ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

If principle require thinking, what do you need principles for?!?

Do you even know what a principle is?

Not havin' any yourself: probably not.

Go, child: educate yourself, then mebbe we'll have sumthin to talk about.

Do you know what a principle is?

According to IC it is "rather uninformative" to claim you have principles without stating them.

[Skepdick]

well, I would think that thinking about principles is good for preventing us from knee jerk reactions. Sometimes situations require us to think more about them to come up with the appropriate or right answers. Principles can be vague and conflicting at times which means we need to think through them to come up with the right answer. We need to determine which principles outweigh others and in what situations. It isn't always easy or clear cut.

If you can think of any situation. A single situation in which you SHOULD NOT apply your principle.

Or a situation where you CHOOSE to apply an alternative "principle" to the "principle" you would normally apply.

That is clear evidence that your decision-making process is capable of (and has higher authority than) any principle you claim to hold.

So what master do your "principles" serve?

[Gary Childress]

well, I would think that thinking about principles is good for preventing us from knee jerk reactions. Sometimes situations require us to think more about them to come up with the appropriate or right answers. Principles can be vague and conflicting at times which means we need to think through them to come up with the right answer. We need to determine which principles outweigh others and in what situations. It isn't always easy or clear cut.

If you can think of any situation. A single situation in which you SHOULD NOT apply your principle.

Or a situation where you CHOOSE to apply an alternative "principle" to the "principle" you would normally apply.

That is clear evidence that your decision-making process is capable of (and has higher authority than) any principle you claim to hold.

So what master do your "principles" serve?

I'm not sure what you mean.

[henry quirk]

I've stated 'em multiple times in-forum.

Go hunt 'em down, if you like.

Me, not doin' you any favors.

Go do your homework, or not.

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure what you mean.

What is the principle by which you decide when NOT to apply a principle?

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure what you mean.

What is the principle by which you decide when NOT to apply a principle?

I think I see what you are saying, then. That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not sure what is the highest principle. I don't think I ever want to be tested on it either Because I'm terrified of the result.

[Skepdick]

I think I see what you are saying, then. That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not sure what is the highest principle. I don't think I ever want to be tested on it either Because I'm terrified of the result.

I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

You "being terrified" is you being scared of your morality being tested. You are literally scared that you won't do the "right thing".

You are programmed with it.

[Skepdick]

I think I see what you are saying, then. That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not sure what is the highest principle. I don't think I ever want to be tested on it either Because I'm terrified of the result.

I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

You "being terrified" is you being scared of your moral character being tested. You are literally scared/anxious that you will "fail the moral test".

E.g you are petrified that you won't live up to your own moral standards. You are programmed with it.

The trick is to not let that emotion control you - the trick is to listen to it. What is it warning me about?

[Gary Childress]

I think I see what you are saying, then. That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not sure what is the highest principle. I don't think I ever want to be tested on it either Because I'm terrified of the result.

I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.

You "being terrified" is you being scared of your moral character being tested. You are literally scared/anxious that you will "fail the test".

E.g you are petrified that you won't live up to your own moral standards. You are programmed with it.

I don't know if I am "programmed" with it or not. Again it remains to be seen and I don't want to see the answer. As far as do no harm, I think that is a great principle if it can be adhered to. However, I eat other living beings, (including animals). In that sense, I think I am doing harm to them. I tried being a pescetarian for a while but that didn't last. Everywhere I went there would be red meat and I just didn't stay on the regimen, so I just gave up and stopped thinking about it. Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking I may go back to it and give it another try (only maybe try vegetarianism).

[Immanuel Can]

I think it's not at all helpful.

And unless you are saying that other people are morally bound to share your opinion, then you're going to need to justify it in some way, by pinning down what you're taking to be "harm," and showing that it actually is.

Define" helpful".
Define "justify".

Well, "justify" is pretty straightforward. It just means, "show sufficient reason or evidence to warrant a belief in ______."

But "helpful" is just as undefinable, on its own, as "harmful." Things are only helpful or harmful to particular conceptions of what is good or what is the right thing to do, in a given situation. Absent that information, both are hopelessly vague.

[Skepdick]

Well, "justify" is pretty straightforward. It just means, "show sufficient reason or evidence to warrant a belief in ______."

It's not straight-forward at all. Language is broken, but you've made your bed - so you must sleep in it.

Define "straightforward"
Define "sufficient"
Define "reason"
Define "evidence"
Define "belief"

Also define every new term you are about to introduce in order to define the previous terms you were trying to define.

I am going to go drink some wine while you play this stupid game all by yourself.

But "helpful" is just as undefinable, on its own, as "harmful." Things are only helpful or harmful to particular conceptions of what is good or what is the right thing to do, in a given situation. Absent that information, both are hopelessly vague.

Define "hopelessly"
Define "vague"

The problem isn't vagueness. The problem is binary classification (classifying things into the two categories: harm and not-harm) and then there are the resulting errors.

The way scientists measure classifier performance is by using ROC Curves.

While you are at this maybe you want to define "error" ?

And please, please, please PLEASE. Don't forget to define "define". What is definition?

[Gary Childress]

Well, "justify" is pretty straightforward. It just means, "show sufficient reason or evidence to warrant a belief in ______."

It's not straight-forward at all. Language is broken, but you've made your bed - so you must sleep in it.

If language is "broken" then why are you using it?

[Skepdick]

If language is "broken" then why are you using it?

This is a false dichotomy, Gary.

I am using the best tool that I have. The "best" tool is broken.

If I had a better tool I would use it instead of language (telepathy maybe?), but I don't have a better tool. Do you?

[Gary Childress]

If language is "broken" then why are you using it?

This is a false dichotomy, Gary.

I am using the best tool that I have. The "best" tool is broken.

If I had a better tool I would use it instead of language (telepathy maybe?), but I don't have a better tool. Do you?

OK. Fair enough. I take it you believe language is broken but your actions (presumably instinctive) are not?

[Skepdick]

That is actually a bit of a lie. Humans are telepathic.

All I have to say is "apple" and this picture pops up in your head (even though the word "apple" looks NOTHING like the picture):

apple.png

The human mind is amazing!