Philosophy Now Forum

Atla - We don't know any such thing. How would we even know it beyond reasonable doubt?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:32 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:30 pm

we already know beyond reasonable doubt today that it's incorrect

A person has an absolute claim on, an inalienable right to, his, and no one's else's, life, liberty, and property.

Morality, then, is when a person recognizes and respects another's absolute claim, his natural right, to his own life, liberty, and property. In that recognizing and respecting one is disinclined to murder, rape, enslave, steal from, and defraud the other. And where one is not disinclined, where he decides to treat the other as commodity, he may find the other exercising his right to self-defense.

And it works no matter how you feel about the other guy. You don't have to like him or empathize with him to get that it's wrong to use him (his life, his liberty, his property) as your possession.

Seems objective and universal to me.

Except for the absolutely obvious contradiction that you have, hold, and believe that you can take away another's absolute claim and natural right to their own life, liberty, and/or property under, actual, 'unjustifiable' situations.

So, until you work through and get past this blatantly obvious contradiction that you are holding onto and maintaining, then what you are trying to claim here is False and would never work.

Yeah it could be in the job description of academic philosophers to avoid interdisciplinary knowledge as much as possible. So they can continue to mull over questions that were already resolved beyond reasonable doubt by other disciplines.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 4:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 1:56 am
And yet, if I needed help, the first guy I'd go to is somebody who thinks like you...not an emotional hand-wringer, but a hard-headed realist who could actually do something and wouldn't just cluck and fluff and squirt sympathy in all directions.

Hello, Mr. Trump of a hundred words!

Read in a dictionary the difference between the two. Psychologically, the mental states they denote are, in fact, worlds apart.

Sympathy is a very limited emotion more akin to pity, while empathy can stretch itself into a near clairvoyant state where mere sympathy no-longer applies.

It is like some people above here do not yet even know the actual difference between 'sympathy' and 'empathy'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 11:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:34 pm

Think about this: all these people who deny a moral reality, who insist man is just meat, think the two of us are stunted becuz we're not, as they see it, empathetic (enough or at all), becuz -- and by their own reckoning this is all it can be -- our mirror neurons are off kilter or becuz we don't have enough serotonin or becuz [insert bio-chemical cause].

They reject God (as Creator, as moral undergirding), reject personhood (as anything other than man-bestowed status), reject morality (as anything but personal or collective opinion), reduce man, and themselves, to animal, and we're the retarded ones.

What a world...

More people would be less inclined to not accept God, and be not as inclined to reject God, if people like you and "immanuel can" stopped insisting that God is a 'person', of male gender.

Obviously what the both of you believe here to be absolutely true could not be more False, and Wrong, but each and every time you keep insisting that what you believe to be true is actually true, then the more others are going to reject and not accept your own person versions. And, for blatantly obvious reasons I will add.

So, why do the two of you not just 'grow up' and 'accept' that your own versions of God could never ever even be a possibility, let alone an actuality?

Veritas - I didn't refer to "my morality" at all. I referred to a normative theory that is trying to describe objective moral truth. I think it does a good job of it.

I think this thread is getting a bit off-topic, but for what it's worth, I'll happily throw my hat in the ring.

Empathy is not needed for morality. Morality applies to all free, rational agents, whether they possess empathy or not. Empathy might be useful in getting people to care about acting morally, but it not a necessary element of it.

Also, there's not a good reason to believe in a god, God, or gods. More importantly, whether there was a god, God, or gods has no bearing at all on what morality is or what is moral. If we found out tomorrow that the universe was created by a deity, we would have all the same moral questions we have now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:51 pmWhat you call natural rights were also invented by humans.

No. Every person, including you, knows his life, liberty, and property are his and is properly outraged when violated.

But, 'violated', or not, comes from a Truly subjective viewpoint.

So, how does this 'fit in' with your belief here "henry quirk"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm Even the murderer, rapist, slaver, thief, and defrauder knows this. It's a universal intuition.

