Philosophy Now Forum

Whether and how compliance equals integration constantly changes.

A pedophile can at two different ages have exactly the same opinions and acts, and with no other change in reality but time having passed, suddenly and almost universally be considered a moral monster of the worst possible stripe, dangerous and unappealing in all ways.

The guy who takes his mules on car-intended roads hasn't changed his ways or priorities from ways people lived when he was created. He can't suddenly have Become wrong to do what he's doing. The harm he's supposedly causing was created around him, not vice versa.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:27 pm Whether and how compliance equals integration constantly changes.

A pedophile can at two different ages have exactly the same opinions and acts, and with no other change in reality but time having passed, suddenly and almost universally be considered a moral monster of the worst possible stripe, dangerous and unappealing in all ways.

The guy who takes his mules on car-intended roads hasn't changed his ways or priorities from ways people lived when he was created. He can't suddenly have Become wrong to do what he's doing. The harm he's supposedly causing was created around him, not vice versa.

They are both doing wrong in proportion as they are ignorant of the harm their actions do to others.
People's environments , such as cultural changes, or mental derangement, are mitigating circumstances

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:44 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:27 pm Whether and how compliance equals integration constantly changes.

A pedophile can at two different ages have exactly the same opinions and acts, and with no other change in reality but time having passed, suddenly and almost universally be considered a moral monster of the worst possible stripe, dangerous and unappealing in all ways.

The guy who takes his mules on car-intended roads hasn't changed his ways or priorities from ways people lived when he was created. He can't suddenly have Become wrong to do what he's doing. The harm he's supposedly causing was created around him, not vice versa.

They are both doing wrong in proportion as they are ignorant of the harm their actions do to others.
People's environments , such as cultural changes, or mental derangement, are mitigating circumstances

Might we not do harm to others by prohibiting actions on their part? For example, say that someone has a compulsion to murder others. He'll do nonconsensual harm to others if he murders them, obviously, but aren't we also doing harm to him by saying that either he not realize his compulsion or we'll nonconsensually incarcerate or execute him?

(Hence a reason why I don't base moral stances on "harm.")

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:00 pm Might we not do harm to others by prohibiting actions on their part? For example, say that someone has a compulsion to murder others. He'll do nonconsensual harm to others if he murders them, obviously, but aren't we also doing harm to him by saying that either he not realize his compulsion or we'll nonconsensually incarcerate or execute him?

(Hence a reason why I don't base moral stances on "harm.")

You can't tell degrees of harm? Funny. Doctors can.

Apparently amputating your gangrenous extremities is not as harmful as letting you keep them.
Apparently not dying from COVID is less harmful than dying from COVID.

Only the whole world thinks this is true.

This is a known mental defect of categorical thinkers and logocentrists in general. Take your words/categories away and your ability to make real-world decisions evaporates.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=494749 time=1612627465 user_id=17350]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=494748 time=1612627204 user_id=12582]
Might we not do harm to others by prohibiting actions on their part? For example, say that someone has a compulsion to murder others. He'll do nonconsensual harm to others if he murders them, obviously, but aren't we also doing harm to him by saying that either he not realize his compulsion or we'll nonconsensually incarcerate or execute him?

(Hence a reason why I don't base moral stances on "harm.")
[/quote]
You can't tell degrees of harm? Funny. Doctors can.

Apparently amputating your gangrenous extremities is not as harmful as letting you keep them.
Apparently not dying from COVID is less harmful than dying from COVID.

Only the whole world thinks this is true.

This is a known mental defect of categorical thinkers and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism]logocentrists[/url] in general. Take your words/categories away and your ability to make real-world decisions evaporates.
[/quote]

The problem of skepticism.

That it is difficult to define harm such that all parties involved can agree is a different question than whether it is a valid basis for morality.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:54 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:04 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:00 pm Might we not do harm to others by prohibiting actions on their part? For example, say that someone has a compulsion to murder others. He'll do nonconsensual harm to others if he murders them, obviously, but aren't we also doing harm to him by saying that either he not realize his compulsion or we'll nonconsensually incarcerate or execute him?

(Hence a reason why I don't base moral stances on "harm.")

You can't tell degrees of harm? Funny. Doctors can.

Apparently amputating your gangrenous extremities is not as harmful as letting you keep them.
Apparently not dying from COVID is less harmful than dying from COVID.

