welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-08-05 Graduation
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a side note jesus christ when did this subforum get so fucking weird
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
Your definition is terrible because it is of low quality and overall entirely unrepresentative of the concept. Qualitative good does not equate to moral good, so your argument that Sam cannot present a criticism of your definition without first having a working definition of "good" is likewise terrible.

I would hope we could agree that what is "morally good" would also be just "good."
So, how are you drawing the line between the two? How are you saying something is "qualitative good" but not "moral good?" Or are you just Loki's Wagering me too?
Heretical Rants wrote:
My stance is that absolute moral "good" doesn't really exist, btw. However, I might occasionally use the term "good" to describe a person or act that is in line with my own personal morality, or sometimes a person or act that is in line with the moral common ground I have with the person I'm talking to, so it's back to relative terms for me, I suppose.
If you have closed your mind to it even being able to be definable in an objective way, then you are correct there is no way anyone can convince you it could be real.

Is that what you're doing, or am I simply misunderstanding you?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
That's a very important question you should be asking yourself, since it is probably emblematic of why you don't get my criticism of your definition. The issue is that being able to present a sound definition of good right here is not necessary to example why your summary definition of good is unsound.
Ok, why is it "terrible" then?
What are you measuring it against? To make that determination?
Sam wrote:
It's similar to how you could build a completely structurally unsound bridge across a river, and I am not obligated to build another functioning and safe bridge (without incidentally using any of the same general types of architectural beam support) to have any means of proving that your bridge is structurally unsound.
So, you're saying unsound bridges are bad and sound bridges are good.

I really think you really ought to go back and read some of my other posts on this thread, because that is EXACTLY how I arrived at my definition. I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.
Quote:
Quote:
Since none of these examples include "is something you SHOULD be striving for," they're not good by my definition.

You are proving my point about your definition and I don't think you realize why.


You are proving my point about my definition and I don't think you realize why.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5189
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've given no good reason for why 'value' or 'right' or 'wrong' or 'good' or 'evil' would be objective to begin with. Even the definition for 'good' that you provided doesn't present anything objective.
Lich Mong wrote:

I would hope we could agree that what is "morally good" would also be just "good."
So, how are you drawing the line between the two? How are you saying something is "qualitative good" but not "moral good?" Or are you just Loki's Wagering me too?


You really don't see why it's ridiculous to say that morality applies to inanimate objects? Even most people who would argue that morality is objective would disagree with you there. The people who would agree with you are the sorts who think that rocks have souls and such.

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.




Here, have a DJ pony playing saxophone.



This image serves its purpose in making me happy THEREFORE IT IS MORALLY RIGHTEOUS rather than morally neutral due to its inability to act of its own volition yeah whatever
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
So, you're saying unsound bridges are bad and sound bridges are good.


Not even close. Read again — I have no requirement to build a bridge of my own to have the means to demonstrate that an unsound bridge is unsound. I don't have to contrast against it by showing that I can make a bridge that works without using any of the base principles you tried to apply to your bridge.

It's about how your challenge to present a separate definition of good is in no way a requirement and is in many ways irrelevant to noting that your own definition of good simply and absolutely does not work as stated. You still don't seem to understand that, which is why you keep asking me questions about what I am measuring your definition "against."

If anything, the only thing I am measuring it against are ethical definitions which work in application.

Quote:
I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.


Nope. Not even close. see above, w/e
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must be very bad at communication indeed, since what both of you are disagreeing with isn't what I'm trying to say.
Heretical Rants wrote:
You've given no good reason for why 'value' or 'right' or 'wrong' or 'good' or 'evil' would be objective to begin with. Even the definition for 'good' that you provided doesn't present anything objective.
If you tell me "blue" does not exist even as a concept it would be impossible for anyone to show you something is blue.
I need to know what you MEAN by those words before I can show you if they exist or not. Since you've already stated a few times you don't think those words are defined, or even CAN BE defined, how can I show you something is them? I can't.

Heretical Rants wrote:

You really don't see why it's ridiculous to say that morality applies to inanimate objects? Even most people who would argue that morality is objective would disagree with you there. The people who would agree with you are the sorts who think that rocks have souls and such.

Clearly I can't explain anything well since I was talking about TRUTH being "good."
But, more so:
I was talking about actions and motivations people take to learn more about those objective objects as being good.
However, since you've put your fingers in your ears and are saying "ponyponyponyponypony" I guess I missed my window of opportunity to communicate that to you.

_____________________________________________________

Sam wrote:

Not even close. Read again — I have no requirement to build a bridge of my own to have the means to demonstrate that an unsound bridge is unsound.
I'm not saying you do.
Sam wrote:

I don't have to contrast against it by showing that I can make a bridge that works without using any of the base principles you tried to apply to your bridge.
Right.
But, I am saying you have to know something about bridges to say one is unstable.
Further more, you have to know that being unstable is not a desirable quality for a bridge before saying mine shouldn't be unstable.

Sam wrote:
It's about how your challenge to present a separate definition of good is in no way a requirement and is in many ways irrelevant to noting that your own definition of good simply and absolutely does not work as stated.
You can't do that unless you have basic principles to work from about the subject.
Sam wrote:

You still don't seem to understand that, which is why you keep asking me questions about what I am measuring your definition "against."
I am asking you for a basic principle about the subject from which you can say my definition is bad.

You told me slavery was not good, but how can you even make the claim without some sense of what is good?

Earlier I explained why being logically consistent is "good." You can't reject that on the grounds you find it logically inconstant because in doing so you are using it.
Quote:
Quote:
I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.


Nope. Not even close. see above, w/e
Yes, I was:
Lich Mong wrote:

Science values something True.
The scientific method is based on that principle. You discard the proven false hypothesis for the one that's not yet been proven false.
The only value something not true has is it's ability to get you closer to something that is true.