Once again, you have this all absolutely mixed up and confused. Thus, why you are not gaining any agreement nor acceptance from others here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm We didn't invent it: we recognize it about ourselves and extend that recognition to our fellows.

Except, you only pass on 'that recognition and acceptance' to only some, only. Then, you want to shoot the others, and/or take away their own life, their own liberty, and/or their own property. Thus, absolutely contradicting "your" own 'self' and being an absolute "hypocrite" in the process as well.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm That's morality.

So, why does your own personal version of 'morality' here not work on, nor with, others here?

Why do you not just 'look for' what is actually Wrong in your own personal view and perspective of things here, instead of continually trying to 'force' others to accept and agree with your own personal opinions here?

Obviously what is not 'morally Right', in Life, is to try to force others to do some thing another wants or believes in.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:09 pmLifeforms respond negatively to pain

Who said diddly about pain?

You get pickpocketed. You aren't in pain. What you are is morally outraged.

LOL Spoken from a Truly narrowed and extremely closed one.

Look "henry quirk" how you feel and what you do is never, necessarily, what another one would feel, nor do. So, please stop thinking and believing what you are here. When, and if, you ever do, then you will also remove your other distorted and Wrong thoughts.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm
What's yours has been taken from you. You've been wronged.

Is one allowed to feel, or be, 'wronged' when some thing is taken from another?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm Thing is: anyone, anywhere, any when, who is pickpocketed is morally outraged.

Again, your over dramatization of some thing, which is in all absolute honesty, of no real significance nor importance, in Life, here, 'speaks volumes' of how 'weak', 'insecure', and 'hypocritical' you Truly are here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm Even the pickpockets themselves are morally outraged when it happens to them.

One could even say and argue that 'they' are 'more outraged'. As they have been 'more outsmarted'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm No one in the history of the world has every said, no one today sez, and no one tomorrow will ever say hey, it was right that I was stolen from and I'm jake with it.

LOL How Truly Wrong and Incorrect you are, once again, "henry quirk".

you are showing and proving just how Truly narrowed and closed you really are here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm If natural rights were just some biological convention or cultural codification then you'd expect at least some portion of any population to be okay with theft (or murder, or rape, or slavery, or fraud).

And, you just using the words 'natural rights' does not make them so.

Or, do you believe otherwise.

Have you ever heard that you have to verify, clarify, prove, or just 'justify' some thing before you can then claim 'it' to be so?

Have you not yet realized that you have not yet 'justified', to every one, that what you call 'natural rights' are in fact 'natural rights'?

All you have more or less proposed here is that 'they' are 'natural rights' because this is how 'i', "henry quirk" would feel. And, how 'i', "henry quirk", would feel under a specific circumstances is how absolutely everyone else 'would feel'. Therefore, 'they are natural rights'.

Now, a very common theme among the adult human population, back in the days when this was being written, was that they would very commonly think or believe that 'because 'this' is what I would feel or do under 'this situation' then the majority or all others would feel and/or do the exact same thing/s'.

Which could not be further from the actual Truth of things.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm But despite all manner of different outlooks and religions and states and notions about everything, the one universal is this deep in the bone intuition every person has: my life, my liberty, my property are mine.

And, let 'us' not forget that these human beings, back when this was being written, had not yet come to realize, learn, understand, nor know who and what 'I' am, and 'them' are, and who and what 'owns' 'what', exactly.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:57 pm We don't make it up: we recognize it.

Well why can you, still, not yet 'recognize' that what 'your personally recognize and see' is NOT necessarily what 'others recognize and see' at all?

I will, once more, suggest that instead of just assuming and believing are true "henry quirk", before you have obtained actual clarification and verification, that you go out and obtain these things, first.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:54 pm

Poppycock. Even if you're right about Mannie (and you're not), he would still be *morally outraged...just like you....just like me...just like any person.

