Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:26 pm Besides, I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.

'Tis a common refrain oft' echoed in these parts, in this neck of the woods, over yonder here.

Just responding to your questions in light of, life is the measure of all things, as you requested.

Life is the measure, does not mean to preserve life at all costs. Life is the measure, is simply a rule-of-thumb for situations.

Situations are like leaves on a tree. Measuring all things against life, is a tree root. I’ve found that a handy way to understand roots is to suspend disbelief for the purpose of analysis, and then extrapolate answers to “what if,” through the resulting filter.

For example, with life as the measure, should a woman have an abortion? Well, as an objective ethic, ending a life is more significant than two lives continuing to coexist, and that’s because death of the body is an absolute. Death and taxes, as they say.

Thus the question. With life as the measure, regarding the need for abortion, does the less significant take precedence over the more significant? In a rational world, no. In a world of bias, yes. I suspect most abortions are caused by a world of troubles.

Whenever I encounter assessments of this sort -- "life is the measure" -- I ask those providing it to imagine themselves outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. There is a protest going on. Some are defending abortion and others are condemning it. You note for them what you just noted for me above.

Now, what do you suppose their reaction would be?

Each of them has their own individual life that they have come to measure the morality of abortion with.

But those lives are likely to be very different in any number of crucial respects...and for any number of crucial reasons.

But: you are a philosopher and an ethicist. You are determined to make the "wisest" choice here in regard to the morality of abortion.

I merely maintain that there is no "wisest" resolution here. That, instead, each of us as individuals comes to think this instead of that given the manner in which their experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge inclined and motivated them to embody one existential point of view rather than another.

And that those on both sides of the issue are able to raise points that the other side is not able to just make go away.

Or is this not the case with you? And, if so, how are you different?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:51 pm
...how does this work in regard to issues like abortion and gun ownership? The old and new self are, to me, still the embodiment of dasein. The old self may have believed that abortion is immoral and the new self is not so sure. Or the new self is now convinced that given a certain set of circumstances it is actually moral to have one.

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:16 amLife is the measure of all things. This is the objective standard. This means that the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance.

Again, to me this is just another "general description intellection contraption" that does not take morality out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from the ofttimes very different lives that we live.

Is your life the measure of all things? My life? Henry's life? Instead, our individual lives have predisposed us existentially to espouse particular moral and political prejudices.

Mary aborts her unborn fetus. Henry buys his bazooka. How does the manner in which you understand "the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance" factor in then?

Whose "objective standard"?

Where unsettled moral questions are disentangled from Dasein and aligned with deontology is at duty aka responsibility. To whom or what is Dasein responsible? The world religions claim Dasein is responsible to both the finite being and the infinite other. Duty is nothing if not stern and hard. If a course of action is too pleasant let's be suspicious of it!

However nobody feels abortion to be a pleasant thing. There remains the question of which course of action, to abort or not to abort, will do the least harm.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:51 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:51 pm
...how does this work in regard to issues like abortion and gun ownership? The old and new self are, to me, still the embodiment of dasein. The old self may have believed that abortion is immoral and the new self is not so sure. Or the new self is now convinced that given a certain set of circumstances it is actually moral to have one.

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:16 amLife is the measure of all things. This is the objective standard. This means that the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance.

Again, to me this is just another "general description intellection contraption" that does not take morality out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from the ofttimes very different lives that we live.

Is your life the measure of all things? My life? Henry's life? Instead, our individual lives have predisposed us existentially to espouse particular moral and political prejudices.

Mary aborts her unborn fetus. Henry buys his bazooka. How does the manner in which you understand "the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance" factor in then?

Whose "objective standard"?

Where unsettled moral questions are disentangled from Dasein and aligned with deontology is at duty aka responsibility. To whom or what is Dasein responsible? The world religions claim Dasein is responsible to both the finite being and the infinite other. Duty is nothing if not stern and hard. If a course of action is too pleasant let's be suspicious of it!

