Doing what is right in an out of control world

[zil]

8 hours ago, mordorbund said:

@2ndRateMind, I know you think you've laid out the framework of your own personal philosophy, but FT has summarized my understanding of your position. If you don't want to clarify, that's fine, but I thought you'd like to know that your position is not as clear as you seem to think it is.

I'll add my third witness to this.  Flip and flop and vague have been the common theme of 2ndRateMind's answers thus far.

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK, I think another summary is due, for the benefit of the casual visitor/reader of the thread. I shall explain slowly and as carefully as I can, what I think and why I think it. It may be that I have been assuming knowledge you just don't have.

And no, @2ndRateMind, your post that starts with above quote doesn't address a single one of these issues.

[2ndRateMind]

1) Because it has been said that my ethical position is not clear. So I shall try to clarify.

2) Because my approach to ethics is a unified theory that attempts to accept the best and reject the worst of the current state of the ethical art.

3) Because, though there can never be an objective metric of anything as qualitative and subjective as ethics, I am going to propose the QALY as semi-objective measure which can help us in our ethical deliberations. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, or 'gut instinct', or 'hearing voices'.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

2 hours ago, zil said:

And no, @2ndRateMind, your post that starts with above quote doesn't address a single one of these issues.

No, it doesn't. It suggests an agenda. But it will involve considerable time and effort on my part, so I want to find out before I go to the trouble, whether you guys are interested or not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 24, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

1) Because it has been said that my ethical position is not clear. So I shall try to clarify.

2) Because my approach to ethics is a unified theory that attempts to accept the best and reject the worst of the current state of the ethical art.

3) Because, though there can never be an objective metric of anything as qualitative and subjective as ethics, I am going to propose the QALY as semi-objective measure which can help us in our ethical deliberations. It's not perfect, but its better than nothing, or 'gut instinct', or 'hearing voices'.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

All right, then a few more questions:

 

Specifically on 2: How do you define what is best and worst in the current state of the ethical art? If there is no objective metric, how can you possibly decide that something is either 'worst' or 'best'?

 

And finally, for the 20th time:

 

Would you rather know truth or have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Specifically on 2: How do you define what is best and worst in the current state of the ethical art? If there is no objective metric, how can you possibly decide that something is either 'worst' or 'best'?

In this instance, best is what stands up to rigorous criticism, and worst is what doesn't.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

In this instance, best is what stands up to rigorous criticism, and worst is what doesn't.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, then, I have a criticism it can't stand up to:

You didn't answer how this would be different to previous discussions where you refused to answer. That was one question you refused to answer, despite saying you would take questions along the way. That makes your very first post in this fresh new thread a lie.

 

The second question you refused to answer was whether you were more interested in having an argument or discovering truth.

 

So evading both those questions, very plainly asked bodes poorly for this particular thread. That's why I would ask, for the twenty-first time:

 

Are you more interested in discovering truth or having an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Well, then, I have a criticism it can't stand up to:...

I'll take that as a 'No' from you then, @FunkyTown

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I'll take that as a 'No' from you then, @FunkyTown

Best wishes, 2RM.

And yet again, you slither and prevaricate and verbally avoid. Shocking. 

 

Except that in this case, you specifically said you would take questions.

That brings me two questions:

 

1) Is lying considered ethical under your belief system,

And:

 

2) Would you prefer to know the truth, or have an argument?

[FunkyTown]

18 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

And yet again, you slither and prevaricate and verbally avoid. Shocking. 

 

Except that in this case, you specifically said you would take questions.

That brings me two questions:

 

1) Is lying considered ethical under your belief system,

And:

 

2) Would you prefer to know the truth, or have an argument?

I'm just messing with you. That first question was a trap question I knew you couldn't answer, but I know it probably wasn't your intent to lie.(Though, to be fair, due to your reticence in answering any questions about what you believe, I'm taking that more on faith;)).

 

Ultimately, I have no idea what you're hoping to get out of this at all. Do you just want an argument? To come closer to the truth? To prove to the world how smart you are?

 

If it's the last thing, congratulations! You're smart. I know it. You know it. MormonGator knows it. You don't need to have the thread at all.

 

If it's either of the other two, though, that is going to inform how we should treat the thread very differently.

 

So I ask for a twenty-second time:

Would you prefer to know the truth or to have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

13 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

If it's either of the other two, though, that is going to inform how we should treat the thread very differently.

