• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Can we judge good or bad as a species?

vegan, it's perfectly clear to me that we are capable of making value distinctions. For example I think pie is way better than cake. Or, a secular humanist is way better than adolf hitler.
 
Last edited:
^ you would know that the warm water was something-er than the cold water. you might later learn know that the 'something' is what everybody else calls 'hot'.

the op suggests that you can only make a relative comparison if comparing the warm water to hot water. that implies that this being with the glass of water would, in the absence of the glass of hot water, think the 'warm' water and the 'cold' water were the same temperature which is a little absurd.

alasdair
 
Individuals can be good or bad, but whole groups? I doubt it. What is it that makes these groups take on moral judgment? How can individuals honestly remove their own responsibility when in groups?
 
Whole groups can be bad. You don't think the nazis were bad? Not to say that every single individual that wore a nazi uniform or supported their efforts is a bad person, but collectively they were bad.

How can individuals honestly remove their own responsibility when in groups?
Click to expand...

That's a good question and I think the answer is normally fear.
 
Sure, but a very reasonable one no? And in my opinion the Sun is bright and grass is green and birds fly and sing.
 
no, dont mix fact with opinion sir. FACT the grass is green, OPINION you think hitler is bad.

And its very reasonable to you and in your opinion.
 
It is my opinion that grass is green. How do I know that green is green? How do I know that the green I see is the same green you see?

You know there isn't like a fixed objective reality, at least not to our experience. Everything is open to interpretation. True Object is beyond our grasp.

So, why hate on opinions?

Opinions are way more important and consequential than 'objective facts.' There is no 'objective future.' All of our actions are based on the opinions of the potential consequences.

So the point is, if we can agree that grass is green, we can move forward. If we can agree that nazis were bad, we can move forward.

If empirical scientific reality is the only 'real' reality, then we're all fuckin crazy. Reality and Truth is way bigger than 'fact'. Now stop trying to disqualify my statements for being 'opinions'.

Is it your opinion that opinions are less real than empirical facts?
 
Let's try to get at the implicit assumptions (well, corresponding issues that we should get on the table) undergirding the question:

1. Are species homogeneous enough to be evaluated in aggregate? If so, when evaluating whether a species is 'good' or 'bad', which characteristics shared among individuals will be pertinent?
2. Good/Bad toward what end? Which characteristics or capacities for action do we care about and why?
3. Are goodness and badness to be found in overt, observable action? We can hardly get into an animal's mind and infer (with reliability) the pertinent 'motives', desires, influences, etc. (yes, language, observed expressions, intuition, etc. are most imperfect, but the provide information worlds better than our meagerly educated guesses about how animals experience).

And then, as we'd do whenever exploring ethics:
1. What is the ontological standing of "the good" or "the bad"? In what 'stuff' of reality are ethics to be found?
EGs:
What weight should be given to consequences of acts, intentions behind acts, generalized maxims that sometimes guide acts, personal characteristics etc.?

When looking for the good and the bad, should we turn attention to feelings of pleasure and pain, expressions of freedom, development of rich potentialities in individuals (self-actualization), 'fairness', arbitrary preferences etc. ?

What is the scope of ethics? Do we allow universal maxims, more particular ethical frameworks developed in particular contexts, of particular communities and situations, overriding quantitative logic to assess quantities of good and bad (yes, utilitarianism), or is it just arbitrary whims?

Anyway....yeah. big can 'o' worms...and I lack the patience for it right nao. ;)
 
Last edited:
no you dont understand. There is something that is fact, that means it can be proven by science or what ever. You know, we use a word 'g r e e n' to describe a color that our human eyes see. Its a fact not an opinion. An opinion is open to interpretation, and doesnt hold neccasarily anything that is 'true' aka fact. Like, 'god is real' isnt fact because it cant be proven, its an opinion.

Why i said 'your opinion' is because:

'Sure, but a very reasonable one no?'

Im saying, reasonable to YOU, its an opinion because who are you to decide what is and isnt reasonable? you cant 'prove' something is reasonable.
 
no you dont understand. There is something that is fact, that means it can be proven by science or what ever.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering just what I was going to ask you. :)
However, does this method through which we delineate fact and opinion hold under scrutiny?
What is this vague "science or whatever"? Why do we privilege it's claims to truth above other methods'? What is it to 'prove' something? Can opinions be proven?
...
I find your example of an object's color as 'fact' a bit odd (telling? ;)), as here, there is already obvious reliance on reference to a mental state, an 'interpretation' of what the object is like. Yes, people tend to agree quite reliably about the criteria for greenness, but this does little to solve the problem of the inaccessibility of others' mental states (viewed in this way, as I think that you imply).