However nobody feels abortion to be a pleasant thing. There remains the question of which course of action, to abort or not to abort, will do the least harm.

I think Heidegger's 'dasein' is as fictional a supposed source of morality as any other, such as an invented god. There is no actual source for the claim that 'doing the least harm' is morally right or good or correct. It's just a decision. One that, as it hapens, the invented god of classical theology didn't and doesn't make. If salvation is all that really matters, secular harm is secondary or irrelevant.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:40 am Is your life the measure of all things? My life? Henry's life? Instead, our individual lives have predisposed us existentially to espouse particular moral and political prejudices.

That espousing would just be flapping your gums without life as the measure.

I see you and Henry share the same premise that your life is your own, and Henry's life is his own, and my life is my own.

You didn't create life. You didn't buy it. You're a caretaker of life, yours and perhaps others. You're also responsible for the life you didn't create. I've actually heard folks on this very forum bemoaning the fact that they didn't choose this life, but they're stuck with it, as if life is some crappy indentured job.

Take care of something long enough and naturally, you're going to assume it's yours.

Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script
Jim Kozubek at Scientific American

Science does not provide a positive script—but information to help build that script. For instance, a hypothesis is a proposition or belief that can be tested; but as Karl Popper once suggested, a hypothesis cannot be proven, only disproven (one black swan proves not all swans are white, but more white swans do not) since a given can never be completely proved—there is always the chance of a challenge by new data. Science offers no starting points, and there are questions of whether science is, in fact, leading us to any complete view of nature, which will be unchallenged, or, in some way, enlightened.

In regard to moral and political value judgments that come into conflict, the role played by science is often problematic. After all, scientifically, what can be disproven by new data in regard to abortion or animal rights or homosexuality. There are the biological facts that can be presented...facts that everyone can agree on...but facts that still come up short in regard to the politics of abortion, animal rights and homosexuality. Indeed, if science was able to accumulate the facts into moral resolutions here, where are they?

Science can disprove that all swans are white, but what if swans [whatever the color] are hunted as trophies or as food. What can be either proven or disproven in regard to this behavior?

Or the reality of science being bought and paid for by "special interests" only in order to bolster the bottom line. Where should science itself not be permitted to go?

Increasingly, some scientists deny a Theory of Everything. Physical systems may be in a state of competition; in other words—there is no logic at the basis of reality. Therefore, while science is a useful tool, we have to at least entertain the prospect that it only leads to an abyss of time—an ongoing building and rebuilding of human histories. I suspect it will fail as a singular means to guide us to any conflict-free reality, and that we are far from done struggling with the consequences of the modernist break.

This is becoming more and more apparent in regard to dark matter and dark energy. Some are starting to speculate that they don't even exist at all...that it all revolves instead around our failure to grasp the true nature of gravity itself. That Einstein may have gotten it all wrong.

But with gravity where is the moral component? That would seem to be applicable only if gravity goes all the way back to God...or to proof that in a No God universe there is a teleological component. Something in the laws of matter that not only results in human autonomy but in Nature's equivalent of Judgment Day.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:40 am Is your life the measure of all things? My life? Henry's life? Instead, our individual lives have predisposed us existentially to espouse particular moral and political prejudices.

That espousing would just be flapping your gums without life as the measure.

Okay, let's flap out gums in regard to our respective moral philosophies as they pertain to our own value judgments given the life that we live.

As this pertains in turn to the manner in which Henry and I construe human morality in regard to issues like abortion and owning bazookas. As I understand him, there exist this "a God, the God, Deist God" who created mere mortals able to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"; but then split the scene. Now, others either think exactly like Henry does about these things "naturally" or they are wrong.

Whereas I surmise just the opposite. That there is no God, and that mere mortals come to acquire moral and political value judgments existentially out in particular worlds historically, culturally, and experientially....given the assumptions I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Completely in opposition to Henry. Unless, of course, he or you or another here can provide me with a comprehensive philosophical argument that amounts to the secular equivalent of "following the dictates of Reason and Nature."

