3 ms·

Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imp

Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unable to see what view of mine you've extracted and then extrapolated. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. Which argument? Saying you must certainly realize that your argument seems just a condescending bluff. No....well, I'm not sure, I don't know what you are calling 'my argument'. Maybe if you filled in the dots here a bit; I don't know what you mean. (You know nothing about me. I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. I say that because going by what you're saying about my 'view'/argument, you've put me in the opposite camp to that.) Ultimately, It's fascinating what that word's doing. (I'm not sure exactly) Sandwiched as it is between 'moral self assuredness' and 'moral absolute'.. most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present I'm not sure what you mean by that. The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. Is that at all surprising? Well, I don't remember any abolitionists in ancient Greek, Rome etc. It was just the natural order of things, an accepted part of life, necessary to civilization.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society. There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities. [1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Hi. It's not easy to talk about this stuff! Ok, you've retracted the here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used talk. I was mostly distracted by your loose use of terms, as if they don't have to be used carefully. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? ..That's an instance of my suggestion? Are you asking that or.. your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. I don't think I suggested that; but that's how it sounds to you, ok. I'm not sure what based more on moral perspective means exactly. Talking about your first paragraph: Rational logic seems a very strange term to use in this (or any) context. Reason, I guess you mean. Oh, so for you, ethics are based either on reason, or some mystical/religious thing. And I'm in the second camp? Your In my opinion sentence sounds exactly like Mill's On Liberty. You're talking purely about law, where the discussion was about ethics, I thought. My motivation to write in this thread initially was objecting to the suggestion that it's better to say "I prefer to avoid eating meat" versus "Eating meat is wrong". It sounded like 'tone policing' - it's easy to insist people remain calm when you're fine with the way things are. And that "preferring" in its vague mildness, like preferring one restaurant over another, scarcely captures how I feel about such things. It would sound bizarre to say that you prefer not to be murdered, to be tortured, to be a slave etc. Probably I misunderstood the guy I first responded to, then you misunderstood me etc. It sounds like we are in agreement, far as I can tell. I don't believe in the kind of 'moral absolute' people get from their holy book/religion. However, plain utilitarianism doesn't fit our moral intuitions either etc etc.. I'm vegan because I don't want to be killed, abused, eaten, and I figure animals don't either. And I can very easily avoid that, so I do. But I don't just prefer that; I think everyone should. It's only from habit/custom that the reality of the situation hasn't dawned on most people yet. Well, the 'consensus' seem to be today, dogs and cats deserve ethical consideration, but not cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc. There's nothing reasonable about that. It's all-too-human to think only white people matter, when you're white, or that only humans matter, when you're human. Like The Moral Landscape says, the origin of most moral/religious/ethical feelings, customs etc is that they produce better outcomes, a better world, for people, than their contrary. And whether they actually do that, can be determined a lot more often than people think; some beliefs, customs can be said to be objectively bad. Thanks.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society. There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities. [1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

yesenadam 8y ago
Hi. It's not easy to talk about this stuff! Ok, you've retracted the here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used talk. I was mostly distracted by your loose use of terms, as if they don't have to be used carefully. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? ..That's an instance of my suggestion? Are you asking that or.. your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. I don't think I suggested that; but that's how it sounds to you, ok. I'm not sure what based more on moral perspective means exactly. Talking about your first paragraph: Rational logic seems a very strange term to use in this (or any) context. Reason, I guess you mean. Oh, so for you, ethics are based either on reason, or some mystical/religious thing. And I'm in the second camp? Your In my opinion sentence sounds exactly like Mill's On Liberty. You're talking purely about law, where the discussion was about ethics, I thought. My motivation to write in this thread initially was objecting to the suggestion that it's better to say "I prefer to avoid eating meat" versus "Eating meat is wrong". It sounded like 'tone policing' - it's easy to insist people remain calm when you're fine with the way things are. And that "preferring" in its vague mildness, like preferring one restaurant over another, scarcely captures how I feel about such things. It would sound bizarre to say that you prefer not to be murdered, to be tortured, to be a slave etc. Probably I misunderstood the guy I first responded to, then you misunderstood me etc. It sounds like we are in agreement, far as I can tell. I don't believe in the kind of 'moral absolute' people get from their holy book/religion. However, plain utilitarianism doesn't fit our moral intuitions either etc etc.. I'm vegan because I don't want to be killed, abused, eaten, and I figure animals don't either. And I can very easily avoid that, so I do. But I don't just prefer that; I think everyone should. It's only from habit/custom that the reality of the situation hasn't dawned on most people yet. Well, the 'consensus' seem to be today, dogs and cats deserve ethical consideration, but not cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc. There's nothing reasonable about that. It's all-too-human to think only white people matter, when you're white, or that only humans matter, when you're human. Like The Moral Landscape says, the origin of most moral/religious/ethical feelings, customs etc is that they produce better outcomes, a better world, for people, than their contrary. And whether they actually do that, can be determined a lot more often than people think; some beliefs, customs can be said to be objectively bad. Thanks.