In the stringent sense, no one may 'prove' to anyone his or her own perceptions...but about ANYTHING!

ebola
 
vgun said:
"good" and "bad" don't even exist

they only exist as subjective judgments changing with the system of thoughts of each individual at one precise moment in his live
Click to expand...

But doesn't this apply to ALL objects of our experience? You could point to external objects, but people partake of mutual experience of ethical sentiments routinely.

What more, doesn't the idea of a 'merely' subjective judgment, and its scope, presuppose a universe with a particular subject-object arrangement, that is a split one? By pointing to the...particularistic and inner-worldly, don't you at the same time imply the universal, outter-worldly (or at least the omni-worldly) ?

Or have I grossly misunderstood you?

ebola
 
moonyham, you need to do better than repeat yourself.

I understand what an opinion is and what scientific facts is. You have failed to support your underlying assumption that opinion is to be devalued. You seem to live in a world devoid of meaning.

ebola?, thanks for taking the time to be more patient and articulate than I was yesterday.
 
Heh...thanks, but I don't think that I exhibited much patience or clarity. :)
My style...conceals possible vitriol in deluges of questions and flowery diction. :)

ebola
 
Kill em with kindness...

I gotcha :)

Well you were at least a little more patient then my drunk ass last night.
 
i'm going to kill my internet provider

3rd times in 2 days that i write a long post and that it disappears when i post it

i'll just rewrite the first thing i had wanted to reply to

moonyham, you need to do better than repeat yourself.
Click to expand...
he repeats himself because his simple point hasn't been understood yet

as he can't really explain it any more simply, it's up to the reader to try again to get his meaning
 
Well, the thing that separates us from animals is that we have the ability to reason.

On another note, if there is no control group, there is no experiment.
 
ebola? said:
Thanks for answering just what I was going to ask you. :)
However, does this method through which we delineate fact and opinion hold under scrutiny?
What is this vague "science or whatever"? Why do we privilege it's claims to truth above other methods'? What is it to 'prove' something? Can opinions be proven?
...
I find your example of an object's color as 'fact' a bit odd (telling? ;)), as here, there is already obvious reliance on reference to a mental state, an 'interpretation' of what the object is like. Yes, people tend to agree quite reliably about the criteria for greenness, but this does little to solve the problem of the inaccessibility of others' mental states (viewed in this way, as I think that you imply).

In the stringent sense, no one may 'prove' to anyone his or her own perceptions...but about ANYTHING!

ebola
Click to expand...

Well, i can prove that my perception of wood being able to catch fire is fact because.. well because i can make wood catch fire! Mental state doesnt come into the picture, im sorry. I dont care how different your mental state is, i can still catch wood on fire and that fire can still burn you, still produce light, and still go out if theres no oxygen, no matter what you think or dont think.

What you say about mental state and interpretation is just some typical 'im in the matrix ohnoes' hippy shit tbh. Anyone can say to anything 'yeah but its all down to interpretation, mental state maaaaan, mental state.' I mean seriously, you could say that to ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Its the lamest, think-nothing, do-nothing, know-nothing argument ever created.

Oh but i guess thats just my mental interpretation maaaaan. ;)

=============

shakti, what vegan said is exactly right, im just trying to get my point across.. and ill keep doing it till that happens and by simplifying more and more, eventually youll get it to a level where there mind can understand it. Obviously you DIDNT get it because you were mixing opinion and facts like they are the same thing.

shakti: Whos to say what does and doesnt have meaning? what IS meaning? Whos to say what meaning is and isnt?

Oh and how does me agreeing with your opinion move us forward? Where are we moving? Whos deciding who and how we are moving? Why would we be moving forward just because we no longer disagree?

^THAT is your opinion dude. Its your opinion the nazi's were bad. It doesnt mean i disagree with you, im not saying they are good.. im just merely saying, that you saying they are bad is an opinion and what you base that off is not fact at all, because morals are not factual.

I never ever will say a faction of a war, no matter how 'sick or twisted'(by common moral standards) is bad. Theres 2 sides to every coin.
 
Last edited:
^ I don't think that technically counts as proof positive. I'm not sure that positive proofs can really be accomplished outside of a formalised language like math.

As einstein said (paraphrasing): "No number of experiments can prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top