But then straight back up into the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds you go:

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:23 pmYou didn't create life. You didn't buy it. You're a caretaker of life, yours and perhaps others. You're also responsible for the life you didn't create. I've actually heard folks on this very forum bemoaning the fact that they didn't choose this life, but they're stuck with it, as if life is some crappy indentured job.

Take care of something long enough and naturally, you're going to assume it's yours.

What on Earth does this have to do with Henry or you or me discussing the morality of abortion or owning bazookas? Discussing "moral relativism".

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:21 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 4:28 pm

not if there is an agreement, then the agreement rules, and what is and is not justified is stipulated. other wise yes all is fair, like as in the wild, or animal kingdom. man is different then animals because he can stipulate conditions of agreement, and honor them.

One must be in agreement that agreement rules and how reality presents itself necessitates there is no total agreement over everything.

na, agreements can allow for addendums amendments renegotiations forgiveness restorations judges for unforeseen circumstances and situations. take a simple law addressing killing, there is the understanding the agreed parties may supersede the law or agreement to deal with a hostile attacker not covered in the law. also the law and or agreements can, if applies, set judges to discern such problems and rule accordingly.

And these things happen without agreement as well.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:40 am

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:21 pm

One must be in agreement that agreement rules and how reality presents itself necessitates there is no total agreement over everything.

na, agreements can allow for addendums amendments renegotiations forgiveness restorations judges for unforeseen circumstances and situations. take a simple law addressing killing, there is the understanding the agreed parties may supersede the law or agreement to deal with a hostile attacker not covered in the law. also the law and or agreements can, if applies, set judges to discern such problems and rule accordingly.

And these things happen without agreement as well.

really? how do men coexist peacefully without agreement?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:44 pm
What on Earth does this have to do with Henry or you or me discussing the morality of abortion or owning bazookas? Discussing "moral relativism".

It has to do with the previous thing that I wrote, namely: I see you and Henry share the same premise that your life is your own, and Henry's life is his own, and my life is my own.

Without getting too fancy, or suggest that folks write a britannica, don't you and Henry share this same premise?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:21 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:44 pm
What on Earth does this have to do with Henry or you or me discussing the morality of abortion or owning bazookas? Discussing "moral relativism".

It has to do with the previous thing that I wrote, namely: I see you and Henry share the same premise that your life is your own, and Henry's life is his own, and my life is my own.

Without getting too fancy, or suggest that folks write a britannica, don't you and Henry share this same premise?

In regard to morality, Henry and I could not possibly be further removed in regard to "owning" our lives. What "premise" is it that you think we share given our expressed views on abortion and owning bazookas above?

As I noted above:

As I understand him, there exist this "a God, the God, Deist God" who created mere mortals able to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"; but then split the scene. Now, others either think exactly like Henry does about these things "naturally" or they are wrong.

Whereas I surmise just the opposite. That there is no God, and that mere mortals come to acquire moral and political value judgments existentially out in particular worlds historically, culturally, and experientially....given the assumptions I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Completely in opposition to Henry. Unless, of course, he or you or another here can provide me with a comprehensive philosophical argument that amounts to the secular equivalent of "following the dictates of Reason and Nature."

For Henry, he is able to "own" himself because he has a moral font he can anchor his True Self to. The dictates of Reason and Nature existing "ontologically" and "teleologically" because they are derived from an existing God that, as with IC and the Christian God, he has absolutely no capacity that I am aware to demonstrate the existence of.

Trust me: when push comes to shove he "just knows" He exists. He believes what he does "In his head" and that is all the proof he needs to make it true.

Whereas I recognize that my own fractured and fragmented "self' is derived existentially from the particular life that I have lived out in a particular world understood existentially and not essentially through God or some Humanist dogma.

Can Language Affect Morality?
Studies suggest that when we think in a foreign language, our entire sense of “right” and “wrong” changes.
BY STEPH KOYFMAN atv the Babbel Magazine website

Language and morality: is there really a link there? Is morality subjective, or does the compass always bend to a “true north” that exists outside of our cultural biases?

