Doing what is right in an out of control world

[2ndRateMind]

I come back to this QALY (quality adjusted life year) idea. 

Seems to me that the daughter of the first mother has the better quality of life, since despite the occasional pain, she also gets to enjoy, in all its width and depth, the fullness of life.

I am not sure exactly sure where you are headed with this line of questioning; if I was, I might be able to offer a better response. Perhaps you will oblige by informing me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I come back to this QALY (quality adjusted life year) idea. 

Seems to me that the daughter of the first mother has the better quality of life, since despite the occasional pain, she also gets to enjoy, in all its width and depth, the fullness of life.

I am not sure exactly sure where you are headed with this line of questioning; if I was, I might be able to offer a better response. Perhaps you will oblige by informing me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I need to know what you mean by 'enjoy'.

 

What gives enjoyment width and depth? Why do you call this a 'fulness of life'. 
 

It seems like you have some sort of underlying framework of ethics - An underlying framework that you can't quite elucidate, since you give vague answers like 'Fulness of life' or that 'Appropriate, informed people should' make decisions. If I were to guess, I would say you are not deliberately being obtuse and avoiding the question, you simply have a knowledge that some things are right... Some things are wrong, and while you, personally, do not have the language to elucidate -why- those things are important, you know they are.

 

Is that fair? Or perhaps you -can- describe in a foolproof, underlying way, what a 'Fulness of life' is and why that is important?

[2ndRateMind]

Ah, right. I have an inkling now, of where you are headed.

Yes, I have an underlying framework of ethics. It is something of a work-in-progress, as I try to reconcile my instinctive ideas with what the academic ethicists have to say.

But, as elucidation, so far, this is how it goes:

1) There is the deontological approach, all about divine command and human duty. Deontology has rules as it's fundamental unit of ethics.

2) There is the utiltarian approach, which posits human happiness as the greatest good. Utilitarianism has good outcome as it's fundamental concept.

3) There is the 'virtue ethics' approach, which sees human flourishing (eudaimonia) as it's goal. Virtue ethics puts all it's emphasis on human character, and it's development.

4) There is 'situation ethics', which basically insists that what is ethical varies according to circumstances, but which stresses loving relationships.

All these academic approaches to ethics have their advantages and disadvantages. It has been a quest for me to try to unite all these various approaches into a single unified theory. My current thinking is that utilitarianism is probably the unifying approach, since: a) deontological rules are presumably meant for human benefit, which is all about outcome, b) the virtue ethical objective of human flourishing is clearly an outcome we might all sensibly approve, and c) if one loves as the situation ethicists want, then one desires the best outcome for the object of that love as the natural goal. In other words, all these approaches are fundamentally justified by optimum outcome.

Hope this helps. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ah, right. I have an inkling now, of where you are headed.

Yes, I have an underlying framework of ethics. It is something of a work-in-progress, as I try to reconcile my instinctive ideas with what the academic ethicists have to say.

But, as elucidation, so far, this is how it goes:

1) There is the deontological approach, all about divine command and human duty. Deontology has rules as it's fundamental unit of ethics.

2) There is the utiltarian approach, which posits human happiness as the greatest good. Utilitarianism has good outcome as it's fundamental concept.

3) There is the 'virtue ethics' approach, which sees human flourishing (eudaimonia) as it's goal. Virtue ethics puts all it's emphasis on human character, and it's development.

4) There is 'situation ethics', which basically insists that what is ethical varies according to circumstances, but which stresses loving relationships.

All these academic approaches to ethics have their advantages and disadvantages. It has been a quest for me to try to unite all these various approaches into a single unified theory. My current thinking is that utilitarianism is probably the unifying approach, since: a) deontological rules are presumably meant for human benefit, which is all about justification by outcome, b) the virtue ethical objective of human flourishing is clearly an outcome we might all sensibly approve, and c) if one loves as the situation ethicists want, then one desires the best outcome for the object of that love as the natural goal. In other words, all these approaches are fundamentally justified by optimum outcome.

Hope this helps. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Now that's avoiding the question, and I think you know it. Or you're arguing against something I haven't said.

