VALUES

[Immanuel Can]

You think maybe you prefer ignorance to getting a rational legitimation, you say?

My thoughts and opinions are unstated - you are projecting onto me a view that I do not hold.

Not at all. I'm simply showing you how self-defeating your question even is.

I am asking you to justify your preference for knowledge over ignorance. I do believe these are almost your very own words...

To "justify"? To "legitimate"? To "give reasons"? Is that what you now want?

But you have already doubted the value of such. One cannot give any gift to the man who will not receive it.

Do you then regard rational legitimation, or "justification," to use your word, as a good thing? It's something you want, you say? Do you want to insist I owe it to you? You want it; maybe you even want to demand it of me, and rail against me if I fail to provide it to you?

Then it's quite obvious you do not need further legitimation of the value of justifying with reasons; for you already agree with me that it is a good thing. In fact, you will feel cheated if you do not get it. So you cannot think for a second that ignorance is preferable. QED.

Or do you still despise legitimation?

Then I say again, that everyone has a right to insist on his ignorance, if he feels that legitimation is no good for him. And there an end of it.

Pick your poison.

[Skepdick]

Not at all. I'm simply showing you how self-defeating your question even is.

If only my question is self-defeating it's a tolerable loss.

I am showing you how Philosophy (all of it) is self-defeating.

To "justify"? To "legitimate"? To "give reasons"? Is that what you now want?

Me? No! It's what you want. It's all the things you insisted on.

I simply ask you to lead by example.

Demonstrate how and why "to justify".
Demonstrate how and why "to legitimise"
Demonstrate how and why "to give reasons"

But you have already doubted the value of such.

I did no such thing. I simply questioned WHY you value X over non-X, when you could have just as easily valued non-X over X.

You have failed to answer the "Why?" question.

One cannot give any gift to the man who will not receive it.

How do you know if you haven't tried?

Do you then regard rational legitimation, or "justification," to use your word, as a good thing? It's something you want, you say? Do you want to insist I owe it to you? You want it; maybe you even want to demand it of me, and rail against me if I fail to provide it to you?

I merely ask for a demonstration of that which you preach. You don't have to demonstrate if you don't know how.

Then it's quite obvious you do not need further legitimation of the value of justifying with reasons; for you already agree with me that it is a good thing.

Is a "good thing" different from a "bad thing"? How?

In fact, you will feel cheated if you do not get it. So you cannot think for a second that ignorance is preferable. QED.

How do you even begin to project your feelings upon me? In the future tense too.

Pick your poison.

There's none left for me - you drank it all.

Dumb Philosopher.

[Immanuel Can]

I simply ask you to lead by example.

Demonstrate how and why "to justify".
Demonstrate how and why "to legitimise"
Demonstrate how and why "to give reasons"

I don't need to demonstrate. You already believe me, if you ask these questions. For to "demonstrate" is to "legitimize." You are thereby acknowledging the importance of what I am arguing for.

But this I expected...that you would keep talking when reason had already defeated you.

Be well...and be ignorant if you wish, or value legitimation if you wish. But you cannot actually demand what you don't already believe can/should be given.

[RCSaunders]

A society is individuals purposively organised.

I'm not sure you and I mean the same thing by society. I'm sure there are groups of people, even very large ones, who choose to cooperate or work together on things they consider a common goal or purpose, and you could call those societies, like the crew of a ship, members of a band, an underworld organization, or the Amish, for example.

In general, however, a society is any number of individuals who happen to relate to each other geographically, where each pursuing their own interests will find others whose own individual interests compliment (trade and business) or coincide (social and personal) with their to their mutual benefit. The kind of people who make up a society, and their individual interests, values, beliefs, choices, and behavior are what determine the character and nature of any society. There is no way to make a society what one might like it to be.

Human nature. Humans will probably always be anatomically recognisable, but even this is uncertain the way scientific advances seem to be heading. Human psychology is and has always been too plastic to be pinned down like some preserved butterfly.

As far as I can determine there has been very little change in human nature in 7000 years of recorded history, and I see little to convince me it is going to change in any way in the future. Of course, if it changed substantially it would no longer be human.

I do not agree that human psychology is, "plastic," in the sense of being moldable from the outside, but do believe the psychology of every individual is unique and determined solely and entirely by what that individual chooses to learn, think, and do, and that there is, therefore, no predetermined, "natural pattern of behavior," usually attributed to human beings.

Criteria. No choice including a moral choice is made without a criterion.

That is no exactly true, because many choices are strictly either/or. A criterion only applies where there is a scale or range of possibilities, like one criterion for being a policeman is being over 5'11' tall, or a criterion for being a lawyer is passing the bar.

