bsphil wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
still waiting...
p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.
p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.
Only when it suits their needs. Consistency is frowned upon in their circles.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- climategate
climategateFollow
Really? I thought that was always a big deal with conservatives.
Only when it suits their needs. Consistency is frowned upon in their circles.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
But Pensive, if people can't change the climate for the worse, then they can't reverse the naturally occurring effects for the better. It's just simple logic.
That's half of the story, yes.
Simple logic doesn't dictate our ethical status. Futility is no reason not to try. If it is a reason not to try, then the same simple logic tells us that we should have mass self-termination before that point of existence.
The unspoken condition that we shouldn't kill ourselves in nihilistic depression (I thought) was pretty well accepted.
Quote:
Simple logic doesn't dictate our ethical status. Futility is no reason not to try. If it is a reason not to try, then the same simple logic tells us that we should have mass self-termination before that point of existence.
The unspoken condition that we shouldn't kill ourselves in nihilistic depression (I thought) was pretty well accepted.
The unspoken condition that we shouldn't kill ourselves in nihilistic depression (I thought) was pretty well accepted.
Oh lawd.
Futility means that regardless of you trying, you're gonna fail.
Futility certainly is a reason not to use resources towards that end, but rather to allocate them towards something more productive.
If you think life is futile then you're not looking at the proper end.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Futility means that regardless of you trying, you're gonna fail.
This is the sum total of life.
Quote:
Futility certainly is a reason not to use resources towards that end, but rather to allocate them towards something more productive.
These are mutually incompatible.
Quote:
If you think life is futile then you're not looking at the proper end.
You seem to think that you're asserting something alternative to what I have. In lieu of 50k words explaining why, I'm just telling you that you aren't.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Simple logic doesn't dictate our ethical status. Futility is no reason not to try. If it is a reason not to try, then the same simple logic tells us that we should have mass self-termination before that point of existence.
The unspoken condition that we shouldn't kill ourselves in nihilistic depression (I thought) was pretty well accepted.
The unspoken condition that we shouldn't kill ourselves in nihilistic depression (I thought) was pretty well accepted.
Oh lawd.
Futility means that regardless of you trying, you're gonna fail.
Futility certainly is a reason not to use resources towards that end, but rather to allocate them towards something more productive.
If you think life is futile then you're not looking at the proper end.
I think I see what Pensive is saying, though, and I sort of agree with him.
If you see a baby in the road and a car coming at him, and you know you can't get to him in time to save him, shouldn't you still try, ethically?
At least, that's how I read his "futility shouldn't stop you from trying" when it comes to ethics.
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
I don't know. Personally, even if I was obviously waaaay too far away to help, I'd probably still start running and calling out anyway. If for no other reason so that I don't torture myself later thinking, "Maybe it wasn't so far away, I'm a bad person for not at least trying."
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Futility means that regardless of you trying, you're gonna fail.
This is the sum total of life.
Quote:
Futility certainly is a reason not to use resources towards that end, but rather to allocate them towards something more productive.
These are mutually incompatible.
Quote:
If you think life is futile then you're not looking at the proper end.
You seem to think that you're asserting something alternative to what I have. In lieu of 50k words explaining why, I'm just telling you that you aren't.
The sum total of your life may be failure, but it's not a lost cause. Unless your point is to equate that death == failure, in which case, see above. Or if your assertion that life has no meaning why would you care whether or not people killed other people? Ergo, welcome to Varus territory.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
If you see a baby in the road and a car coming at him, and you know you can't get to him in time to save him, shouldn't you still try, ethically?
Nope. This mentality gets a lot of people killed every year.
Just as Planned.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
I don't know. Personally, even if I was obviously waaaay too far away to help, I'd probably still start running and calling out anyway. If for no other reason so that I don't torture myself later thinking, "Maybe it wasn't so far away, I'm a bad person for not at least trying."
Right, but you don't know for sure, as you are not prescient. The regret you fear in your hypothetical relies on human ignorance.
Quote:
If you see a baby in the road and a car coming at him, and you know you can't get to him in time to save him, shouldn't you still try, ethically?
That's the idea.
Quote:
Or if your assertion that life has no meaning why would you care whether or not people killed other people?
For some ludicrous reason, you seem to want to have values arrive in our hearts from reason or reality.
The entire point is that the fact that life has not "meaning" doesn't have a bearing on whether or not we can or should value it. The meaning that we produce through an ad hoc value is the only value, and has nothing to do with reality, whether or not that reality is the impossibility of avoiding a baby in the road, or of managing to avoid annihilation because of a runaway climate.
You still have to try to enable the things that you value to come into Being, whether or not there is a chance of it occurring. To do otherwise is defeatist and, if I may parrot your trolling for the moment, welcome to varrus territory.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
If you see a baby in the road and a car coming at him, and you know you can't get to him in time to save him, shouldn't you still try, ethically?
Nope. This mentality gets a lot of people killed every year.
But to feel ethically sound, one should try. I wasn't really trying to start a debate about it as much as point out what I thought Pensive meant.
Though, I might have been completely wrong. I often misunderstand these arguments, and I should probably stay out of it.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
Seeing as that is impossible, though, you might as well try.