 

What does it mean to have a 'fulness of life' and why is that important?

[2ndRateMind]

11 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Now that's avoiding the question, and I think you know it. Or you're arguing against something I haven't said.

 

What does it mean to have a 'fulness of life' and why is that important?

I'm not avoiding the question, just setting out the context of academic ethics, so we have the framework you requested to discuss.

From a deontological perspective, fullness of life would be the reward for obeying God's rules. From a classical utiltarian perspective, fullness of life would be complete happiness. From a virtue ethical perspective, fullness of life is the kind of life enjoyed by those of good character. From a situation ethical perspective, fullness of life would be the fulfillment experienced by those who love widely, deeply and totally, and act thereby.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not avoiding the question, just setting out the context of academic ethics, so we have the framework you requested to discuss.

From a deontological perspective, fullness of life would be the reward for obeying God's rules. From a classical utiltarian perspective, fullness of life would be complete happiness. From a virtue ethical perspective, fullness of life is the kind of life enjoyed by those of good character. From a situation ethical perspective, fullness of life would be the fulfillment experienced by those who love widely, deeply and totally.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why you made the decision you did. Why did you in particular, choose the woman who let her child have pain? Not some random guys in the past. You - That specificity is very important.

[2ndRateMind]

Simples. I am surprised you have not inferred it already. I chose the first mother over the second as the better because (from any perspective) I think her decision as to how to raise her child most likely to lead to the best outcome for that child.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Simples. I am surprised you have not inferred it already. I chose the first mother over the second as the better because (from any perspective) I think her decision as to how to raise her child most likely to lead to the best outcome for that child.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And again, we are in the category of vagueness. Why, specifically, is it better? And what do you mean by better?

[2ndRateMind]

You will find, I think, that I have answered this already. See fullness of life, as above.

Why would you think the first mother better? And what do you mean by better?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

17 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You will find, I think, that I have answered this already. See fullness of life, as above.

Why would you think the first mother better? And what do you mean by better?

Best wishes, 2RM.

That wouldn't help you find the answer you're looking for.

 

From what I've heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that:

1) She has a greater fullness of life.

 

And when asked what that meant, and why it is important to have that, you replied:

 

2) That it was 'better'.

 

I don't think you're deliberately avoiding questions(And I will admit to not answering yours because we still haven't answered mine. Not to any real satisfaction that allows me to talk in a way you would understand and accept).

You are well read. You are intelligent. And yet... You cannot give specifics on why you believe the things you do. You can quote great philosophers and explain why they believe the things they do, but when asked about you, personally, you immediately move to vagueness.

I have suspicions on why that would be, but I don't think you would accept them were I to say. That's why I want you to speak with me and explain the basis behind your choices - The root cause for your beliefs in specific detail. I suspect you cannot beyond vague platitudes like 'Better' or 'Fulness of life' without any concept of how to describe that in detail, along with why you would want either of those things. And that isn't an insult, by the way - You came looking for answers, and I would love to discuss them, but to do that we need to be speaking the same language. 

[2ndRateMind]

Forgive me, but I think we both know perfectly well what better means. It's a common enough English word, used daily by both of us, I am sure. Fullness of life is a slightly more opaque phrase, but again, I am sure we both have a good idea what I am getting at. In case of any problem, I described to you how four differing ethical perspectives might construe it. My personal feeling is that they all have something to add to any proposed definition, and that they all contribute to the rich meaning of the phrase. I am not being vague or obscure or obtuse; I am communicating in perfectly plain language one might expect a school child to understand.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Forgive me, but I think we both know perfectly well what better means. It's a common enough English word, used daily by both of us, I am sure. Fullness of life is a slightly more opaque phrase, but again, I am sure we both have a good idea what I am getting at. In case of any problem, I described to you how four differing ethical perspectives might construe it. My personal feeling is that they all have something to add to any proposed definition, and that they all contribute to the rich meaning of the phrase. I am not being vague or obscure or obtuse; I am communicating in perfectly plain language one might expect a school child to understand.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Now THAT is interesting.

 

So you're saying that I, as a human being, can hear the term 'better' in regards to moral outcomes and can(Even were I just a school child) understand what you mean?