By all means, if you have an alternative option feel free to propose it. And I shall tell you whether or not I am interested.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

By all means, if you have an alternative option feel free to propose it. And I shall tell you whether or not I am interested.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I generally just post to things that interest me. At first, you proposed an interesting question. "How do we know what is objectively good?"

That's a great question. Insightful, even, and very important to know. However, answering that required that I know what proofs you accept. Your responses were so vague as to be meaningless.

 

Then, when I realized you were engaging in bad faith arguments, my interest was piqued. I have students that try to do that. Sometimes they rant. Sometimes they rage, or use personal attacks. It happens - I have broad shoulders. I don't particularly care about those one way or another. However, bad faith arguments generally only stem from one of two reasons for being done:

 

1) They are done knowingly - The person genuinely doesn't care about the truth and just wants to win an argument. In this case, the way to handle it is to reframe consistently. Do not let them avoid questions - Ask directly and honestly. People knowingly engaging in bad faith arguments hate that 100% of the time.

2) They are done unknowingly - This person might be having a bad day, or this might be such a vital part of their self-image that they cant come to terms with what you're asking. Cognitive dissonance takes over and they simply refuse to engage - They hate questions just as much, but for a very different reason.

 

And so I'm participating right now in this thread because I haven't yet decided if you're deliberately engaging in bad faith arguments, or accidentally engaging in them and have no idea that you are. If it's the second, then there's still hope(And hope springs eternal). If it's the first, then it will take... Something. Something that shocks you out of complacency - Something I am not capable of providing myself.

 

Which brings me to the twenty-third time I've asked this question:

Would you rather know truth or have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I thought so. You either don't have an agenda, or you do (which I suspect to be the case), but won't say what it is. So, I intend to pretty much ignore you henceforward, until you a) stop insulting me, and b) raise questions or make points or lodge objections which I judge to have some philosophical substance.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Yes, I thought so. You either don't have an agenda, or you do (which I suspect to be the case), but won't say what it is. So, I intend to pretty much ignore you henceforward, until you a) stop insulting me, and b) raise questions or make points or lodge objections which I judge to have some philosophical substance.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I do have an agenda. I'm not particularly hiding it. My agenda is to find out whether or not you are genuinely engaging in bad faith arguments or accidentally. If you -are- deliberately doing it - Simply trolling(Believe it or not, that's something that happens on the internet. 🤓) - Then that's fine. I get it, but that needs to be exposed so people who aren't aware of what you're doing understand.

 

And I am not the only one who suggested that you are refusing to clarify your positions and simply hiding them. There have been several others, I've noticed.

 

I am not insulting you, by the way. You definitely are engaging in bad faith arguments, but I make no moral judgment about that. Unless it's deliberate, in which case I -do- make a moral judgment about it as being 'bad' and 'wrong'.

 

Which brings me to the twenty-fourth time I've asked this question. And you can ignore it, but I won't stop asking it, because a lot of people on here are genuinely good people who genuinely want to help and genuinely love sharing ideas and growing spiritually. It's remarkable and beautiful, really, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for it.

 

Would you prefer to know the truth or to have an argument?

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK, I think another summary is due, for the benefit of the casual visitor/reader of the thread. I shall explain slowly and as carefully as I can, what I think and why I think it. It may be that I have been assuming knowledge you just don't have.

So, the cunning plan is to proceed as follows:

Firstly, I shall explain why discussion amongst parties of differing views is to be encouraged, not feared.

Secondly, I shall put forward the reasons why I think we cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely.

Thirdly, I shall lay out the four main academic approaches to ethics.

Fourthly, I shall describe the basics of each of them, and their major strengths and weaknesses.

Fifthly, I shall describe why I think they can all be unified into one ethical scheme.

Sixthly, I shall describe how and why the metric of the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is used in medical scenarios to determine the allocation of scarce resources.

Seventhly, I shall propose how the QALY concept could be extended to help us make our other ethical choices.

I shall take questions and objections along the way, and so this programme might take some time to expound.

But before I embark, I want to know if this effort will be worthwhile, or wasted. In other words, do you want me to proceed along the above lines, and does this nature of discussion interest you at all?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Actually, you can skip the first one. The reason anyone engages in these discussions is not because they fear a differing view. The discussion is happening. What I'd like to hear (and it sounds like @FunkyTown too) is what you believe and why. This will require you to answer clarifying questions. As a minority view on this forum, this will require patience on your part.

I already have a question on the second one. Are you saying humanity as a whole cannot know the difference between good and evil (I've already altered it to remove "claim". Any fool can claim anything)? Or is it the "completely" modifier you're hanging your hat on? And please speak to "innately", because it strikes me that if a school child knows what's better, then there's something innate about morality. Additionally, please clarify if "we" is the collective humanity, and if it also includes subgroups, even down to the individual (say, you and FT).

When you address this one, also please be clear on what can be known and measured, because if nothing then we don't need to get into the rest.

Third through fifth is only necessary insofar as it drives your own belief. That is, imagine a Flat Earther asks you why you believe the earth is round. It's all well and good to mention astronauts who orbited the planet, and Greeks who measured the curvature, but unless you've done these experiments yourself it does nothing to show why you personally believe it. It just goes to show that you're a follower and you've chosen to follow a particular group whose arguments you regurgitate. So if you are referencing philosophical models, please bring them back to your opinion, and how those models fit with your experience or how you've otherwise internalized their arguments so that you're more than a follower echoing them. Or think of it this way, you already noted early in the thread that if you want to know what Thomas Aquinas thought of morality, you could read him. What you (and I) are interested in is what it means to the person invoking him.

Six and seven is good, but be sure to address what better means, and how can we know with certainty at any given point whether now is better or worse than then. (kind of a corollary to the second half of 2).

 

[2ndRateMind]

Thank you @mordorbund, for your interest.

I am sure the entire 'agenda' is not entirely necessary for you, but this schedule would allow me to mount a coherent argument, and deal with some of the forum's more ancillary questioning along the way. Just skip the parts that don't interest you. I have noted your questions and points, and will include and be influenced by them as I write, and address them in their logical place in the 'agenda'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 24, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

1.    On why disagreement is to be encouraged, not feared.

1.1    By way of preamble, I want to start by explaining just what, in philosophy, an argument is, and what it is not. It is not the same as the vernacular use of the word, and I want to dispel any misunderstandings. Philosophically speaking, an argument is not a vehement, hostile, disagreement, with all the insults and verbal fisticuffs that implies, (though these are not unknown amongst philosophers) but an assertion made with a supporting justification. Thus, my assertion might be: it is raining outside. It becomes an argument when I say: it is raining outside because the cat has just come in bedraggled, and left muddy paw marks all over the kitchen floor. The assertion is about the weather, the justification is the stuff about the cat, and only when they are combined do you have an argument. It is in this sense that I have been and shall continue to use the word.

1.2    The management guru, Peter Drucker, (1), in a chapter on ‘effective decision making’, quotes the General Motors Chairman and CEO Alfred P Sloan as follows:

‘Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement here?’

General assent.

‘Then I propose we postpone further discussion on this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is all about’.

What Sloan was cautious about was the danger of ‘groupthink’, which is basically the situation where nobody notices a mistake because everyone is making the same mistake. But the concept has even more sinister connotations than this, which you can discover if you decide to follow this link. This is the negative justification for encouraging dissent.

1.3    The positive reason for encouraging dissent is that in the ‘free market of ideas’, where all ideas compete for belief, the best ideas (ie, those closest to truth) tend to prevail. In philosophy, in science, in the social sciences, the best arguments, supported by the best justifications, supported by the best evidence, are the ones that eventually earn general acceptance and allegiance. And I suspect the same to be true of theology, too. It is important to note that the best arguments may not be completely true, only partially true, but if so, some genius will doubtless appear at some stage and make an improvement or provide a different, superseding theory. Whatever, the tendency is to an ever closer approximation to truth. It’s a ratchet effect, and this is the basis on which I ground my optimism about human moral progress.

1.4    It should by now be reasonably clear why my answer to @FunkyTown's either/or question (Do you want to know the truth or have an argument?) is ‘Both’. Debate is my method of discovering truth.

1.5    I have also been asked about my motivation for being here. The answer to this follows on naturally from the above. If you want to test the strength and quality of an argument, you do not go to those most likely to agree with you, but to those most likely to disagree.

Best wishes, 2RM

(1) Drucker, P. The Effective Executive, 1970, Pan Books, London.

Edited June 25, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

42 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

1.    On why disagreement is to be encouraged, not feared.

1.1    By way of preamble, I want to start by explaining just what, in philosophy, an argument is, and what it is not. It is not the same as the vernacular use of the word, and I want to dispel any misunderstandings. Philosophically speaking, an argument is not a vehement, hostile, disagreement, with all the insults and verbal fisticuffs that implies, (though these are not unknown amongst philosophers) but an assertion made with a supporting justification. Thus, my assertion might be: it is raining outside. It becomes an argument when I say: it is raining outside because the cat has just come in bedraggled, and left muddy paw marks all over the kitchen floor. The assertion is about the weather, the justification is the stuff about the cat, and only when they are combined do you have an argument. It is in this sense that I have been and shall continue to use the word.

