Emotions In Motion v.IV
- Thread starter Jock
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
In theory, yeah. But people will likely have biased and false ideas of what an outcome is going to be.
It's probably based on the idea that happiness is the only thing that can have true intrinsic value... which kind of makes sense. Because what are "problems"? They're unhappiness. Or stuff that make you unhappy anyway. But I agree that counting utils and dolors is kind of weird and can lead to some unexpected ends.DoctorPainkiller said:
Mrs. Dryvus
Master Knight
People seem to take a simple gleaning of Utilitarianism, like evolutionary theory, and run with it. Not that I am a Utilitarian, but I see arguments in which people construct a thought experiment and then confidently state that Utilitarians would answer it a certain, intuitively invalid or egregious way. Based on his writings, John Stuart Mill would take issue with the idea that one could hit another human, as long as the end unforeseeable consequence was positive.
Also, although it is very in vogue to pronounce that there could not be an objective morality, it's not a given. Firstly, it may well be that humans are born with some sort of broadly defined morality, or a fuzzy grasp of moral taboos. Research by Yale and the University of British Columbia seems to indicate that humans as young as 6 months old may have an idea of good behaviour and bad. This does not mean that the babies yet have an understanding of all human behaviours, what they mean, and the multitude of actions that could impact another's well being, it does not mean that this broad, fuzzy value set is not malleable, subvertible, or incomplete, but it could mean that the concept of good and bad are real and possibly natural, so far as humans are concerned. And this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Human well-being and reproductive fitness are largely dependent on being social. An adaptation that enabled humans to instinctively even only to distinguish altruistic behaviours from socially destructive behaviours would contribute to the individual human's ability to navigate their social group and react to the actions of other members. Valuing socially cohesive acts and reacting negatively to socially destructive acts, having empathy, these would all be adaptations that generally contribute to survival and fitness.
This leads me to:
Also, although it is very in vogue to pronounce that there could not be an objective morality, it's not a given. Firstly, it may well be that humans are born with some sort of broadly defined morality, or a fuzzy grasp of moral taboos. Research by Yale and the University of British Columbia seems to indicate that humans as young as 6 months old may have an idea of good behaviour and bad. This does not mean that the babies yet have an understanding of all human behaviours, what they mean, and the multitude of actions that could impact another's well being, it does not mean that this broad, fuzzy value set is not malleable, subvertible, or incomplete, but it could mean that the concept of good and bad are real and possibly natural, so far as humans are concerned. And this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Human well-being and reproductive fitness are largely dependent on being social. An adaptation that enabled humans to instinctively even only to distinguish altruistic behaviours from socially destructive behaviours would contribute to the individual human's ability to navigate their social group and react to the actions of other members. Valuing socially cohesive acts and reacting negatively to socially destructive acts, having empathy, these would all be adaptations that generally contribute to survival and fitness.
This leads me to:
No, I'd rather not remember a non-fact. There are many species of social animals with ingrained systems of altruism/"codes" of interaction. If these animals really acted like a bunch of "animals," the bad apples among them would have "destroyed" their "everything" long before our early human ancestors ever came onto the scene only to give rise to descendants who know ****ing nothing about the world in the Information Age.Odyseuss said:
Eктωρ
Count
Even dogs have a pretty good sense that they've messed up when they do. Also it's proven that dogs understand if you recompensate other dogs more than them for the same task, and tend to stop obeying you in such conditions. Even animals have base morals, and so do we. The punch a baby argument increases in ridiculousness because I literally cannot think of one normal person who would consider something correct or even a good idea. You can't take simple actions like those and make them abstract like that, because you can "what-if" any ****ing thing in existance; human mind basically does that to the world to make sense of it, creating connections and valid logic not necessarily equates reasonable outcomes, often because logic cannot be applied purely to a series of real-world hypothesis.
For example, if theoretically, for there to be no crimes, it is a simple as no one commiting a crime, yet we see a completely different thing in the real world. To the extent social policy, crime rate and law enforcement are things that can be studied; for example: high income inequality always makes crime rise all over, so if you make social efforts to lower inequality, there's a strong tendence for crime rate to diminish, this is why Switzerland has an infinitely smaller crime rate than Brazil. The thing is, what translates meaningless logic arguments into functional philosophical thoughts is exactly that. For example, Socrates theorized that since things have an opposite (heat,cold;light,heavy;tall,short), it implies that if there's life, there's death, thus an afterlife of sorts. While an interesting argument that is presented in a perfectly logic way in Phaidon, I think, it's nevertheless impossible to apply for the real world, for the simple fact that different states do not exist in relation to each other, it is only such because we perceive it so, there's no tall, short, hot or cold, those are things based on our human perspective, but not-existant outside of it.
Very much like morals and what's right and wrong. It's true that they don't exist per se, but there are tangible good and bad things that can be done, even if most actions fall into some shade of grey.
For example, if theoretically, for there to be no crimes, it is a simple as no one commiting a crime, yet we see a completely different thing in the real world. To the extent social policy, crime rate and law enforcement are things that can be studied; for example: high income inequality always makes crime rise all over, so if you make social efforts to lower inequality, there's a strong tendence for crime rate to diminish, this is why Switzerland has an infinitely smaller crime rate than Brazil. The thing is, what translates meaningless logic arguments into functional philosophical thoughts is exactly that. For example, Socrates theorized that since things have an opposite (heat,cold;light,heavy;tall,short), it implies that if there's life, there's death, thus an afterlife of sorts. While an interesting argument that is presented in a perfectly logic way in Phaidon, I think, it's nevertheless impossible to apply for the real world, for the simple fact that different states do not exist in relation to each other, it is only such because we perceive it so, there's no tall, short, hot or cold, those are things based on our human perspective, but not-existant outside of it.
Very much like morals and what's right and wrong. It's true that they don't exist per se, but there are tangible good and bad things that can be done, even if most actions fall into some shade of grey.
And rub your throbbing loin sensually up the action's quivering womanhood.
Oh boy was that ever an awesome video.
Didn't you go to Austin for a bit?
I have just finished watching Breaking Bad in its entirety.
Possibly the best TV drama show that I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Man...
Possibly the best TV drama show that I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Man...
ComingWinter
Baron
Thunderstorm yesterday, cool rainy and overcast today. Used all my motivation to study for engineering and chemistry finals, now calculus is all that's left and I just want to take a nap.