The idea of an objective sense of “right” and “wrong” has a strong hold on our cultural imagination, and it’s one that is central to many major religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Why on earth do you suppose Gods are invented in the first place? Well, the primary reason of course is as an antidote to oblivion. No getting around that in any language. No God [or No God equivalent] and you are just food for worms on your trek back to star stuff.

But from this side of the grave you don't get there unless you are judged worthy of it. So of course God comes with commandments. And these commandments are just words placed in a particular order on stone tablets adjuring you to toe the line or else.

Leave it to scientific inquiry, then, to poke some holes in this theory. Various studies have shown that moral judgments can actually change when they’re made in a foreign language, veering toward a more dispassionate, utilitarian take. That’s not to say that foreign languages make us less moral — just that they make us a different kind of moral.

Of course. Languages that are foreign to us will be spoken in cultures that are foreign to us. Different cultures, different ways of construing such things as race and gender and ethnicity and class. Different social, political and economic assumptions. But do we really need science to bring the "for all practical purposes" implications of that to our attention?

Instead, as philosophers, it's as much our job to point that out. And then, taking different cultures precipitating different languages aimed at examining morality into account, to come up with the "wisest" morality of all.

On the other hand, here, that's where "I" come in.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:40 am

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:02 pm

na, agreements can allow for addendums amendments renegotiations forgiveness restorations judges for unforeseen circumstances and situations. take a simple law addressing killing, there is the understanding the agreed parties may supersede the law or agreement to deal with a hostile attacker not covered in the law. also the law and or agreements can, if applies, set judges to discern such problems and rule accordingly.

And these things happen without agreement as well.

really? how do men coexist peacefully without agreement?

You are assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence; as evidenced by struggle, men of opposing viewpoints exist without peace and coexistence as well.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:10 pm Can Language Affect Morality?
Studies suggest that when we think in a foreign language, our entire sense of “right” and “wrong” changes.
BY STEPH KOYFMAN atv the Babbel Magazine website

Language and morality: is there really a link there? Is morality subjective, or does the compass always bend to a “true north” that exists outside of our cultural biases?

The idea of an objective sense of “right” and “wrong” has a strong hold on our cultural imagination, and it’s one that is central to many major religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Why on earth do you suppose Gods are invented in the first place? Well, the primary reason of course is as an antidote to oblivion. No getting around that in any language. No God [or No God equivalent] and you are just food for worms on your trek back to star stuff.

But from this side of the grave you don't get there unless you are judged worthy of it. So of course God comes with commandments. And these commandments are just words placed in a particular order on stone tablets adjuring you to toe the line or else.

Leave it to scientific inquiry, then, to poke some holes in this theory. Various studies have shown that moral judgments can actually change when they’re made in a foreign language, veering toward a more dispassionate, utilitarian take. That’s not to say that foreign languages make us less moral — just that they make us a different kind of moral.

Of course. Languages that are foreign to us will be spoken in cultures that are foreign to us. Different cultures, different ways of construing such things as race and gender and ethnicity and class. Different social, political and economic assumptions. But do we really need science to bring the "for all practical purposes" implications of that to our attention?

Instead, as philosophers, it's as much our job to point that out. And then, taking different cultures precipitating different languages aimed at examining morality into account, to come up with the "wisest" morality of all.

On the other hand, here, that's where "I" come in.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

True, language and learning are causally interlinked both socially and psychologically. But historically we have to surmise which is chicken and which is egg, language or learning ,or else presume the human is per se a linguistic animal and you can't have the one without the other.

Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. The term implies that people's native languages will affect their thought process and therefore people will have different thought processes based on their mother tongues.[1]

Linguistic determinism is the strong form of linguistic relativity (popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis), which argues that individuals experience the world based on the structure of the language they habitually use.

Wikipedia.