*not a form of pain

What do you even mean by, 'morally outraged', "henry quirk"?

And, well for some human beings anyway, they would not be so-called 'morally outraged' if someone just took a toothpick, without asking.

And, they certainly would not be 'so outraged' as to shoot another human being over a 'toothpick', of all things, like you say 'you would'.

you appear here to have some 'very deep issue' with 'property', and about 'what is mine', that you would get 'so outraged' over some things that other human beings could not care one iota about.

And, you get so 'worked up' or 'so angry' that you would even shoot human beings 'dead' over something that would not even be 'a thing', to another. Yet, you also believe, absolutely, that others would 'feel' and 'do' exactly, what you 'would feel' and 'would do'. Which, again, could not be any further from the actual Truth of things here.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:54 pm

Poppycock. Even if you're right about Mannie (and you're not), he would still be *morally outraged...just like you....just like me...just like any person.

*not a form of pain

Bollocks. About 4% of humans can't experience morality. Your choice if you want to view them as persons or not.

LOL 'you' posters here have not yet even come to agreement and acceptance of what 'morality', itself, even is, exactly, here. So, what are you basing your '4%' figure here on, exactly, "atla"?

And, what do you even mean by some humans cannot 'experience morality'?

Also, how could one not, logically, view a 'thing' for what 'it' is, exactly?

you, posters, here really do come up with and say and write some of the strangest things when trying to back up and support your already obtained and well held onto beliefs and presumptions.

As you and "henry quirk" are showing to, and proving True for, 'us' here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:17 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:02 pmBollocks. About 4% of humans can't experience morality. Your choice if you want to view them as persons or not.

Manure. Every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his alone.

Some could be said that this could be spoken and written by a Truly "entitled teenager", which there are a plenty, in the days when this was being written.

From what "henry quirk" has been saying and writing here, it sounds like "henry quirk" has so-called 'grown up' to become one of the most selfish and greedy human beings.

Were you an 'only child' by any chance "henry quirk"? Or, were you, loosely termed, 'raised' with 'many siblings'?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:17 pm A significant portion of people -- a damned sight higher than 4% -- refuse to recognize other folks have the same moral claim. And becuz they don't or won't they murder, rape, slave, steal, and defraud. It's not that they don't experience morality. They're immoral. They're bad people.

And, you saying and claiming that you would 'shoot human beings' over 'toothpicks' or 'moldy pieces of bread' make you are so-called "bad person", or, a "good person"?

Also, and by the way, these people, back then, very, very commonly did 'look at' and 'see' others from the perspective of being a "bad person", or, a "good person'.

Really, that was how backwards they, really, were, 'back then'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:29 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:20 pmLook it up if you want.

It's a crap figure foisted up by reductionists.

And, how do you know this, exactly, "henry quirk"?

Also, do so-called and so-labeled "reductionists" belong in the "bad person", or, "good person", 'group'?

Or, does it work the other way around, and there are "bad" and "good" people are in the "reductionist's" 'group'?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:29 pm They believe man is just meat so their assessments reflect that. But, please, offer a citation.

Do all so-called "reductionists" believe this, or only some?

And, if "they" believe 'man' is just 'meat', then what do "they" believe 'woman' and 'children' are, exactly?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:29 pm

every time you say "Every person knows X" you're just projecting to no end.

No. I'm stating what's obvious.

LOL you could not be 'projecting' more even if you wanted to be "henry quirk".

Now, what is Truly obvious is the Fact that NOT every one 'feels', nor 'does', what 'you' 'feel', and 'do', under situations.

For surely if 'they all' did, then every human being would have been 'shot', by now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:29 pm Everyone -- including you -- knows his life, liberty, and property is his alone.

Only the "foolish" would believe such a thing as this here.

And, if absolutely any one would like to discuss 'why', exactly, then let 'us' have a discussion.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:29 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:20 pmLook it up if you want.

