For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
How conveniently you pretend you weren't defending this exact position 10 days agoImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:25 pm But why are we still talking? If words have no objective meaning, are you having fun ravelling out nonsense syllables? Because that's the implication of the infinite flexibility view.
Only to have it backfire on you.He did not, so it's a merely speculative question. But I can guess that the Supreme Being would not be oblivious to the vagueness inherent in the word "harm."
Incorrect. I have not argued in favour of the infinite flexibility these even once. All I've said is that the particular word "harm" is a very vague coinage, and not informative. And that's true.How conveniently you pretend you weren't defending this exact position 10 days ago
My God did say it!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:40 pmHe did not, so it's a merely speculative question. But I can guess that the Supreme Being would not be oblivious to the vagueness inherent in the word "harm."
Is cutting someone "harm"? Is it harm when they cut themselves for fun? Is it harm when a surgeon cuts them?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:43 pm It is not vague! It means PRECISELY what harm means. Objectively and all.
I thought you said words aren't infinitely flexible? Now look how easily you have found wiggle room and uncertainty.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:41 pm Is cutting someone "harm"? Is it harm when they cut themselves for fun? Is it harm when a surgeon cuts them?
Is it harm when you let someone make a mistake and get hurt? Is it always even wrong when you let people get hurt on purpose? Learning requires "harm," in many cases, like learning to ride a bike: is that okay? Is it okay that we "harm" children by making them go to school, when they'd rather play video games; or is it harm to let them play video games, instead of sending them to school?
Is sticking a probe into a baby's spine and sucking his brain into a sink "harm," or is it "harm" to deny his mother the right to do it? Is it harm to allow the Luftwaffe to bomb London, or is it worse harm to let the Nazis know you've cracked their codes? Is it worse harm to drop the A-Bomb, or is it worse harm to let the war in the Pacific drag on?
You see the problem. There's no stable definition of what constitutes "harm." And something that could potentially be "harm" often comes packaged with certain human goods. So the key value, "harm" is vacuous. It tells us nothing about morality at all.
I said THAT word is too flexible. I didn't say they all were, or that context makes no difference to how flexible a particular set of them might be, or how that we can refine meaning by choosing more precise words rather than empty platitudes like "harm". In fact, you can't handle any of those questions I've asked by saying, "Well, just do no harm." It wouldn't be clear at all what you were advocating. So the "no harm" principle is quite useless.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:55 pm I thought you said words aren't infinitely flexible? Now look how easily you have found wiggle room and uncertainty.
Good. So you accept the challenge for an air-tight definition? Use as many words as you need.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:02 pmI said THAT word is too flexible. I didn't say they all were, or that context makes no difference to how flexible a particular set of them might be, or how that we can refine meaning by choosing more precise words rather than empty platitudes like "harm". In fact, you can't handle any of those questions I've asked by saying, "Well, just do no harm." It wouldn't be clear at all what you were advocating. So the "no harm" principle is quite useless.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:55 pm I thought you said words aren't infinitely flexible? Now look how easily you have found wiggle room and uncertainty.
What on earth are you talking about?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:03 pm Good. So you accept the challenge for an air-tight definition?
I don't have a word? I brought the Hippocratic Oath to your attention! I can and do use it just fine. Every day of my life. Just like most people who deal with applied ethics.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:30 pm It's you who have the word, "harm." And you can't use it to do any morality-discerning work at all, apparently. So my argument stops at pointing out that you chose a useless term.
You don't say! Have you ever wondered why that is? Could it be because language is the wrong tool for the job at hand?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:30 pm Meanwhile, doctors and medical ethicists have interminable debates over what genuinely constitutes "harm," and over whatever it was that Hippocrates may or may not have meant, and over whether or not he really knew what he was doing. "The Hippocratic Oath" is an anachronism, a pure gesture toward medical traditionalism, that has actually not solved any issues at all.
11) Actions at the sharp end resolve all ambiguity.
Organizations are ambiguous, often intentionally, about the relationship between
production targets, efficient use of resources, economy and costs of operations, and
acceptable risks of low and high consequence accidents. All ambiguity is resolved by
actions of practitioners at the sharp end of the system. After an accident, practitioner
actions may be regarded as ‘errors’ or ‘violations’ but these evaluations are heavily
biased by hindsight and ignore the other driving forces, especially production pressure.
If it is, why do you keep using it?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:36 pm You don't say! Have you ever wondered why that is? Could it be because language is the wrong tool for the job at hand?
Strawman.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:30 pmIf it is, why do you keep using it?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:36 pm You don't say! Have you ever wondered why that is? Could it be because language is the wrong tool for the job at hand?
From now on, so that you can be consistent with your theory that the meaning of words is infinitely flexible, I request that you only type to me in random keys. You can put your cat on the keyboard, perhaps.
Not according to wikipedia:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:13 pmManifestly. But both are epistemological issues, not ontological ones. Things can actually, really exist without us knowing they do, as I'm sure you would recognize.
A fair and an honest answer. I can believe you fully. But again, the fact that one person doesn't know something does not tell us whether or not it exists, far less whether or not others do know it.As far as I know he hasn't spoken to anyone.Immanuel Can wrote: This is the epistemological issue. And you're right...if God had not spoken, then that is precisely all we would have. And belief either way would be completely gratuitous.
But has God spoken?
It's not. Socrates explicitly states his premise is Polytheism, and that it is ONLY because of the conflict among "the gods" over the conception of what is "good" that the problem arises at all. If you read it, you'll see it.Immanuel Can wrote: The Euthyphro Question is very easily solvable. If you read the relevant passage, you'll see that Socrates himself specifies explicitly that it is a problem only inherent to Polytheism.
That's not true, it is also relevant to monotheism.
Here: http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Euthyphro.pdf You'll find it at the top of section III, for example.
Not by anyone who's actually read and thought about it, instead of merely delighting that he thinks he's found a conundrum that can baffle Theism, and then running off to make that use of it. Such rejoice too early -- the Euthyphro Dilemma has been asked and answered repeatedly. But people hang onto it because they hope it is unresolvable...The Euthyphro Dilemma is alive and well in academic circles.
But it's just not.
Tell him that his god can go fuck itself with a dirty toilet brush and he won't answer any of them.
Or this one?Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:54 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
To sum up: It's only if we have a singular, Supreme Being with a moral identity and a specific revelation of that moral identity can we speak of morality being objectively grounded. But if that is what we have, we certainly can...and must...speak of morality in those terms.
Ginkgo replied:
Would that be the moral and loving God that did all of those horrendous things to people in the Old Testament?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:08 pmBy finding us all guilty of listening to a talking snake, and sentencing us to hot pokers up the bum forever, unless we think nailing someone to a piece of wood is a good idea.