Criteria include an immediate need: some notion instilled by a significant other: a wooden metre stick: what one team of oxen can plough in one day: what Jesus said: what logic dictates: a legally or morally binding promise: a definition of ideal proportion: and so forth.

A criterion for value claims may be a value revealed by God: the preservation of the human species as we know it: relief of suffering: life after death: putting food on the family table: personal safety and pleasure at all times : cleansing one's immortal soul: saving others' souls: and so forth.

I think what you are really asking is what is the ultimate objective, goal, or ideal relative to which all other values must be determined. If that is what you are asking, my answer is, the ultimate goal or purpose relative to which all other values are proximate, is the life of the individual.

This is something I wrote in a very old article (when I was still using the term, "moral.")

Recalling the reason human beings need knowledge is because without it they have no way of making choices or ever knowing what is right to do, moral principles are that knowledge that pertain to the ultimate objective or purpose of life. There are two possible choices: 1. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is one's own life, or 2. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

Nothing dictates which course any individual must choose as their ultimate objective or purpose. Many do not choose either extreme and are willing to settle for something less than success and real happiness. There is nothing immoral in choosing thus. Morality only provides the principles for success and happiness, it does determine what one must choose, especially if they are willing to settle for less than true human success and happiness.

[Skepdick]

I don't need to demonstrate.

It is not for you to determine my needs.

You already believe me, if you ask these questions.

If I already believed you, I wouldn't ask you these questions.

For to "demonstrate" is to "legitimize."

So what should we make of your inability to demonstrate? Does it make your view illegitimate?
But you value legitimacy over illegitimacy?!?

If you value legitimacy why won't you legitimise your view?

You are thereby acknowledging the importance of what I am arguing for.

Hardly. I am demonstrating that you don't even believe what you are arguing for.

Which brings your intentions into doubt. Why do you preach that which you cannot practice?

But you cannot actually demand what you don't already believe can/should be given.

Then why are you demanding of others what you yourself cannot give?

I do it because I am a hypocrite, irrational, illogical, ignorant and unknowledgeable. I do it because I am human.

Why do you do it?

[RCSaunders]

Given the choice between "succeeding" and "failing" - you value success over failure.

That's right!

It is meaningless to talk about "success" and "failure" without stating a goal a priori, for one man's success is another man's failure and vice versa.

Pick whatever you like as your criterion. For me, success is living my life and being the best human being I can be which is the only way to fully enjoy that life and be fulfilled as a human being.

I do not care what anyone else chooses to live for (or die for) or whether they value their life and choose to make it the best they can, or disregard their life and choose to squander it. My values are not for judging others or telling them how to live, my values are only for telling me how to live.

I don't have to explain what success is to anyone else or get their agreement to achieve what I regard as success. You are right, everyone is different and, "one man's success is another man's failure and vice versa," so why would anyone need to justify their own success to anyone else?

We have no argument.

[Skepdick]

Pick whatever you like as your criterion. For me, success is living my life and being the best human being I can be which is the only way to fully enjoy that life and be fulfilled as a human being.

You are defining what I call "rationality" - maximising towards one's goals.

If you succeed at your goals, you are rational.
If you fail at your goals, you are irrational.

Unlike the philosophical notion, this one is testable/falsifiable given a set of goals.

It still leaves the door open for the question: Who decides whether you were the best human that you can be and how?

We have no argument.

We do if our goals clash. Queue philosophy/semantics - the art of disagreement.

[Immanuel Can]

I do it because I am a hypocrite, irrational, illogical, ignorant and unknowledgeable.

I'm going to accept that, since you insist.

In which case, there is no rational conversation to be had here. I shall do something more useful than holding an irrational one -- like maybe shampooing my cat.

[RCSaunders]

It still leaves the door open for the question: Who decides whether you were the best human that you can be and how?

Who indeed? You? Why would I need anyone to judge the value of my life? I'm the only judge and it's no one else's business.

We have no argument.

We do if our goals clash. Queue philosophy/semantics - the art of disagreement.

What disagreement? Believe whatever you like. I'm certain whatever goals you have are totally irrelevant to mine.

[Belinda]

A society is individuals purposively organised.

I'm not sure you and I mean the same thing by society. I'm sure there are groups of people, even very large ones, who choose to cooperate or work together on things they consider a common goal or purpose, and you could call those societies, like the crew of a ship, members of a band, an underworld organization, or the Amish, for example.

In general, however, a society is any number of individuals who happen to relate to each other geographically, where each pursuing their own interests will find others whose own individual interests compliment (trade and business) or coincide (social and personal) with their to their mutual benefit. The kind of people who make up a society, and their individual interests, values, beliefs, choices, and behavior are what determine the character and nature of any society. There is no way to make a society what one might like it to be.