It's a crap figure foisted up by reductionists. They believe man is just meat so their assessments reflect that. But, please, offer a citation.

every time you say "Every person knows X" you're just projecting to no end.

No. I'm stating what's obvious. Everyone -- including you -- knows his life, liberty, and property is his alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocia ... y_disorder
Here it says 1-4%, seen 4.5% figure elsewhere. It's generally untreatable, therapists don't even try to develop a conscience in these beings.

From my very quick glance, there is absolutely nothing in that link that says this number is so-called 'amoral'. And, in fact the words 'amoral' and 'morality' was not even used. The word 'moral' was used, but, again, it was not used in 'the way' that you said 'those human beings' are.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:48 pm Nothing to do with reductionists. Look you can lie to yourself all you want about these alleged natural rights, and pretend that your projections are obvious universal truths, I don't care.

Are you 'absolutely sure'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 1:52 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 9:31 pm I really can't see any way round the combination of empathy and sympathy being at the core of any genuinely moral system, because morality would just be a set of rules that we have no way to evaluate, otherwise.

Well, empathy clearly isn't reliable, either. It can go wrong very easily. So you'd have to conclude, then, that there really is no such "way to evaluate."

I don't really know what "reliable" and "go wrong" mean in reference to empathy, but I suppose what you mean by it is that it might lead us to care, or not care, about what in your estimation are the wrong things. I daresay one could follow an ethical or moral code without having any emotional attachment to it, but I don't see how one could formulate one without empathy with those it involved. That would just be authoritarianism dressed up as morality, such as many religions seem to practice.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:When you argue against abortion, you don't just say, "God says it's wrong", and leave it at that. You use terms like "murder",

Sure. But I can. Because I believe we can evaluate that by "Thou shalt not murder."

In which case you have lost the element of rationality, because abortion isn't murder when carried out legally.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:and talk about a human being beings ripped apart.

That's exactly what happens. That's just description.

But a description chosen specifically for its emotive quality, which suggests that you are fully aware of the key role that emotion plays in morality, and intend to exploit the fact.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But if their plight didn't first cause me to weep and moan, what would move me to try to bring about their relief?

I can't speak for you. What would move some people, though, is a belief in justice and fairness. But behind that would have to be more, of course.

But if you could even conceive of things like justice and fairness without having a sense of empathy in the first place, and I'm not sure that one could, why would you actually care about them?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But we can only base that judgement on our own feelings about what it must be like to be in their position.

That doesn't seem obvious to me. If I'm getting paid well for a particular job, and somebody else is getting paid less for doing exactly the same work, it's really irrelevant whether or not I have tummy pains over it. What's relevant is my realization that unfairness is taking place, and my desire to right a wrong.

But that's what those irrelevant tummy pains you mentioned were; your desire to right a wrong.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Be rational and logical, you mean? So what would be my rational reason for caring what happens to people I don't even know?

Again, it's not fair for me to speak for you. So I assume you mean other people too, not just yourself.

I think some people have no sense of justice. It could be that they never did, or it could be that they've seared it by a pattern of habitual callousness. But somebody who does have that sense might well be motivated by something as calm and reasonable as a recognition of inequality, or exploitation.

Recognising inequality and exploitation may well involve rational thought, but caring about them requires emotion. I mean, on a purely rational level, why would the exploitation of anyone other than yourself matter to you?

IC wrote:So I think many different motives are possible: I can't think that empathy is anywhere near the most reliable among them, though. It too easily drifts into self-pity, or false fellow-feeling, where we think we are understanding how the other feels, but are not, or sympathy with the wrong things. It's not a very pure or unequivocal emotion.

Yes, some people will have a more accurate sense of how others are feeling, and some people will get it completely wrong, but that just accounts for the lack of uniformity of morality. You might say that is the reason why morality should not be based on empathy, but, nevertheless, I'm afraid it is.