Philosophy Now Forum

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:54 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:02 pm GUYS...

You meet a girl. She's lovely and smart and, you discover on the occasion of your first intimate moment with her, that she's a guy.

What do you do?


GIRLS...

You meet a guy. He's handsome and smart and, you discover on the occasion of your first intimate moment with him, that he's a girl.

What do you do?

Either you are assuming that all of us seek sexual partners of the opposite sex, or you don't want to hear the views of those of us who don't. Either way, that shows a lack, I think.

meh

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:00 pm My principles haven't led me astray and you don't have any.

And: Gary is on the right track, he has a measure of dignity and principle.

A moral human being doesn't need principles. A moral human being throws away principles that (when adhered to) cause harm.

Harmful dogma is harmful dogma. Sugarcoating it with the label 'principles' doesn't change that.

The only "principle" (if you can call it that that) you need is Primum non nocere - First do no harm! Nonmaleficence.

Beyond that- ANYTHING goes.

A moral human being throws away principles that (when adhered to) cause harm.

How have I, adhering to certain principles, harmed anyone?

And: which principles ought I abandon?

Can you state my principles?

#

Harmful dogma is harmful dogma. Sugarcoating it with the label 'principles' doesn't change that.

What's my harmful dogma?

#

The only "principle" (if you can call it that that) you need is Primum non nocere - First do no harm! Nonmaleficence.

Whatever floats your boat; I'll stick with mine.

The only "principle" (if you can call it that that) you need is Primum non nocere - First do no harm! Nonmaleficence.

The problem is that nobody seems very good at defining "harm."

Is making someone work for something "harm"? How about insisting they pay for what they bought? How about cutting off a limb to save a life? Education is very demanding, often painful, and frequently frustrating, on the road to understanding...is education "harm"? What about euthanasia? Or killing babies in utero? How about taking someone else's money, and using it to pay for people who won't work? Is it harm to keep someone from invading your country? Is it harm to let everyone flood into your country and overload its systems? Is Brexit a help or harm? If a politician is a jerk, but helps your country in all kinds of metrics, is he "helping" or "harming" it? Is letting a transvestite manage school children "harming" them, or is refusing to let him do it "harming" him? If you "dead name" someone, have you really harmed him, or have you "helped" him see beyond his dysphoric delusions? Does creating a quota system "help" vulnerable minorities, or does it "harm" others (like the Chinese, at Harvard)? And so on.

Absent a clear definition of "harm," the injunction, "Do no harm" doesn't convey very much.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm The problem is that nobody seems very good at defining "harm."

Nobody seems to be very good at defining anything. That's only a problem if you want it to be a problem.

You can't define "love". Is that preventing you from loving your family?
You can't define "health". Is that preventing you from going to the doctor when you need to?

The problem of definitions is only a philosophical problem. That is - it's not a real problem. The necessary definitions and understanding of the meaning of 'harm' emerge through dialectic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Is making someone work for something "harm"?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm How about insisting they pay for what they bought?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm How about cutting off a limb to save a life?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Education is very demanding, often painful, and frequently frustrating, on the road to understanding...is education "harm"?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm What about euthanasia?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Or killing babies in utero?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm How about taking someone else's money, and using it to pay for people who won't work?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Is it harm to keep someone from invading your country?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Is it harm to let everyone flood into your country and overload its systems?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Is Brexit a help or harm?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm If a politician is a jerk, but helps your country in all kinds of metrics, is he "helping" or "harming" it?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Is letting a transvestite manage school children "harming" them, or is refusing to let him do it "harming" him? If you "dead name" someone, have you really harmed him, or have you "helped" him see beyond his dysphoric delusions?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:30 pm Does creating a quota system "help" vulnerable minorities, or does it "harm" others (like the Chinese, at Harvard)?

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

It's hard work collecting all the data and weighing all the pros and cons, then making up your mind. I know.

But ultimately you will be swayed one way or the other, and the way you will be swayed is (generally) the way that you think is least harmful.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:37 pm The problem of definitions is only a philosophical problem. That is - it's not a real problem.

Not nearly. It's the problem of not being able to understand what one is looking at...is this "harm," or not? In general, even waiting to find out, in the few cases in which that is practical, is enough, because even after you're done, you can't really tell how much you've "helped" or "harmed."

Much depends on the moral construction of "harm." It's not self-evident what it is.

It depends. Some times it may be harmful. Some times it may not be harmful.

