Hi Saibal
No I don't need to invoke morality, the price I pay for that is to have
to explain explicity what I mean by a "good outcome", what measure I
choose here to determine this, etc.
Saibal, by using the terms 'good'/'bad' and 'right'/'wrong' you can
not help but invoke morality because that is the language of
morality. And we are able to see what standard of morality you are
invoking by examining your justifications.
You are a consequentialist. You assess the rightness/wrongness of
supporting Nazis by balancing outcomes. You judge 9/11 to have been
good or bad because of the outcomes it had for x,y,z. This is
consequentialism and it is a moral perspective. You don't escape that
fact by also claiming you have no time for morality, all that does is
reveal you to be inconsistent.
"9/11 was a good thing to have happened, despite the perpetrators not
having "good" intentions, i.e. the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted to
achieve something that I would not have preferred. You are invoking the
concept of "moral quality of an act", not me."
No, Saibal you invoke the moral quality of the act by describing it
as a good thing. What else do you think your doing by describing
something as a 'good'? Having a cup of tea? The fact that the
intentions of the perpetrators plays no role in your judgement is
paradigmatic of the teleological nature of consequentialism. One of
the many reasons so many people find that kind of reasoning
unconvincing and shallow.
"Moral philosophy"???. Well, I consider philosophy to be pseudoscience,
I already told you what I think about morality, so I don't have to tell
you what I think about "moral philosophy".
I'm assuming that you are using 'pseudoscience' pejoratively here
which is silly coming from someone who believes in multiple
realities which amount to a bunch of subjectively calculated sums.
But the truth is that philosophy isn't even close to being a
pseudoscience. Philosophy is all very 'meta' and exists to draw out
the flaws in reasoning we all engage in. I'm going to ignore your
disdain for philosophy, mate, because it is too embarrassing to watch
people who engage in little else besides pseudoscience and
metaphysics shoot themselves in the foot. :)
"Morality in previous centuries has been invoked to justify the burning
of people at the Stake for blasphemy, no one at the time argued that
this was "immoral" based on a reading of all those philosophers. "
Rubbish. Take slavery : for a long time justified by teleological
claims that the suffering of the few was outweighed by the benefits
for the many it was eventually over thrown by deontological concerns
about the sanctity of self determination. And of course people did
argue that slavery was immoral. Of course people did argue that
burning people at the stake was immoral. And it was precisely because
people did engage in moral philosophy and those ideas dissipated into
society that we are now at a point where we can argue about the
morality of eating a cow and can take it as given that torture is
wrong.
"John is a good example, he doesn't read past the first sentence when I
wrote hat 9/11 was a good thing to have happend,"
Well I did read past the first sentence, but I needn't have. Look, if
the gears in your brain are grinding away and delivering up moral
statements like '9/11 was a good thing' then its time to visit the
brain mechanic for a moral m.o.t. Maybe, if you really fancy yourself
as a moral nihilist, then change the gaskets and abandon the use of
moral terminology. Compare:
"Supporting the Nazis was useful for the Arabs way back when"
with
"Supporting the Nazis was the right thing to do way back when"
Do you see the difference?
I think having a go at people for taking you at your word is foolish.
All the best.
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 03:07:46 +0200
From: smi...@zonnet.nl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
Chris,
No I don't need to invoke morality, the price I pay for that is to have
to explain explicity what I mean by a "good outcome", what measure I
choose here to determine this, etc.
9/11 was a good thing to have happened, despite the perpetrators not
having "good" intentions, i.e. the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted to
achieve something that I would not have preferred. You are invoking the
concept of "moral quality of an act", not me.
"Moral philosophy"???. Well, I consider philosophy to be pseudoscience,
I already told you what I think about morality, so I don't have to tell
you what I think about "moral philosophy".
Morality in previous centuries has been invoked to justify the burning
of people at the Stake for blasphemy, no one at the time argued that
this was "immoral" based on a reading of all those philosophers. So,
it's of no use other than to condemn people we don't like. Not invoking
morality will force you to use rational arguments.
John is a good example, he doesn't read past the first sentence when I
wrote hat 9/11 was a good thing to have happend, because he has
programmed a concept of "morality" in his brain to create a mental
block in such a case. Whatever explanation I give has to be wrong
because his sense of "morality" (which he can't expand on), tells him
so.
Saibal
Citeren chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Saibal
>
> When you say something is "good" you have some concept of morality in
> mind whether you like it or not. Otherwise comments like 'this is
> good' or 'that is good' are meaningless gibberish. In your case it is
> very obviously consequentialism you have in mind because you are
> attempting to balance outcomes in order to quantify the moral quality
> of an act. Typically the fact an event like 9/11 can, through some
> specious reasoning, be equated to a 'good' has been regarded as a
> reason to abandon the kind of reasoning you are fumbling with. But I
> suspect you are too stubborn to acknowledge a few thousand years of
> moral philosophy and rather than stand on the shoulders of giants
> prefer to swill around in the gutter. This is why John is right to
> call you an ass. Your 'arguments' show no more moral wit than a
> donkey.
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: smi...@zonnet.nl
> Sent: 28 August 2013 6:14 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
>
> Morality is an ill defined concept, you can just as well invoke
> religion. I never appeal to any notion of "morality", when I say that
> something is "good", then I have some specific outcome in mind. I think
> I did explain that.
>
>
> An alien visiting the Earth may well conclude that the "right" thing to
> do is to exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth, citing the
> damage we do to the environment and the fact that we are not going to
> be persuaded to change our ways. From an animal life conservation point
> of view that decision can be argued to be the "right decision".
>
>
>
> Citeren John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> A professional ass who goes by the pseudonym <smi...@zonnet.nl> because
>> he's understandably too embarrassed to give his real name wrote:
>>
>>> The modern history of Guatemala was decisively shaped by the
>>> U.S.-organized invasion and overthrow of [blah blah]
>>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Ass
>>
>> Once somebody knows that you said "supporting the Nazis was the
right thing
>> for the Arabs back then" and "I believe that 9/11 was a good
thing", why on
>> earth would anybody who was not drooling and locked inside a
rubber room be
>> interested in your opinion of the morality of ANYTHING?
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
