|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1445093) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 21:40:13 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jul 28 21:07:11 2017. So the traffic system processes zero cars per time-unit, because the system is all that exists, leaving no room for the cars' existence. Such a system has no application. You cannot ignore the question of the origins and destinations of the cars, which are necessarily outside the system.Hardly. Just presume cars materialise at one point and desire to get to another, where they just as inexplicably vanish. It's an analogy. It explains a complex concept by way of appealing to a simple one; it doesn't need to be perfect. Right, this is all to make a moral system "work" in the sense of gain basic respect by its adherents, but not at all to prove that we "should" have this moral system, or that the system is the "right" one. A moral system that can't get buy-in will never work, and thus cannot be the "right" one. Unless you want morality to be reduced to fantasizing about the system that would be perfect if only it weren't completely impossible. As defined by you, a definition accepted by those who have no other way of understanding right and wrong. Well, morality is about right and wrong. What makes an action right? I define it by appealing to a system that everyone can support. You appear to define it by appealing to some inherent virtue external to humanity, but can't define exactly what it is or why we should accept it. Fair questions. The rules have to be derived from recognition of the divine ordering made known by a mediation that essentially "demands" (not in the sense of being bossy, but in the sense of a sort of irresistible courtship that makes one just "know") acknowledgement and commitment. It is only such a mediation, and not a mere human person like you or I, that can pose morality authoritatively. It doesn't matter exactly how the mechanism works, as long as it's objective— ie, pretty much anyone can use the mechanism and come up with exactly the same result. So. If there is a divine ordering that one can just know, authoritatively, then I'd love to learn what it is. That would be quite the breakthrough. How do I find out? What results do you expect I'll get? You may not be able to give me the answers authoritatively, such that I "just know" them, but you can tell me how to go through the process to get the answers. You can also tell me in advance what answers you got; once I've gone through the process and gotten an authoritative answer, we can compare notes. One of our differences is that you define right or wrong as whether or not you are helping the traffic circle, which I hold does not, and cannot, be exclusively representative of the world, while I define right and wrong as whether or not my action in and of itself is an ultimately good one, in accordance with what can lead to the highest possible fulfillment, even if the traffic circle doesn't approve. Again, for purposes of the metaphor, the traffic circle is a world unto itself. So this reads as: "you define right and wrong as whether or not you are helping the world, which does not and cannot be exclusively representative of the world." If you're appealing to values beyond the world itself, then what are those values? How do we learn of them? Why should we accept them? Even if so, this still would not make it the correct one. Rationalism is not a viable philosophy. Rationalism - the idea that truth can be learned purely from logic and reason without any need for empirical evidence - is absurd, yes. However, that statement doesn't rely on it. Rather, it states that given the empirical facts that certain actions will help us achieve the goals we're trying to achieve, then performing those actions is the rational thing to do. It's motivation for my animalistic instinct. I don't see it as an objective reason Then why do anything? The only reason to take any action is because you have some desire you hope that action might help you achieve. Whether the action actually helps you achieve that goal is objective; whether you continue to desire achieving that goal is entirely up to you. Another way of putting it is: is morality (as you define it) moral? That's not necessarily a meaningful question. Obeying moral rules is moral because it produces better outcomes for everyone (including yourself) but that the rules produce desired outcomes is just a fact. Facts have no moral value; they just are. Still not sure I'm following. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Should we have a right to evade taxation? Assuming a legitimate democratic government, nobody wants to pay taxes, but they would rather pay taxes than forfeit the benefits of taxation. Since you can't have the benefits without the taxes, the average rational person would rather pay taxes than not. Although under a dictatorship, it's certainly legitimate to evade taxes. Why, as you see it, should a murder, especially a painless one, not take place if a great number of other people stand to benefit from it? If you allow one murder for an ill-defined greater good, you will allow others. Many of the people who are OK with the first murder will become victims of the later murders. As such, the people who stand to gain from the first murder actually lose overall if the murder is allowed; the only way they can protect their own lives is to demand that all murder be banned even when they stand to gain from it. I would say that not paying taxes is a pretty entrenching desire. I don't expect too soon in the future anyone to say "Oh boy! Tax time! I can't wait to pay!" Again, it's a question of overall desire. The whole point of morality is based on understanding that deliberately forfeiting any chance of achieving some of your goals gets you the better outcome overall— your desire to not pay taxes is perhaps the perfect example of a lesser desire that everyone will abandon in order to achieve something they want more. |
|
|
|