 

Am I getting the gist of what you're saying right?

[2ndRateMind]

33 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

You came looking for answers, and I would love to discuss them, but to do that we need to be speaking the same language. 

Quote

 

Now THAT is interesting. So you're saying that I, as a human being, can hear the term 'better' in regards to moral outcomes and can(Even were I just a school child) understand what you mean? Am I getting the gist of what you're saying right?

 

I think, by now, you should have a good enough idea of the trajectory I am on, to start talking substance rather than semantics.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think, by now, you should have a good enough idea of the trajectory I am on, to start talking substance rather than semantics.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This is far more than semantics. You have one of two choices, and you are -so close-.

 

Yes, or no: Do you expect that a schoolchild - One completely unlearned, but representing the generic and average child - Understands what something being 'better' is in regards to moral choices.

 

What you're experiencing right now is cognitive dissonance. You have a base assumption - A very important one to this conversation - That mankind cannot possibly know objective truth where it comes to morality.

 

And yet... And yet... When you were irritated(Which cognitive dissonance does), you immediately claimed that 'even a school child' would understand what 'better' is in regards to morality.

 

The answer to that question is very... Very important. It is not semantics and you understand that right now, but personal pride can get in the way:  Do you believe that, yes, even a school child knows what the word 'Better' means in regards to moral choices, in which case we can proceed with the argument, or do you believe they don't, in which case I will continue to press you for more specifics?

[2ndRateMind]

I said that even a school child understands the word 'better'. Whether they have developed the spiritual stature to arrive at an impartial assessment of what is morally good, better or best is considerably more dubious, and not the same proposition at all.

For what it's worth, I am not irritated, or feeling any cognitive dissonance. I just wish you would, as you put it, proceed with your argument, rather than continue with this quiz, as I have honestly and transparently proceeded with mine.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I said that even a school child understands the word 'better'. Whether they have developed the spiritual stature to arrive at an impartial assessment of what is morally good, better or best is considerably more dubious, and not the same proposition at all.

For what it's worth, I am not irritated, or feeling any cognitive dissonance. I just wish you would, as you put it, proceed with your argument, rather than continue with this quiz, as I have honestly and transparently proceeded with mine.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Okay, great! Then speak to me like I am said schoolchild.

 

What do you mean by 'better', in the case of the child being forcefed euphorics their whole life compared to the child who feels pain and sadness at some point.

 

How is it 'better' to have a fulness of life? What do you mean by that, and why should one seek for that?

 

Because we have had over 100 posts on this topic alone and I am still no closer to understanding the basis behind your beliefs. Every time I attempt to question you, you give vague platitudes or avoid the question.

Edited June 22, 2018 by FunkyTown

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thankyou, @Traveller, for your input. It kind of demonstrates my point, though I don't think that was your intention.

Thus, we disagree about global warming, diagnosis, prognosis, and correcting therapy. I think global warming is happening, and is caused by human activity. I think that it will lead to many undesirable effects, and the poor will suffer them disproportionately. I think we should (not so) gradually switch our energy provision from fossil fuels to renewables; wind, wave, solar, tidal and hydro. You seem to think that, if there is a problem, it is not driven by human activity, and therefore we can do nothing about it, and therefore we should persist with the current carbon heavy energy model.

Which of us is right? Which of our 'therepies' is more moral? Unless we know how we know what is moral, we cannot decide that. And so far, no one on this thread (except me, tentatively) has proposed a solution to this question, though I have asked it of the forum several times; how do we know we know what is moral?

Best wishes, 2RM

Well... thanks for ignoring my direct answer to your question.  Like we've been saying, it's a waste of time.  You didn't even acknowledge that I gave you a solution to your inquiry.

[2ndRateMind]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well... thanks for ignoring my direct answer to your question.  Like we've been saying, it's a waste of time.  You didn't even acknowledge that I gave you a solution to your inquiry.

I'm so sorry, @anatess2, I did not mean to ignore you. Was this the passage I omitted to reply to?

