Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

2ndRateMind

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    926

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2ndRateMind

  1. 2ndRateMind
    Maybe. I could be a paedophile child murderer (which I assume we would both think immoral) and still know perfectly accurately that the capital city of France is Paris. Truth is not morality; morality is not truth. It is only when you phrase a moral attitude as a proposition (eg; murdering innocent children is wrong) that it becomes either true or false. But once you have done that, it is perfectly in order for some difficult individual to ask: 'But why is murdering innocent children wrong?' And if you have no answer to that question, said difficult individual is perfectly entitled to think you actually do not know whether murdering innocent children is right or wrong at all; you are just expressing your own preference that innocent children should not be murdered. Best wishes, 2RM.
  2. 2ndRateMind
    Hello again. Claiming to know what is true does not, in my experience, @anatess2, amount to a proof that one knows what is moral. I have stated previously in this thread the criterion for knowing what is moral, and that is, a justification. We need to know how we know what is moral, before we can claim to know what is moral. So far, despite my promptings, no one has attempted to provide that justification, and so I am inclined to think the forum lacks that knowledge altogether. As for global warming, I wonder if you have actually read the various references I went to some trouble to include in my above post. If so, you give no indication of that. Best wishes, 2RM.
  3. 2ndRateMind
    Interesting, @anatess2 And thank you for not giving up on me, as 'a waste of time'. It may be that now we have established that humanity does not know what is moral, we can move on to wonder about whether, and how, we might know what is true. Your example of the global warming controversy is a good one. We can look at the evidence and arguments for, and the evidence and arguments against, and seek to arrive at some tentative or certain conclusion. So, for example, we can note that 5 of the hottest years on record globally have been in the 2010s, that the spring season in Washington DC arrived 22 days earlier this year than it did a decade ago, that sea levels are rising as the ice caps melt, that the ranges of various plants and animals (in the Northern Hemisphere), are expanding to the north and receding from the south, and that more extreme weather events are occurring across the globe. It seems that the evidence is that global warming is happening, and happening now, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, the evidence against seems largely disinformation and propaganda from those organisations and individuals with a vested interest to keep on burning fossil fuels and increasing the CO2 and methane emissions that cause these effects. So, which are we to believe? Surely, those with the evidence and rationale to quantify and explain these various phenomena, rather than those who object to these inconvenient truths on the grounds that their jobs and earnings might be affected if the world stopped mining coal and drilling oil and natural gas. David Hume* (1748) put it well: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." So, I merely ask for evidence and explanatory rationale before I commit to believing anything at all, and I think most sensible people would. Best wishes, 2RM. *Hume, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 2004, Dover Publications, New York USA
  4. 2ndRateMind
    Dear @anatess2 I am sure the 'Light of Christ' and the 'Holy Ghost' have a lot to do with making the world a better place. I just don't accept these concepts as proving we know we know what is moral. Seems to me there are plenty of people, quite sure of their moral rectitude, who are quite wrong in their comfortable, complacent assessment of themselves, and who still cite God in various ways to justify their prejudices. You might like to meditate on the idea that it is not my conceptual framework that prevents me from seeing the 'truth', but yours that leads us to differ. But, if you want to disagree with that, I am willing to listen to all reasonable points of view. I just don't necessarily guarantee to be persuaded by them, unless they are more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my own position. Sorry to be difficult, but as the rhyme has it 'He convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still.' Best wishes, 2RM.
  5. 2ndRateMind
    I'm more than a little suspicious of folksy analogies, when what is required is rigorous argument, but I am going to humour you, on this occasion. I would say that the first mother is the better mother, because she is teaching the child to deal with the world as it is, and not as we might sometimes complacently wish it to be. Best wishes, 2RM.
  6. 2ndRateMind
    Yup. Despite it's internal contradictions and incoherences, I am drawn absolutely to the philosopher's 'omnimax' conception of God, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni- pretty much everything good. Best wishes, 2RM.
  7. 2ndRateMind
    I think God doesn't spell it out for us a) because that would compromise our freedom, b) because we are incapable of encompassing that infinity anyway, and c) because He thinks it is better for us to work it out for ourselves, so far as we are capable. Best wishes, 2RM.
  8. 2ndRateMind
    I think you are avoiding the central contentions I have put to you. I am sure you have understood it, (and no, I don't think you are attempting any sort of trickery), but for the benefit of casual readers of this thread I will spell it out again. Objective morality exists, and it is God's Will for us. Because God loves us, His Will is for our best interests, individually and collectively. However, humanity does not know, and would be absurd to claim to know, the specifics of God's Will. But we do have our several intimations as to what that Will might be... ...And by discussing it amongst ourselves, we may arrive at a better, wider appreciation than we would on our own... ...And over time, generations hence, catastrophes excepted, we might indeed converge ever more closely on God's Will, objective morality. Best wishes, 2RM.
  9. 2ndRateMind
    Correct. Few of us would be so arrogant as to think they are as moral as God. And if they do, that is quite a sufficient enough reason to doubt them. Not quite correct. I do not intend to create a consensus morality, only that I think this is, in reality, all we have, to a greater or lesser extent of consensus. Unless you can provide an alternative paradigm, which I have persistently prompted you to do, and which you have persistently failed to do, I perceive no reason to alter my views on this. Best wishes, 2RM.