1.2    The management guru, Peter Drucker, (1), in a chapter on ‘effective decision making’, quotes the General Motors Chairman and CEO Alfred P Sloan as follows:

‘Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement here?’

General Assent

‘Then I propose we postpone further discussion on this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is all about’.

What Sloan was cautious about was the danger of ‘groupthink’, which is basically the situation where nobody notices a mistake because everyone is making the same mistake. But the concept has even more sinister connotations than this, which you can discover if you decide to follow this link. This is the negative justification for encouraging dissent.

1.3    The positive reason for encouraging dissent is that in the ‘free market of ideas’, where all ideas compete for belief, the best ideas (ie, those closest to truth) tend to prevail. In philosophy, in science, in the social sciences, the best arguments, supported by the best justifications, supported by the best evidence, are the ones that eventually earn general acceptance and allegiance. And I suspect the same to be true of theology, too. It is important to note that the best arguments may not be completely true, only partially true, but if so, some genius will doubtless appear at some stage and make an improvement or provide a different, superseding theory. Whatever, the tendency is to an ever closer approximation to truth. It’s a ratchet effect, and this is the basis on which I ground my optimism about human moral progress.

1.4    It should by now be reasonably clear why my answer to @FunkyTown's either/or question (Do you want to know the truth or have an argument) is ‘Both’. Debate is my method of discovering truth.

1.5    I have also been asked about my motivation for being here. The answer to this follows on naturally from the above. If you want to test the strength and quality of an argument, you do not go to those most likely to agree with you, but to those most likely to disagree.

Best wishes, 2RM

(1) Drucker, P. The Effective Executive, 1970, Pan Books, London.

 

 

I actually can answer this, and have in the past, so I won't belabour that, but...

 

Are you enjoying this back and forth we're having? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating?

 

I know there's a part of you that looks at that yes/no question and is feeling a bit of dread at answering it definitively.  "Should I answer that? Where is he going with this? If I say yes, will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit). If I say 'No', will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit, but in a different way).

 

So I urge you to fight down that feeling and honestly answer: Do you enjoy this back and forth? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating?

[2ndRateMind]

3 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

Are you enjoying this back and forth we're having? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating?

I know there's a part of you that looks at that yes/no question and is feeling a bit of dread at answering it definitively.  "Should I answer that? Where is he going with this? If I say yes, will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit). If I say 'No', will that lead to something that leaves me vulnerable?(Answer: Yes, a little bit, but in a different way).

So I urge you to fight down that feeling and honestly answer: Do you enjoy this back and forth? Do you find it fun, or intellectually stimulating?

I resent the implication that I regard this discussion as simply some kind of intellectual game, as one might approach a crossword puzzle, or a chess problem. I am actually quite serious about this quest for truth.

But my psychological state, actually, has nothing to do with the argument I have put, which runs along the lines of 'Debate is good because...'

If you want to engage with the substance of my position, you might try arguing along the lines of 'Everyone should agree about everything because...'

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 25, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

30 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I resent the implication that I regard this discussion as simply some kind of intellectual game, as one might approach a crossword puzzle, or a chess problem. I am actually quite serious about this quest for truth.

But my psychological state, actually, has nothing to do with the argument I have put, which runs along the lines of 'Debate is good because...'

If you want to engage with the substance of my position, you might try arguing along the lines of 'Everyone should agree about everything because...'

Best wishes, 2RM.

And yet... You STILL couldn't answer yes or no as to whether you enjoy this little back and forth we have.

 

Even now, even despite the fact that we both know the answer to this. Even now, when the answer is -painfully clear-, you cannot answer a question plainly even though  the stakes are incredibly low.

It's almost beautiful how committed you are to avoiding being pinned down on literally anything.

Edited June 25, 2018 by FunkyTown
Spelling error.

[FunkyTown]

@2ndRateMind - I am genuinely impressed by this. I have never seen anyone so committed to evading any possibility of ever giving a straight answer. You are, literally and without any hyperbole, the most evasive human being(I assume. You could be a very well programmed AI for all I know) I have ever met.

