|
United States24709 Posts
On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
|
On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Logic works under a premise. You can't argue over which premise to choose with logic.
However, once a premise is chosen (e.g.: freedom must be protected, animals shouldn't be harmed, ... , whatever you want), logic can be used to argue, and if 2 people reach different conclusions under the same premise, one of them is obviously wrong.
By the way, to have the same premise, the people who argue should at least use the same definition for the words they use.
|
On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything. Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis. I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's. Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
|
I agree that people often misuse the term "logic", which actually describes a rigorous methology of deriving conclusions from base assumptions.
What i don't agree with is that laws should be based on emotions. It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. If you don't agree with this, then there is basically no point to any discussion. If you can't argue something rationally, you can just shout at each other for infinite amounts of time without any result because any point of view is equally valid in that situation.
Rational discussion allows one position to be superior to another, since a rational argument can actually be shown to be invalid, whereas an emotional one can not.
Of course you still always need some basic assumptions, but it is a lot easier to agree on base assumptions like "hurting people is bad", and then derive a rational conclusion from that than it is to agree on a complete system of morality. This also allows judging parts of a morality system individually.
|
I would prefer to masturbate then to fuck a animal!
I'm a animal person but i eat meat and fish, maybe someday i can leave the meat eating to others.. but right now i don't have that kind of will power..
But fucking animals is just gross, barbaric and stupid.. it's just fucking a hole.. to fuck a hole i rather fuck a toy hole(pussy) or a plastic girl then a fucking donkey ass.. OMG!
|
That is your preference. Why should your preference influence what everyone else is allowed to do?
|
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
Well, I should clarify that "rational" is itself a normative judgement, which in turn is based upon emotion.
|
United States24709 Posts
On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
|
Why do people lie ? This poll can't be real, I can't beleive 18% would fuck animals lol. so fake -_-
|
Yes, it is. You agree on some basic assumptions, like "hurting people is bad", "People should be allowed to do what they like unless it conflicts with the first assumption", or whatever set you can agree on. From there on, you can very much argue rationally.
Of course you need to take that step of agreeing on assumptions, but that should be surprisingly easy. And now you have a fixpoint which allows you to argue rationally.
|
On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
|
United States24709 Posts
On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
There is a great deal of logic behind actions that suggest empathy, even though empathy isn't purely logical.. Creating a society where we help each other may seem like we are giving in to our emotions, but at the same time it creates a society which is better for each of us, so it seems rather logical to me.
|
On June 18 2013 00:48 Simberto wrote:
Yes, it is. You agree on some basic assumptions, like "hurting people is bad", "People should be allowed to do what they like unless it conflicts with the first assumption", or whatever set you can agree on. From there on, you can very much argue rationally.
Of course you need to take that step of agreeing on assumptions, but that should be surprisingly easy. And now you have a fixpoint which allows you to argue rationally.
Sure. But then you have to admit that all of our assumptions are decided emotionally, and therefore that any conclusions we rationally reach are still based upon emotional assumptions, and are therefore fundamentally emotional decisions themselves.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
|
United States24709 Posts
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
|
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said people need to accept that all their morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion. All the people arguing against emotional decisions in this and the abortion thread are making fools of themselves imo.
You are still succumbing to a fallacy, unfortunately. You think the "good" is an objective criteria, when it is also emotion. But whatever.
|
On June 18 2013 00:52 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made. As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever. If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me. Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:02 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made. As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever. If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me. Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body) Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
edit: to take an obvious example, the US segregation/discrimination issue against Blacks in the 50s/60s... I would/do support full equality, because potentially I could be that human being and I wouldn't want to be discriminated against for the colour of my skin. I support full equality for sexuality/sex/creed whatever because I expect to be treated equally on the same basis.
|
On June 18 2013 01:05 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:02 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made. As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever. If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me. Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body) Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves. Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:09 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:05 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:02 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made. As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever. If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me. Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body) Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves. Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing. Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way.
you're just not understanding what i'm saying at all, lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