  10. 2ndRateMind
    And your point would be...? Best wishes, 2RM.
  11. 2ndRateMind
    I think that friendly, civilised, educated, informed, democratic debate, in which we all compensate for each other's errors and faults and failings and ignorances, is certainly 'less dangerous' than both. Best wishes, 2RM.
  12. 2ndRateMind
    Not at all. I have already stated in this thread that I believe natural law to be God's will, which I take to be objective. I just asked how we can claim to know it, if we do not know how we know we know it. And I have provided a semi-objective assessment criteria as an alternative to subjective ethics, in the QALY. So, I have done some considerable work. Now, it really is your turn, @FunkyTown. Best wishes, 2RM.
  13. 2ndRateMind
    OK. Do you think that if the government had not laid down in law that we are to drive on the left (in the UK), and simply left it to individual whim as to whether to drive on left or right, there would be more, or fewer, road casualties? The point is, it is sometimes (perhaps even, often) better for the government to pass laws than to leave things to chance and arbitrary preference. Best wishes, 2RM.
  14. 2ndRateMind
    Whatever you want. Best wishes, 2RM.
  15. 2ndRateMind
    Governments have the responsibility, right, and duty to govern. It is what we pay them to do. Best wishes, 2RM.
  16. 2ndRateMind
    Hmmm. I never even mentioned 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. For the government to attempt it is a somewhat quaint, victorian, paternalist idea. The QALY is, I think, a considerable improvement on the principle, with at least some claim to objectivity, but in the end we choose our own moralities, and how we justify them. As for your nightmare scenario, I think a suitable collection of suitably qualified individuals would probably find an alternative preferable to nuking Vancouver. I see this scenario not just unlikely, but actually quite impossible. Now, @FunkyTownI have laid out my thinking on what is right and moral and ethical. It's your turn to propose your alternative. Best wishes, 2RM.
  17. 2ndRateMind
    I don't know where you get that idea from. Certainly I never proposed it. What I am saying is that nation states have scarce resources, and must prioritise from among many worthy and not-so-worthy policy options. So, if we have two projects, vying for the same funding, one criteria we can apply to decide between them is the impact on total QALYs. And what goes for nation states goes for individuals. One of the problems of deciding how to dispose of one's charity is evaluating most 'bang for buck'. The QALY is one way we might assess this. Best wishes, 2RM.
  18. 2ndRateMind
    No. Transparent politics with the feedback provided by transparently agreed, evidence based, closely monitored objectives must be the best way to run a nation state. That will satisfy most reasonable people that their government is governing on their behalf. As for the cynics and conspiracy theorists; well, if your secret proposal were to be adopted, they would certainly have something to be cynical and conspiracy theorist about. Best wishes, 2RM.
  19. 2ndRateMind
    I didn't say that. I said that we should attempt to optimise the number of QALYs. So, for example, providing clean, fresh water to the absolutely poor in Africa, Asia and South America would reduce disease and parasitic infections, reduce the time spent by the young women and children collecting often filthy, contaminated water, and thereby increase both quality and quantity of life. Such a project would therefore score highly on the QALY criteria. Hospitals in the UK have both codified rules and ethics committees to address this difficult judgment. Such committees are made up of, say, doctors, social workers, religious clerics, lay people, etc. There is no reason why similar such committees, with a similar such remit, should not advise on government policies. I do not intend to 'allocate' resources. That is for governments to do, according to the settled democratic will of the people, and for the people to do, according to their own charitable priorities. Clearly if the government went about compulsorily removing organs from healthy people, to give to sick people, healthy people everywhere would rightly be upset and afeared, and so it is doubtful whether there would be any net increase in QALYs. Best wishes, 2RM.
  20. 2ndRateMind
    So, I don't have the expertise or arrogance to think I can make that judgment for all people, for all time. But I think a medical term, the QALY, or quality adjusted life year, might have a more general relevance. In the UK we have to ration health-care in some non-arbitrary, unbiased way, since the state (read tax-payer) sponsored NHS does not get enough money to cure everybody of everything. The QALY seeks to assign weight both to quantity of life and quality of life, and thus allocate resources, and I think extending this principle might be a sensible way to proceed. If we optimised the number of QALYs, we might just be doing something good. Best wishes, 2RM
  21. 2ndRateMind
    Sure. Firstly, get rid of the idea that I know, or claim to know, 'universal truth'. Or that this is what the thread is/has become about. So far as I am concerned, it is about what is right, and moral, and ethical. And I take a somewhat utilitarian approach to that; that what is right, and moral, and ethical is (broadly speaking) about what is conducive to human wellbeing and welfare. About what is in our collective best interests, short, medium and long-term. So, naturally, I would tend to assess any alleged moral 'truth' from that perspective. Best wishes, 2RM.
  22. 2ndRateMind
    Be assured, if you provide a rational argument, I will respond to it with rational respect. Best wishes, 2RM.
  23. 2ndRateMind
    So far as I can make out, you have yet to state any position, objective or subjective, true or false, right or wrong, that I can assess in that way. I merely infer from your reluctance to state your opinion that you do not think it decisive or persuasive. Best wishes, 2RM.
  24. 2ndRateMind
    Well, this conversation is going nowhere fast. I submit that the reason you do not want to address the questions I have posed is that you know full well your answers will persuade no one who isn't already sympathetic to your views. In other words, you lack any significant degree of confidence in the answers you think you have. So, unless you bite the bullet and actually say what you think on this matter, farewell and good luck. Best wishes, 2RM.
  25. 2ndRateMind
    So, it's my fault you have no answer to these questions? Best wishes, 2RM.