Quote

God's truth is knowable.  It is imprinted in the history of man.  It is imprinted on our souls.  You have the truth in you.  You simply need the Holy Ghost to confirm it to you when you are ready to recognize it.  So yes, it requires faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  We send thousands of missionaries across the planet not so we can convince you of truth.  Rather, we send missionaries to help you build your faith.  Then you can find the truth for yourself.

If it was, then it seems to me that plenty of worthy, holy, people have disagreed about what 'God's truth' actually is. Even Christians differ amongst themselves about that. And even within Christian denominations there is dispute. So, in what sense is God's truth imprinted on our souls, that we all must recognise it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[FunkyTown]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm so sorry, @anatess2, I did not mean to ignore you. Was this the passage I omitted to reply to?

If it was, then it seems to me that plenty of worthy, holy, people have disagreed about what 'God's truth' actually is. Even Christians differ amongst themselves about that. And even within Christian denominations there is dispute. So, in what sense is God's truth imprinted on our souls, that we all must recognise it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I understand this. There are a lot of disputations amongst Christians as to what is correct, so let me try to speak to you in a way you will understand:

 

Just speak to me like I am said schoolchild.

 

What do you mean by 'better', in the case of the child being force fed euphorics their whole life compared to the child who feels pain and sadness at some point.

 

How is it 'better' to have a fullness of life? What do you mean by that, and why should one seek for that?

 

Because we have had over 100 posts on this topic alone and I am still no closer to understanding the basis behind your beliefs. Every time I attempt to question you, you give vague platitudes or avoid the question.

[2ndRateMind]

4 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

. Every time I attempt to question you, you give vague platitudes or avoid the question.

If you really think this, despite the philosophical substance of the paradigm I have offered, then I am afraid we have no grounds to respect each other's theological positions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

If you really think this, despite the philosophical substance of the paradigm I have offered, then I am afraid we have no grounds to respect each other's theological positions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Have you noticed that this, too, is not an answer to my question?

[2ndRateMind]

And since when have you answered any of mine?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

And since when have you answered any of mine?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I literally can't. The question you need to ask yourself is:

 

"Do I want to know the answer to the questions I first posed here?"

 

If the answer is yes, then let's reason together and come to a greater understanding.

 

If the answer is no, and you just want an argument, then just say so. It will be less exhausting for you.

 

My suspicion is that you cannot answer the 'Why' as to why you believe things. And because you are intelligent and well-read, this causes you cognitive dissonance. You can't perceive yourself as someone who doesn't know. Rather than admit you don't know(Which would challenge your self-conception), you give vague answers and, when those answers are zeroed in on, you change tack. I don't think it's something you do deliberately. I'm not even certain you recognize it.

 

However, if my answer to you was essentially: "The purpose of life is to live better, more fuller lives" and when questioned on it, I responded with "Schoolchildren know what better means", do you think that you would have accepted that answer?

 

If so, then that is your answer to your original question. 

It's okay not to know something, but you have to admit you don't know something - You can say "I don't understand why I feel this way. I just do." Or you can give very specific responses, but what you -can't- do is lie to yourself. Either you know why you believe something or you do not. If you do, then tell me. If you don't, then tell me that. If you just want an argument, tell me.

[2ndRateMind]

I have to go out shortly so can't reply in full. Maybe later.

Quote

However, if my answer to you was essentially: "The purpose of life is to live better, more fuller lives" and when questioned on it, I responded with "Schoolchildren know what better means", do you think that you would have accepted that answer?

But yes. I would advocate a fridge-magnet for everyone, that they will inevitably see as they get their cereal and milk from their fridge for breakfast in the morning, stating 'Today, I am going to live a better, fuller life than yesterday!' And I would leave it to themselves, through trial and error, to discover what a better, fuller life actually entails.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

But yes. I would advocate a fridge-magnet for everyone, that they will inevitably see as they get milk and cereal from their fridge for breakfast in the morning, stating 'Today, I am going to live a better, fuller life than yesterday!' And I would leave it to themselves, through trial and error, to discover what a better, fuller life actually entails.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Great magnet.  Except... you have one life.  If you have to rely on trial and error without any guidance you could end up waking up on your 80th birthday realizing you did everything wrong.