existince of those against following it, and for perfectly good reasons; like inflicting pain to protect or maintain order. Human life is complex and the rationalizations are worth examining.

But within the subjective rationale of individuals we refer to that universal sense of what good or bad is.

 

[Shogun]

I would argue that those people discriminate the pain they like and the context they would like it in

If you began inflicting near mortal injuries on that person they would not like it and would avoid it. Thus they discriminate (at the very least) who to inflict that level of pain to as they understand that the action is negative universally.

The only reason I feel confident in the absolute here is that every function of our physical body (besides reproductive i guess) is pushed toward keeping you alive. If you are a human this is absolute. You dont have to command your heart to beat or your lungs to draw breath. They will function regardless. And pain is served as an indicator toward both those functions and your mental functions. Its always bad in order to make you react or at least acknowledge possible injury or danger.


This is what I covered as justification in my previous post. A better word would be rationalization. These rationalizations would only be necessary if pain is initially always registered as negative. You would not feel postively if you felt the pain of a full body workout when you havent done so in a month.




This is a good point. Perception kinda skews it as an absolute. For the purpose of the absolutism arguement ill say that people in that (and any) moment can choose between their hard action with good intention and a universally negative action like cutting off the patients fingers for no reason. So with that in mind the good intention doesnt make them immoral, I assume they made what was the most postive decision they had available to them among the limited and shytty options.

Still, good point.

Even in that exercise Descartes first affirms that mathematics and logic are also absolutes before he comes to the conclusion on his self.

This matters because your rational self will deduce based on observed logic.

So anyone who thinks therefore is can follow the rationale of pain and negativity. Rationalization is used to determine what is tolerated and what is not and in that arena is where the subjectivity is introduced. But that only happens when negativity/bad is affirmed.

Idk its hard for me to beat that logic in my head what yall got

edit: hella typos, i was distracted

I got nothing to your points on pain. Well said. The only instance thate I could come up with that might work is spicy food....but arguing that point feels like trolling

I still think objectifying morality is problematic, though. When you try to do anything in absolutes all you need is a single example to disprove it, no matter how extreme....you know? Take our plague doctors bleeding their patients to death...I wouldn'nt call them immoral for that...their intentions were good. But is intention all that matters? There's a bunch of different Deontological rationales for this, but to me at least, you can bust them all with the Hitler/Nazi's argument (again...with absolutes you just need a single example to disprove it regardless of how extreme). Hitler and the Nazi purists had good intentions. They believed what they were doing was going to save humanity from non-human threats. Obviously we disagree, but if intentions are what matters...

 

[Kenny West]

I got nothing to your points on pain. Well said. The only instance thate I could come up with that might work is spicy food....but arguing that point feels like trolling

Thanks man im just glad you can see where im coming from. I can be strong willed but sometimes I dont know if its from sound logic or just my will being overbearing so its nice to test these ideas.

LOL @ the spicy food

I still think objectifying morality is problematic, though. When you try to do anything in absolutes all you need is a single example to disprove it, no matter how extreme....you know? Take our plague doctors bleeding their patients to death...I wouldn'nt call them immoral for that...their intentions were good. But is intention all that matters?

Yeah it's hard to apply because you'd have to know someone's intents deep down. Its tough to mearure pain and intent on a scale. Plus Absolutism in morality is a tough standard you know?

But at the same time...i feel like it exists. And maybe it has to. What is the other option?Completely subjective morality to me feels like soft hearted bullshyt to appease the immoral.


Think about it. No human wants to live in a reality of subjective morality. It would be pretty much like living in the wild where right and wrong goes according to the desires of those strong enough to enforce them. It'd be anarchy.

There is a reason we live in society with its contracts and rules. We all have a sense of good and bad. To the point where we want to rectify wrongs according to that sense, this is where the idea of justice is created. Humans abide by this albiet in a enternal struggle with power. But even kings must observe or at least pretend to play along with being "good" versus "bad" or he'll face uprisings.

With that said I think its legit subjective areas to it because inflicting pain is more abstract with relational concepts like money or proprerty. But idk the objective level exists.

As for the plague doctors, yes given the context of their time and lives they lived their ineffective treatment was seen as preferable to leaving the diseased men to die.

There's a bunch of different Deontological rationales for this, but to me at least, you can bust them all with the Hitler/Nazi's argument (again...with absolutes you just need a single example to disprove it regardless of how extreme). Hitler and the Nazi purists had good intentions. They believed what they were doing was going to save humanity from non-human threats. Obviously we disagree, but if intentions are what matters...

But they didnt. because outside of some little known good intentioned action they planned to do eventually, they were still rallying around hate and violent anger rationalized by a superiority theory in the present. Not any sort of good intent. They are ignoring the suffering they caused in the present for dominance.

Check their speeches and nazi propaganda, these people were not rallying behind fighting a supernatural threat that shyt is obscurr nazi fiction

Though it would be if any of the convicted nazi war criminals went with "I was just getting us ready for the aliens " rather than "I was just following orders "

Though ironically this is would fly as "subjective morality" which is why I feel its bullshyt. Objectively you cant ignore the injustices of genocide. But subjectively people can eat that excuse up

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Thanks man im just glad you can see where im coming from. I can be strong willed but sometimes I dont know if its from sound logic or just my will being overbearing so its nice to test these ideas.

LOL @ the spicy food


Yeah it's hard to apply because you'd have to know someone's intents deep down. Its tough to mearure pain and intent on a scale. Plus Absolutism in morality is a tough standard you know?

But at the same time...i feel like it exists. And maybe it has to. What is the other option?Completely subjective morality to me feels like soft hearted bullshyt to appease the immoral.


Think about it. No human wants to live in a reality of subjective morality. It would be pretty much like living in the wild where right and wrong goes according to the desires of those strong enough to enforce them. It'd be anarchy.

There is a reason we live in society with its contracts and rules. We all have a sense of good and bad. To the point where we want to rectify wrongs according to that sense, this is where the idea of justice is created. Humans abide by this albiet in a enternal struggle with power. But even kings must observe or at least pretend to play along with being "good" versus "bad" or he'll face uprisings.

With that said I think its legit subjective areas to it because inflicting pain is more abstract with relational concepts like money or proprerty. But idk the objective level exists.

As for the plague doctors, yes given the context of their time and lives they lived their ineffective treatment was seen as preferable to leaving the diseased men to die.


Nah, because outside of some little known good intentioned action they planned to do eventually, they were still rallying around hate and violent anger rationalized by a superiority theory in the present. Not any sort of good intent.

Though it would be if any of the convicted nazi war criminals went with "I was just getting us ready for the aliens " rather than "I was just following orders "

Are you implying that morality is a social construct

That would lead me to thinking its mostly subjective with some values being objectively good or bad based on some things that are inherent.

 

[Kenny West]

Are you implying that morality is a social construct

That would lead me to thinking its mostly subjective with some values being objectively good or bad based on some things that are inherent.

That depends if we consider every human concept a social construct.


I think justice is the construct...the need to "correct" a course of action according to those standards of good and bad. My point was that we choose to live in a society with rules and imposed order because we observe the existence of that shared objective portion of morality and wish to act on it

If someone snatches your baby and kills it, we as humans want something bad to happen to the perpetrator after that. Despite that action not doing anything to bring the baby back. For animals if the baby got killed that would be the end of it. The deer wouldnt act on the anger of losing their spawn. But people dont want to live like this. There are more of the weak than the strong. They oberve the universal good and bad scale and choose an order based society rather than living like those in the wild trying to impose their will/subjective morality.