If that's the summation of it, then you've not informed us of much. As I say, even after the deed is done, you'll be hard pressed if you try to justify what you've achieved.

For example, when you kill a child in utero, did you just "help" a woman get free of a potential financial burden, or did you "harm" another human being in the most awful, violent and disgusting way?

And what if the answer is, "Both"?

It's hard work collecting all the data and weighing all the pros and cons, then making up your mind. I know.
But ultimately you will be swayed one way or the other, and the way you will be swayed is (generally) the way that you think is least harmful.

That too, I'm afraid, is both way too obvious and not terribly helpful to know.

One will be swayed by one's passions and what one thinks. That's no revelation, obviously.

And that one "thinks" X or Y is "least harmful" comes nowhere near to telling us whether or not it actually is. That much is also obvious.

So where are we now? We make up "help" and "harm" as seems fit to us in the moment, not knowing the truth of that or the outcomes?

And that's supposedly a "principle" to guide our moral reflection?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:38 pm A moral human being throws away principles that (when adhered to) cause harm.

How have I, adhering to certain principles, harmed anyone?

Trivially. Principles are mental shortcuts. Heuristics.

They are usually right. They are mostly right. They are not always right.

If you apply your principles indiscriminately on auto-pilot and you don't exercise your judgment/discretion on when NOT to apply them, you will inevitably cause harm, somewhere, somewhen.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:38 pm And: which principles ought I abandon?

All principles which aren't universal.

If you have to exercise judgment, and decide whether to apply a principle or not - then what do you need principles for?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:38 pm Can you state my principles?

No, but you can.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:38 pm What's my harmful dogma?

Every absolute principle you hold.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:38 pm Whatever floats your boat; I'll stick with mine.

Obviously. That's what principled dogmatists do.

Life is easier on auto-pilot (principled living). Thinking's hard!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:49 pm And that's supposedly a "principle" to guide our moral reflection?

It is, indeed!

It's the principles doctors, engineers, scientists, soldiers, lawyers and in general - ALL practitioners bound by a code of ethics use.
It's the principle underpinning all social policy making in the form of the Precautionary principle..

This principle can be traced as far back as Hammurabi and even further back in history if you tried looking. It's as good as the default for objective morality.

If you have a better principle, how come nobody is adopting/using it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:49 pm Not nearly. It's the problem of not being able to understand what one is looking at...is this "harm," or not? In general, even waiting to find out, in the few cases in which that is practical, is enough, because even after you're done, you can't really tell how much you've "helped" or "harmed."

Do your best to guess. If you get it wrong - we'll discipline/educate you.

And if you are having trouble deciding, there's always the safe bet - do nothing.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:49 pm And that's supposedly a "principle" to guide our moral reflection?

It is, indeed!

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.

If you have a better principle, how come nobody is adopting/using it?

I didn't offer such a principle (yet). I may yet do.

All I'm saying, for the present moment, is that "Do no harm" is, for anyone who is less than totally committed to exactly the same impressions of help and harm you have, merely uninformative.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:06 pm 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".

While you want to play the stupid language games. Define "definition".

At the present moment, anyone who is less than totally committed to the exactly same impression of "definition" you have is going to have trouble understanding your request.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:06 pm All I'm saying, for the present moment, is that "Do no harm" is, for anyone who is less than totally committed to exactly the same impressions of help and harm you have, merely uninformative.

It doesn't need to be informative. Practitioners agree. As in "scientific consensus" agree.

That you aren't on the boat simply means you have much learning to do.

HQ wrote:Can you state my principles?

SD wrote:No, but you can.

Then lecture me when you can.

SD wrote:Life is easier on auto-pilot (principled living). Thinking's hard!

If you knew my principles you'd know they require thinkin', but you don't so...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:13 pm Then lecture me when you can.

Ooooh, are you getting triggered, Henry?

I am not a mind-reader. Seeming as you can't tell me what your principles are - I might as well accuse you of the exact same thing you are accusing me of.

You don't have any principles.

in fact (and I am going on a whim here). All of your "principles" are post-hoc justifications (smokescreens) for your desires.

I am speaking from experience here...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:13 pm If you knew my principles you'd know they require thinkin', but you don't so...

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

Surely you need thinking way more than you need principles?

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.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:13 pm If you knew my principles you'd know they require thinkin', but you don't so...

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

Surely you need thinking way more than you need principles?

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.