Only the whole world thinks this is true.

This is a known mental defect of categorical thinkers and logocentrists in general. Take your words/categories away and your ability to make real-world decisions evaporates.

The problem of skepticism.

That it is difficult to define harm such that all parties involved can agree is a different question than whether it is a valid basis for morality.

Obviously different people quantify/weight (the same) harm(s) differently, not to mention that different people count different things as harms in the first place.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:54 pm The problem of skepticism.

That it is difficult to define harm such that all parties involved can agree is a different question than whether it is a valid basis for morality.

Which is why the entire game of definitions is bogus! It's just language - symbols are for communication. Defining things is just for clearing up blockades in communication. Beyond that definitions don't matter. Language cannot capture the continuum - it's not supposed to.

Actions speak louder than words. Revealed preferences carry more weight than ANY definition.
When a philosopher tells me they value X, but they never choose it - they are lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

The basis for morality is the no harm principe. Primum non nocere. And if you want a definition - let me kick you in the balls and you decide if that's harmful.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:57 pm Obviously different people quantify/weight (the same) harm(s) differently, not to mention that different people count different things as harms in the first place.

That's the favourite crutch of the idiot subjective moralists. Claiming that because there are differences in opinion those differences are infinitely different.

There's zero overlap and zero shared will/common ground. All 8 billion people on the planet are pulling in different directions.

Apparently there are 8 billion different opinions to the question "Is it better to survive COVID or die from COVID?"

This stupid arises from the inability to reconcile ensamble averages (3rd person perspective) and time-averages (1st person perspective).

[quote=Skepdick post_id=494755 time=1612631222 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=494752 time=1612630458 user_id=15238]
The problem of skepticism.

That it is difficult to define harm such that all parties involved can agree is a different question than whether it is a valid basis for morality.
[/quote]
Which is why the entire game of definitions is bogus! It's just language - symbols are for communication. Defining things is just for clearing up blockades in communication. Beyond that definitions don't matter. Language cannot capture the continuum - it's not supposed to.

Actions speak louder than words. Revealed preferences carry more weight than ANY definition.
When a philosopher tells me they value X, but they never choose it - they are lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

The basis for morality is the no harm principe. Primum non nocere. And if you want a definition - let me kick you in the balls and you decide if that's harmful.
[/quote]

That i want different things than my subconscious/animal mind wants precludes the understanding that my actions inherently speak to my desires. If you want to cram the both of us together, which is apparent externally, fine, but realize that internally i don't want to want junk food, and adjust your idea of responsibility accordingly.

Meanwhile, the great thing about the harm principle is that though it doesn't always produce good results, it always aims at producing good results and typically succeeds. It's simple enough that everyone can understand it on some level and even if everyone interprets it for themselves it will still reduce harm overall. It's a universal moral principle.

On the other side of that coin is to accept a duty to others in whatever ways you're privileged. If you're rich, help the poor. If you're beautiful, help the ugly. Again, this is a universal principle because however individuals interpret it, it is always a pointer to a better world than one without it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:20 pm That i want different things than my subconscious/animal mind wants precludes the understanding that my actions inherently speak to my desires. If you want to cram the both of us together, which is apparent externally, fine, but realize that internally i don't want to want junk food, and adjust your idea of responsibility accordingly.

So we make junk food really really expensive (and you are an addict, so you'll continue to buy it - so your freedom of choice is preserved at a cost that is clearly acceptable to you, otherwise you wouldn't keep paying) and we tax junk food businesses till kingdom come and we use your money to fund medical research to deal with the long-term fallout, and educate people on the harm of junk food, and subsidise startups who manufacture better and as-easily-accessible alternatives. We make the right choice ALSO the easy choice.

And over a generation or two the stupid behaviour stops. Like smoking.

And over 2-300 years human life expectancy more than doubles from 35 to 75 and we no longer die from preventable shit, but start dying from other shit - like cancer and our bodies failing because they never evolved to live so long, so we now have to solve "aging".

Rinse. Repeat.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:20 pm On the other side of that coin is to accept a duty to others in whatever ways you're privileged. If you're rich, help the poor. If you're beautiful, help the ugly. Again, this is a universal principle because however individuals interpret it, it is always a pointer to a better world than one without it.

Helping other people is how I went from the bottom 1% of poverty into the top 1% of wealth in under 20 years.