For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Uhuh.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:51 pm I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.
No, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pmDo you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:41 pmOf course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:58 pm Just catching up on this discussion.
In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong.
I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:58 pm The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action.
Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:58 pm And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.
Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?
No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.
The free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:51 pmI would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.
You cannot unconditionally/not biased by anything and be biased by something.
And you, like all moral fascists, know what the right prescription is. Same old delusion.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:01 pmNo, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pmDo you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:41 pm
Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.
I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.
Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.
Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?
No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.
You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"? Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"? (In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:06 pmThe free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:51 pmI would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.
People are fascist when they think they are different. I am better than you. You are worst than him. Etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:14 pmAnd you, like all moral fascists, know what the right prescription is. Same old delusion.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:01 pmNo, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm
Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?
Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?
No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.
Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pmYou're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:06 pmThe free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:51 pm
I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.
It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?
Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm (In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)
We are free. Being unbiased does not mean that we cannot decide.
In other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:28 pmFree will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pmYou're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?
It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?
Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm (In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)
Are you looking for an example?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:36 pmIn other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:28 pmFree will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm
You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?
It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?
Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:15 pm (In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)
Explanation and/or example, yes.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:40 pmAre you looking for an example?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:36 pmIn other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:28 pm
Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.
It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.
Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.