That's -like- how it works.
Heretical Rants wrote:
Not necessarily, you can have a "want" in there instead, or even both a "should" and a "want"

"I should do A if I want B" contains no implication of moral value.
Saying you "Should" is directly from the Is–ought problem. As soon as you make a statement outside of what "is" and move to what "should be" you have moved from descriptive ethics to normative ethics.
By saying you "want" B you are saying B holds value for you. You are assigning value to B.

Now, this is the part were you explain to me how you are doing that assigning arbitrarily. Instead of going down that road again, I will just point out that -regardless of it's arbitrary or not- if you want to be in sync with science, you HAVE TO assign value to the truth.

If you do not (which you are free to do), then you are denying the very principles science is built on.

E: To be completely in line with the underlying premise of science you have to do more then assign just any old value to the Truth, you have to assign the HIGHEST value to the Truth.

_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.


Nope. Not even close. see above, w/e
Yes, I was:
Lich Mong wrote:

Science values something True.
The scientific method is based on that principle. You discard the proven false hypothesis for the one that's not yet been proven false.
The only value something not true has is it's ability to get you closer to something that is true.

That's -like- how it works.
Heretical Rants wrote:
Not necessarily, you can have a "want" in there instead, or even both a "should" and a "want"

"I should do A if I want B" contains no implication of moral value.
Saying you "Should" is directly from the Is–ought problem. As soon as you make a statement outside of what "is" and move to what "should be" you have moved from descriptive ethics to normative ethics.
By saying you "want" B you are saying B holds value for you. You are assigning value to B.

Now, this is the part were you explain to me how you are doing that assigning arbitrarily. Instead of going down that road again, I will just point out that -regardless of it's arbitrary or not- if you want to be in sync with science, you HAVE TO assign value to the truth.

If you do not (which you are free to do), then you are denying the very principles science is built on.

E: To be completely in line with the underlying premise of science you have to do more then assign just any old value to the Truth, you have to assign the HIGHEST value to the Truth.


.. what is this even about?

did you miss that my response is to what you told me I am saying

Quote:
I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
did you miss that my response is to what you told me I am saying

Quote:
I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good." One should be trying to make one an not the other, which is exactly what you're telling me now.
Sorry, I thought you were telling me "Nope. Not even close." in response to "I was saying unsound bridges are "bad" and sound ones are "good."" I thought it was trivially true that you were saying unsound bridges are bad.

Alright, since there is some confusion and it seems you don't want to read what has already been said, I guess you and I better back up and make sure we understand where the other one is coming from. To that end:

Are you or are you not telling me bridges ought to be sound?

Because I'm not even sure of that if you're telling me I was wrong about what you were saying.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The bridge analogy is not about the bridge itself being morally/ethically bad or good. That's your own assertion. The only way I speak to it is by saying that the argument you use to make those sorts of distinctions or by which you try to define "good" are unsound, very weak. Easy to pick apart. I don't need to provide my own definition of "good" to do that. The bridge analogy is about the definitional weakness and unsoundness of your claim as written.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
The bridge analogy is not about the bridge itself being morally/ethically bad or good. That's your own assertion. The only way I speak to it is by saying that the argument you use to make those sorts of distinctions or by which you try to define "good" are unsound, very weak.
Easy to pick apart. I don't need to provide my own definition of "good" to do that. The bridge analogy is about the definitional weakness and unsoundness of your claim as written.
This is not answering my question about what assertion you made about the desirability of unsound bridges. I will also note you completely skipped over the other half of my earlier post talking about how you need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of bridges before you could say one was unsound. You also skipped over the bit where I asked how you knew slavery was not good.

However, if you don't want to talk about bridges or slaves,
Are you saying my argument ought not be weak? That weak arguments are bad arguments?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6023
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you are conflating "is" with "ought"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
you are conflating "is" with "ought"
I'm not.
I don't really care if he thinks my IS weak or not because I know he, likely the same as you, hasn't really read it. So, I'm going over it again, from the beginning.

To that end:
I am asking if he -after already determining my argument was weak- felt that it should not be weak in order for him to accept it.
I am asking him if he feels arguments that are weak are "bad." If he feels "being weak" is not a desirable quality for an argument.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17047
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
On a side note jesus christ when did this subforum get so fucking weird


turns out it's all tat's fault for endlessly pushing his feminist agenda down our throats instead of providing us with The Funny.

....yeah, i'm not sure how that evolved into a philosophical discussion on the value of truth and/or good either.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
....yeah, i'm not sure how that evolved into a philosophical discussion on the value of truth and/or good either.
Because I don't like moral relativism and I really don't like it when people say something a long the lines of:
Ember778 wrote:
Opinions are opinions. Ethics are a human construct. There is no such thing as right and wrong. We all live by our own moral code which we are brainwashed into believing by our parents and society.

and Heretical Rants -rightly- wanted me to justify my strong dislike of such statements.

I really think you need to resolve such statements before you can move on to ones like "Feminism is good for humanity."
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6023
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
ShadowCell wrote:
you are conflating "is" with "ought"
I'm not.


yes, you are.

Lich Mong wrote:
Are you saying my argument ought not be weak? That weak arguments are bad arguments?


literally the only thing Sam has said is that your argument is weak. you have moved from this to "ought my arguments be not weak?" that is different.

he doesn't have to construct some elaborate ethical theory to justify his claim that your argument is weak. nobody does. all he has to do is follow the laws of logic, and he has. the challenge you keep posing whenever someone disagrees with you is irrelevant, for the same reason that the defense in court doesn't have to prove that the plaintiff is the one who's really guilty of the crime; it is unnecessary to the task at hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 15 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group