Human nature. Humans will probably always be anatomically recognisable, but even this is uncertain the way scientific advances seem to be heading. Human psychology is and has always been too plastic to be pinned down like some preserved butterfly.

As far as I can determine there has been very little change in human nature in 7000 years of recorded history, and I see little to convince me it is going to change in any way in the future. Of course, if it changed substantially it would no longer be human.

I do not agree that human psychology is, "plastic," in the sense of being moldable from the outside, but do believe the psychology of every individual is unique and determined solely and entirely by what that individual chooses to learn, think, and do, and that there is, therefore, no predetermined, "natural pattern of behavior," usually attributed to human beings.

Criteria. No choice including a moral choice is made without a criterion.

That is no exactly true, because many choices are strictly either/or. A criterion only applies where there is a scale or range of possibilities, like one criterion for being a policeman is being over 5'11' tall, or a criterion for being a lawyer is passing the bar.

Criteria include an immediate need: some notion instilled by a significant other: a wooden metre stick: what one team of oxen can plough in one day: what Jesus said: what logic dictates: a legally or morally binding promise: a definition of ideal proportion: and so forth.

A criterion for value claims may be a value revealed by God: the preservation of the human species as we know it: relief of suffering: life after death: putting food on the family table: personal safety and pleasure at all times : cleansing one's immortal soul: saving others' souls: and so forth.

I think what you are really asking is what is the ultimate objective, goal, or ideal relative to which all other values must be determined. If that is what you are asking, my answer is, the ultimate goal or purpose relative to which all other values are proximate, is the life of the individual.

This is something I wrote in a very old article (when I was still using the term, "moral.")

Recalling the reason human beings need knowledge is because without it they have no way of making choices or ever knowing what is right to do, moral principles are that knowledge that pertain to the ultimate objective or purpose of life. There are two possible choices: 1. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is one's own life, or 2. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

Nothing dictates which course any individual must choose as their ultimate objective or purpose. Many do not choose either extreme and are willing to settle for something less than success and real happiness. There is nothing immoral in choosing thus. Morality only provides the principles for success and happiness, it does determine what one must choose, especially if they are willing to settle for less than true human success and happiness.

Society. I agree what we usually mean by society is a geographical entity. However, geographical or not, an aggregate is not an intentional collection but is a random collection.You did ask about the difference between an aggregate of people and a society of people with regard to your notion societies are no more than total numbers of individuals. You agree "mutual benefit" applies to societies. Mutual benefit is nearly always purposive and hardly applies to any random collection.

Human nature. You say "if it changed substantially it would no longer be human". Who is the arbiter of substantial change? You? The Pope? Jesus? Aristotle? Darwin?


Criterion. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/criterion. You might choose randomly which sock to put on first however social norms usually dictate other choices. Religious rules are frequently so daft there may even be one about which sock to put on first.

RC Saunders wrote:

the ultimate goal or purpose relative to which all other values are proximate, is the life of the individual.

This is indeed a criterion of your ultimate value. It is not mine as I support doctor assisted dying i.e. voluntary euthanasia.

There are two possible choices: 1. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is one's own life, or 2. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

I agree. That is the big one. There are a lot of sources that dictate which of these one ought to choose. All the religions tell you the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life. Even the antiquated heroic moral attitude said

the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

[Skepdick]

In which case, there is no rational conversation to be had here. I shall do something more useful than holding an irrational one -- like maybe shampooing my cat.

Q.E.D pursuing utility.

Would've gone much easier if you just admitted you were an instrumentalist.

[Skepdick]

Who indeed? You? Why would I need anyone to judge the value of my life? I'm the only judge and it's no one else's business.

Future-you? Past-you?

Your values evolve with age.

What disagreement? Believe whatever you like. I'm certain whatever goals you have are totally irrelevant to mine.

Fair enough. In which case - you shouldn't object to sending me your banking details and a copy of your driver's license.

[Immanuel Can]

In which case, there is no rational conversation to be had here. I shall do something more useful than holding an irrational one -- like maybe shampooing my cat.

Q.E.D pursuing utility.

Oh, you're funny! You don't even see the irony in that proposal? Hilarious.

Thanks for the hoot.

[Skepdick]

Oh, you're funny! You don't even see the irony in that proposal? Hilarious.

Are you preaching irony to an ironist? That's ironic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, you're funny! You don't even see the irony in that proposal? Hilarious.

Are you preaching irony to an ironist? That's ironic.

I didn't say he was a good one.