I don't know. Personally, even if I was obviously waaaay too far away to help, I'd probably still start running and calling out anyway. If for no other reason so that I don't torture myself later thinking, "Maybe it wasn't so far away, I'm a bad person for not at least trying."
Right, but you don't know for sure, as you are not prescient. The regret you fear in your hypothetical relies on human ignorance.
That's not the point.
Quote:
I don't know. Personally, even if I was obviously waaaay too far away to help, I'd probably still start running and calling out anyway. If for no other reason so that I don't torture myself later thinking, "Maybe it wasn't so far away, I'm a bad person for not at least trying."
See, the point would be not to help the child, but rather to help your own personal nebulous ego complex that keeps you thinking that you are doing the "right thing". Ergo it's not a futile effort, you create a positive self opinion. The aspect that is futile is the silly notion that you're "helping" the child. Because you haven't helped the child.
If the case was the driver could have noticed and swerved out of the way because of your actions, then this would be an improper example for dissemination of futility. Because it wouldn't have been one.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Quote:
The aspect that is futile is the silly notion that you're "helping" the child. Because you haven't helped the child.
I doubt belkira would assert that she was. It's not merely for your own ego. It's also for potential future endeavors of yours and how you relate to other individuals such that your character is more cultivated and prepared to deal with things when they will make some sort of practical difference. THe preparedness of your own ego directly impacts the continuity of the world.
Edited, Dec 8th 2009 3:36pm by Pensive
Quote:
For some ludicrous reason, you seem to want to have values arrive in our hearts from reason or reality.
The entire point is that the fact that life has not "meaning" doesn't have a bearing on whether or not we can or should value it. The meaning that we produce through an ad hoc value is the only value, and has nothing to do with reality, whether or not that reality is the impossibility of avoiding a baby in the road, or of managing to avoid annihilation because of a runaway climate.
You still have to try to enable the things that you value to come into Being, whether or not there is a chance of it occurring. To do otherwise is defeatist and, if I may parrot your trolling for the moment, welcome to varrus territory.
The entire point is that the fact that life has not "meaning" doesn't have a bearing on whether or not we can or should value it. The meaning that we produce through an ad hoc value is the only value, and has nothing to do with reality, whether or not that reality is the impossibility of avoiding a baby in the road, or of managing to avoid annihilation because of a runaway climate.
You still have to try to enable the things that you value to come into Being, whether or not there is a chance of it occurring. To do otherwise is defeatist and, if I may parrot your trolling for the moment, welcome to varrus territory.
The ****?
Perhaps me elucidating on such matters to you is futile, if you cannot even grasp basic tenets of reality.
Just as Planned.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
If you knew for sure? No, you shouldn't.
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
I contend this is not a useful ethical system. Then again, as the situation we are discussing cannot possibly come up, this is irrelevant. I call into question the use of this thought experiment altogether.
Quote:
Perhaps me elucidating on such matters to you is futile, if you cannot even grasp basic tenets of reality.
You have yet to state an argument which is not encapsulated by mine. Perhaps you should start there.
Quote:
I call into question the use of this thought experiment altogether.
That's the point.. jesus christ.
Edited, Dec 8th 2009 3:38pm by Pensive
There is no reason to humour the thought experiment with an answer if that is the point.
Quote:
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Say you're piloting a star ship on a course for the sun.
There control system is not located on board the ship, and you have no control of your imminent termination. Should you try some strategy you know will ultimately have no bearing on the inevitable solar-immolation course trajectory or should you focus your attention elsewhere?
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Say you're piloting a star ship on a course for the sun.
There control system is not located on board the ship, and you have no control of your imminent termination. Should you try some strategy you know will ultimately have no bearing on the inevitable solar-immolation course trajectory or should you focus your attention elsewhere?
Been reading Douglas Adams recently?
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Say you're piloting a star ship on a course for the sun.
There control system is not located on board the ship, and you have no control of your imminent termination. Should you try some strategy you know will ultimately have no bearing on the inevitable solar-immolation course trajectory or should you focus your attention elsewhere?
There's no way you can know that what you do will ultimately have no bearing on your trajectory.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. Attempt to avoid, even if 100% immanently impossible. If nothing else it conditions your mind, character and virtues to where you respond more adequately to other situations.
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Modern ethics focus way to much on act paradoxes, I sear...
Say you're piloting a star ship on a course for the sun.
There control system is not located on board the ship, and you have no control of your imminent termination. Should you try some strategy you know will ultimately have no bearing on the inevitable solar-immolation course trajectory or should you focus your attention elsewhere?
Quote:
Should you try some strategy you know will ultimately have no bearing on the inevitable solar-immolation course trajectory or should you focus your attention elsewhere?
Why are you asking me about this disjunct? It has quite literally nothing to do with what you seem to be arguing.
I can't imagine how I've told you three times that you aren't arguing something incompatible with me and you continue to ask things like this.
Quote:
There is no reason to humour the thought experiment with an answer if that is the point.
We shall see then. I have rejected another similarly stupid one. What do you think will happen?
Edited, Dec 8th 2009 3:46pm by Pensive
Quote:
I can't imagine how I've told you three times that you aren't arguing something incompatible with me and you continue to ask things like this.
Really?
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 335
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (335)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- climategate
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC