Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)

Excellent addition, beast.

If you hadn't have done that, I would have.

Can something be intrinsically good or is "good" just based on our perspective.

According to Plato (I believe), "goodness" is not relativistic.

Personally I think anchovies on pizza is a "good" thing.

You're thinking of "good" as "desirable."  That's okay, as long as you keep it in mind.  I think it is "good" ("desirable") to watch football on Sunday afternoons, just like you think it's "desirable" to have anchovies.

It seems clear that our tastes are not conscious decisions.

I agree.  The chemical reaction on our tongues are not conscious decisions.  But, our definition of "desirable" or "not desirable" are conscious decisions, I believe.  

Therefor when I say that anchovies on pizza is "good" and other people say it is "bad" we are both right relative to our own tastes. There is no correct answer.

Just like when I say "Football is better than baseball," and you say "Baseball is better than football."  Of course neither of us can be solely corret because we are talking about opinions (something I get the impression you don't believe in).

In our society with our morals today we feel very strongly that human life is sacred and that it is wrong for people to fly planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people for their own cause. I would hope that everybody on this forum agrees that that action would be "bad" and "wrong". You could say that for our society this is an intrinsic value. However there are clearly people in the world who disagree with this. There are clearly people who think that this action is "good".

According to Plato, this kind of stuff occurs because of "intellectual failure." Terrorists such as this are guilty of "bad thinking."  According to Plato, "He who knows the good, will do the good."  They think they know the good (i.e. doing the crazy things they do), but this is only the apparent good.  It is not truly good.  When they fail to utilize "good thinking," they get the impression that the apparent good is "the good."

We can't actually know if we are right or not and we should take this into account with our own morals.

You're right.  We should attempt to do some "good thinking" at all times because of the important effects our decisions can have on other people.

If instead I respect the fact that other people might be right and I might be wrong (unlikely but possible) then I'm only being responsible for myself. If I'm wrong I'm the only person who will face the consequences of being wrong.

I only have one problem with this.  We, as "good thinkers" (hopefully), must attempt to show the "bad thinkers" (i.e. terrorists) that their thinking is, indeed, bad.  By doing this we are not allowed to respect the fact that they have their own beliefs and we have our own so we should just live life and move on.  Instead, we must attempt to show them their flaws.  By not doing so, we cannot ever put an end to "bad thinking."

Anybody ever wonder where the line is drawn between freedom fighter and terrorist?

Personally I think somebody can be both.  A freedom fighter is somebody who is fighting for freedom.  A terrorist is somebody who uses terrorism for their cause.  I think somebody can be fighting for freedom and using terrorism for their cause.

There is a lot of stuff that Plato says that I disagree with (and indeed many other philosphers do as well)

Now this example is good

Bam!  Circular reasoning.

As for the rest -- yeah, I agree that it's foolish to do something that might be bad if it can't be undone.  Most of us here seem to think that it's good to critically analyze one's actions and the actions of society -- i.e. to engage in ethical discussion.  However, the sorts of people who fly planes into buildings and do other good-to-them-but-bad-to-us things are also the sorts of people who think it's bad critically analyze one's actions and the actions of one's own society on the off chance that we might decide later that another course of action would be preferable.

Have you stumbled onto an ethical tautology here?  "It is ethical to consider ethics.  In other words, not to critically analyze one's own actions is bad."  I like it.

oh lol

You clearly didn't read what I said or you're making a joke.

Can something be intrinsically good or is "good" just based on our perspective?

What I was arguing was that "good" is based on our perspective.  Obviously within that frame of reference things can be good or bad.

When I said "Now this example is good" - clearly I was talking about my perspective and I reasoned why it was "good".  According to Knight that example wasn't a good example.  Either it is good or isn't good - those two points contradict each other.  If good has intrinsic value than one of us if wrong.  If you consider the example to be good or not depends on your own perspective.  While I obviously think my own opinions are right - does that make them right?

Beast claims that he is right, but he is actually wrong. It is me that is right. He is stupid and dumb and I am smart and intelligent.

If that is the case then why did you describe me as being "stupid and dumb"?  Doesn't "stupid" and "dumb" mean the same thing?  Or did you mean I am physically unable to speak?

And what did you mean when you said that you are "intelligent and smart"?  Don't those words also mean the same thing?  Or did you mean that you are the cause of sharp but usually superficial pain?

What does my apparant inability to speak and you being the cause of sharp but usually superficial pain have to do with who is right and wrong?

Obviously if you were intelligent and smart instead of stupid and dumb you would have understood my insightful remarks.

It's better to sit quietly and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Why don't you enlighten us as to what the nature of your insightful remarks.

But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it.

Why don't you enlighten us as to what the nature of your insightful remarks.

If you haven't worked out what this thread is about after 11 pages you're probably never going to.

It's not a question of what this topic is about, it's a question of what you meant when you called me "stupid and dumb" and called yourself "smart and intelligent".

You really are stupid and dumb!!

What I meant was that you lack the intelligence that I have. Your inability to understand that just proves the point.

But don't "stupid" and "dumb" mean the same thing?

And don't "intelligent" and "smart" mean the same thing?

Why did you needlessly call both of us the same thing twice if you are so intelligent, oh wise one?

when talking to those very stupid/dumb u repeat the point in different terms to make sure it penetrates their thick skulls
ok so i say wot ive already said twice just to make sure u understand due to ur stupidity. The variation is for emphasis

Why did you needlessly call both of us the same thing twice if you are so intelligent, oh wise one?

Can you even read? Why would I call someone both stupid and dumb and intelligent and smart? That doesn't make any sense.

Obviously I said it twice because you didn't get it the first time.

Quote from: "beast"

Why did you needlessly call both of us the same thing twice if you are so intelligent, oh wise one?

Can you even read? Why would I call someone both stupid and dumb and intelligent and smart? That doesn't make any sense.

I think you are the 'stupid and dumb' one.

sorry to repeat a point made about a million times but a random opinion with no evidence is considered worthless in this forum
"I think you are the 'stupid and dumb'one".  why??

Have you not been keeping up with the thread?

yes completely and i think beast humiliated himself shockingly although my respect for him disapeared after the infamous "learnt" discussion

Quote from: "texta"

Quote from: "beast"

Why did you needlessly call both of us the same thing twice if you are so intelligent, oh wise one?

Can you even read? Why would I call someone both stupid and dumb and intelligent and smart? That doesn't make any sense.

I think you are the 'stupid and dumb' one.

Often when people can't comprehend what's going on they'll resort to making derogatory remarks to try to hide their own ignorance.

But if there was one lesson to come out of this whole affair, it's probably fair to say that britishagent is the world's biggest loser. <_<

whos britishagent?? sounds like rite loser...britishgent however is cooler than cool

Often when people can't comprehend what's going on they'll resort to making derogatory remarks to try to hide their own ignorance.

Sounds familar - Like you calling me "stupid and dumb" in this very topic?

But if there was one lesson to come out of this whole affair, it's probably fair to say that britishgent is the world's biggest loser. <_<

Agreed.

--

Also wanted to point that what I was saying earlier is that calling somebody "stupid and dumb" is unneccessary - you can just call them "stupid" or "dumb" and I when I said that Texta called us both the same thing twice I did not mean that he called both of us the same thing, but that he called us both a thing - twice.  Ie. he called me "stupid" and "dumb" - which is the same thing and he called himself "intelligent" and "smart" which is the same thing.  I can see how you found that confusing Texta and I apologise.  I thought it was clear because I had pointed it out earlier and the context seemed straight forward but obviously not for a mind like yours and in the future I will endevour to make my points more obvious so you can grasp the concepts.

i have to disagree with the britishgent comment do u have any evidence to back up ur claim? or is anyone hu disagrees with u considered a "loser"

It's not a literal comment.  We (or at least I) don't think you are actually the biggest loser in the world.  In fact I don't even think you are literally a loser.  It's just an insult to say that I dislike you.  If I called you a dickhead it wouldn't mean I think you have a dick on your head.

well in that case u sick upside down paki hybrid freak go do sum incest

Quote from: "texta"

Often when people can't comprehend what's going on they'll resort to making derogatory remarks to try to hide their own ignorance.

Sounds familar - Like you calling me "stupid and dumb" in this very topic?

O RLY?

O RLY?

It's better to sit quietly and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 :wink:

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Several primates have fairly advanced concepts of altruism, which (as if I didn't pimp this book enough) is explained  excellently in evolutionary terms in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

Primates may be animals, but not all animals are primates.  Even so, assuming Richard Dawkins has valid points, this is only one aspect.

In 50 000 years, we haven't diverged from chimpanzees so much that they do not have any understanding of what "good" things are. You can tell primates and other animals have a sense of what is sacred or precious (bear cubs, kittens, food, water) and as Dysfunction pointed out, animals have been observed to have moral behaviours comparable to that of a human's.

Haven't read this yet, but...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1_35/ai_99933031/pg_1