You aren't even willing to say you don't enjoy this back and forth we're doing, despite hinting strongly at it in the past. I am impressed.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Everyone can see what you're doing. And yet... And yet... Despite all of that, you cannot even say "I do not enjoy this, FunkyTown. I think it's vaguely insulting. I do not enjoy being vaguely insulted. The answer to your question is 'no'."

I wasn't insulting you, by the way. I just assumed you are a person so filled with vulnerability that you cannot countenance the idea that you might 'lose' an online discussion, so to protect yourself you refuse to provide any real basis for your beliefs or any real foundation.

I think, once, you probably did search for truth. Then, truth became harder to come by as you learned more and more. The first few books of philosophy you read gave you a heady sense of excitement and power as you realized how the world worked. You resolved to learn more and you devoured books on learning and epistemology. But that heady rush became fewer and further between, so you turned online. Suddenly, the rush was back. You were debating people, and -winning-. And you conflated winning a debate with the pure, heady rush of actually learning something. You became confused, so you decided to stay online.

 

This is your outlet - The place and way you feel powerful. But don't you see how that's just a shadow of what you -could- be? That you could genuinely become better? That the world could be a better place because you could help make it that way.

 

This thing you're doing now... All it's doing is holding you back. You are becoming more and more a shadow of the man who once sought truth and now seeks only to use what he once learned as a club, while simultaneously allowing no vulnerability to be shown.  We want to help. We would love to get your input to help grow, but you need to make a conscious decision.

 

Or make a conscious decision that you hate truth and do want to just argue online. Either one is fine, but you have to pick a side, man.

[2ndRateMind]

As an aside, On Quality.

I have been asked to define what I mean by ‘better’. I still think this a fairly transparent attribute. Most of us know what it means, in most situations. But it does depend on context. A better gun is not the same as a better table. Better guns do not make better tables, and better tables do not make better guns. But what this question does hint at is a 5^th dimension of human experience. Apart from width, height, depth and time, we also have quality. The problem with accepting quality as a dimension is that unlike time and the three dimensions of space, we have no agreed, objective method of measuring it. What one person thinks a quality gun might differ from what someone else thinks a quality gun. And there seems to be no definitive way to decide between such preferences. So the most we can say to ‘define’ better in the abstract is that it occupies a higher position on the qualitative scale (which ranges from worst, to worse, to bad, to good, to better, to best) than any other qualitative determination except best.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 25, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

10 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

As an aside.

I have been asked to define what I mean by ‘better’. I still think this a fairly transparent attribute. Most of us know what it means, in most situations. But it does depend on context. A better gun is not the same as a better table. Better guns do not make better tables, and better tables do not make better guns. But what this question does hint at is a 5^th dimension of human experience. Apart from width, height, depth and time, we also have quality. The problem with accepting quality as a dimension is that unlike time and the three dimensions of space, we have no agreed, objective method of measuring it. What one person thinks a quality gun might differ from what someone else thinks a quality gun. And there seems to be no definitive way to decide between such preferences. So the most we can say to ‘define’ better in the abstract is that it occupies a higher position on the qualitative scale (which ranges from worst, to worse, to bad, to good, to better, to best) than any other qualitative determination except best.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Wow. This is spectacularly terrible.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, FunkyTown said:

@2ndRateMind - I am genuinely impressed by this. I have never seen anyone so committed to evading any possibility of ever giving a straight answer. You are, literally and without any hyperbole, the most evasive human being(I assume. You could be a very well programmed AI for all I know) I have ever met.

When you can't give a straight answer, that shows either immaturity, confusion, or you are trying to dance your way out of a problem. Never a good sign.  

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

When you can't give a straight answer, that shows either immaturity, confusion, or you are trying to dance your way out of a problem. Never a good sign.  

I have genuinely never seen anyone so unable to answer straightforward questions. Ever. The thing is - Even he knows it. He knows he's been found out and he's trying to plow forward like nothing is happening.

A part of me is concerned he's spiralling because he's been found out.

 

Honestly: @2ndRateMind - Dude. Take a moment, step back. You've been found out. That's all right.  We still love you, man, and it's not that big a deal. We get it. Just stop trying to play games. It's hard. We know.  It's who you've been for a long time. It isn't easy, but it -can be-.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

I have genuinely never seen anyone so unable to answer straightforward questions. Ever.

I used to be that way as a younger man. I thought I was so deep and introspective when in reality, I was just pretentious and insecure. A lot of it (hopefully) will go away with age.