"Structures" implies not only syntax but also use of function words such as pronouns and prepositions and also lexicon. Lexicon is obviously not equally distributed among all the speakers of a native tongue such as standard English. There are plenty of studies that show how age, sex, and social class are predictors of both function words and lexical items. One result is that some individual hailing from a community that can speak local dialect is usually bilingual and despite any class difference has a wide lexicon and probably more scope of learning than the individual who can speak only the standard language.

Just as knowledge of foreign languages and cultures increases the scope of an individual's learning, so knowledge of the varieties of the native language increase learning. I am wondering if there is any statistical study that focuses on the language styles of contributors to a philosophy forum, and ties language use to variables such as politics, religion, aesthetics, and ethics.

Instead, as philosophers, it's as much our job to point that out. And then, taking different cultures precipitating different languages aimed at examining morality into account, to come up with the "wisest" morality of all.

(Iambiguous)

There is no absolute morality: there are traditions. The Xian tradition was historically formed due to a paradigm shift that Karl Jaspers calls the Axial Age. The OT records how Isaiah and other prophets changed tribal Jahweh into universal God. The same paradigm shift, tribal to universal, occurred among some other tribal cultures during the same few centuries. It so happens the Xian tradition is still widely available though very badly taught and there is no practical use in casting around for other moral codes. Like Florence Nightingale reformed welfare in the British Army from within so can Xians reform Xianity via participation and kicking up a row when necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:09 am

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:40 am

And these things happen without agreement as well.

really? how do men coexist peacefully without agreement?

You are assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence; as evidenced by struggle, men of opposing viewpoints exist without peace and coexistence as well.

no this is not assuming "peaceful coexistence" is necessary for existence. the wild life does exist and does not have a peaceful coexistence, hence the term wild life.

mankind needs an agreement to coexist peacefully, otherwise its wild life, all is fair.

Can Language Affect Morality?
Studies suggest that when we think in a foreign language, our entire sense of “right” and “wrong” changes.
BY STEPH KOYFMAN atv the Babbel Magazine website

The Trolley Problem

A 2014 study led by Albert Costa posed the following dilemma to a group of volunteers: a runaway trolley is headed toward five people who are stuck on the tracks. You have the ability to pull a switch and shift the trolley’s direction, which would result in the death of one person standing on the other set of tracks. Essentially, you’re sacrificing one life in order to save five, resulting in a net of four saved lives.

Me? I'd want to know who these people are. Are the five stuck on the tracks total strangers? Is the person on the other set of tracks my own beloved wife or son or daughter? Do I know the five stuck on the tracks but despise them? Or do I despise the person on the other set of tracks even more? What if he was Vladimir Putin?

Or what if the five on one set of tracks were young children and the person on the other set was a very old man. Or a middle-aged pregnant woman?

The vast majority of study participants said they’d pull the switch: 81 percent when presented with the dilemma in their native tongue, and 80 percent when presented in a foreign language.

Sure, as long as the 6 people on the tracks are purely hypothetical abstractions one can ponder the "philosophical"/"ethical" difference between being or not being responsible for who lives and who dies. And, yes, doesn't it seem reasonable to have one rather than five dead bodies?

On the other hand, ask a sociopath to choose and he or she might just shrug and say, "fuck it, let them all die".

And then the part "the law" plays in it all. Are there laws on the book in any particular community that could result in you actually being punished for making one choice rather than another?

However, a second (and more contentious) scenario proved to be more polarizing. In this case, you’d have to hypothetically push a large man off of a footbridge and into the trolley’s path, which technically results in the same amount of net saved lives (four), but requires you to play a much more active role in someone’s death. In this case, only 20 percent of participants chose this option in their native language, but 33 percent chose this option in a foreign language.

Obviously, the scenarios can vary according to how much more intimately involved you are in actually causing a specific death or deaths. But what I still come back to is how any particular individual's reaction becomes the embodiment of dasein. And how sans God there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to arrive at the most rational and virtuous choice.

As for the native vs. foreign language factor, that's just one more factor. There could be countless others.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121