Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:30 pm
No, no...I know what intelligence IS. What you need to show is that, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
This is a strawman.
You clearly don't even know what one of those is.
No, it's the is-ought question.
You are the ignorant one.
Morality is never conflated nor equated with intelligence. The main operations of each are in separate parts of the brain. A highly intelligent person can be highly immoral in the case of genius serial killers.
It is absurd to question, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
Rather we should ask, in what moral sense we OUGHT to value pacifism [no killing of another human].
What I am saying was,
even with any aspect of relativity, there is progress.
"Progress" implies "going forward" or "improving" in some way. That's a value-laden term (an "ought") and thus needs to be justified.
How do you define what "progress" consists in, and how do you show that you know it's "progress"?
it is a rare [very perverted] to hear of anyone killing another human and eat them at present in contrast to 5000 -500 years ago.
But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?
Here's the problem: you simply deny all facts that don't fit your theory. There are, as you have been shown, statistically more slaves today than at any time in history, and in worse circumstances, too. But you try to redefine "slavery" so narrowly as to not have to deal with that fact. Similarly, you say that murders are decreasing, because you only refer to canabalism as "murder"; but the truth is that the number of pure homicides was greatest in the last century.
So long as you aren't even aware of the basic facts, or pretend to be, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to take your claims of "progress" seriously at all.
Your problem and ignorance is you always conflate and lump up everything into the general perspective and argue therefrom not recognizing there are many perspectives to an issue.
My point is this, using this analogy of say a totally paralyzed person which denote the motor brains for willful conscious deliberate intent is 100% damage.
Doctors and therapists were very optimistic this particular patient can be cured to move on his own.
They apply all sort of knowledge and techniques to attempt to cure the patients so that he can recover to be mobile as soon as possible.
After a few months of treatment, the patient suddenly could
move his one of his finger upon request by the doctors.
Surely there is 'improvement' and 'progress' in the patient's motor neural connectivity in this case?
But if you are arguing like you do above, you will deny there is 'improvement' and 'progress' because the patient can ONLY move one fingers [thus not significant] and he is still incapacitated on the whole. You insist there is no improvement nor progress on the basis of the WHOLE.
What is critical is the patient's ability to move one finger only at that time, signify the GENERAL PRINCIPLE that there is potential & hope he can progressively improve and develop connectivity in his motor brain to more finger, whole hand and other part of his body.
In this particular patient case, the doctors [after several months] were able to improve and progress to enabling the patient to move his whole body.
This is a reality and evident within the medical practices.
My point with examples of cannibalism, chattel slavery and the likes [rather than lumping and muddling the issue] is the
same like highlighting the 'one finger' improvement and progress as a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, which is going on with the objective moral potential within the brain of individuals.
This general principle is very clear with my analogy re motor neurons and moving one finger.
The problem is the neural mechanisms of the moral potential is not that clear nor easy for the majority to understand and that is why you [being ignorant] are able to resort to the WHOLE to muddle things up.
Note your deception in this case is an insult to your own intelligence reflected below;
IC wrote:But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?
This is really bad thinking and a rhetoric out of desperation.
Why do you use 'last century' which include the two World Wars?
But if you compare killings after the last World War to the present, surely you can see there is a reduction in killings, thus an improvement in contrast to the previous 100 years to WW II.
Morality is ultimately link to an existential threat to humanity and the individual[s].
Note the concern for global warming & climate change and the threat to the existence of humanity in the last 30 year or even 20 years.
This is related to the sudden unfoldment of the moral potential related to this particular aspect of the existential threat.
Unfortunately this concern [like the Gospel's pacifism] is merely based on
moral intuition without any specific relation to the objective moral facts [neurons in the brain].
So don't continue to insult your own intelligence by ignorantly resorting to lumping everything up to defend your position.
It is Universal Principle that to be effective in solving problems, the necessary technique is to break problems into smaller units first, then later combine them into the whole.
