|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
20th June 2018, 05:42 AM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
20th June 2018, 07:12 AM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
20th June 2018, 07:28 AM | #123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
21st June 2018, 07:21 AM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
21st June 2018, 07:32 AM | #125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
I think it would be very situation-dependent. And entirely subjective. I do not need to have conclusive objective evidence that caring is more self-interested. I only have to believe that is the case, and act accordingly. Ethics isn't about acting with evidentiary certainty. It's about making the best decision we can, based on the (always limited, often insufficient) information we have, according to the values we hold at that time.
|
21st June 2018, 08:10 AM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
21st June 2018, 08:54 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
21st June 2018, 09:29 AM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
22nd June 2018, 02:34 AM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,320
|
If transcends X means not entirely belong to X, then I think that life phenomena transects humanity.
In this case transcendental human rights are actually the right to live and let live, no matter what life form is involved. Currently we know that evolution of life is developed mostly in terms of diversity (abstract or not), so by this awareness, transcendental human rights is actually developing the diversity of life phenomena. |
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. |
|
22nd June 2018, 07:57 AM | #130 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,108
|
That made absolutely no sense.
|
22nd June 2018, 08:52 AM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
22nd June 2018, 10:12 AM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,320
|
You are right, because of a speller's action that I have missed, so here it is again without speller's nonsense:
If transcends X means not entirely belong to X, then I think that life phenomena transcends rights beyond the point of view our life form. In this case transcendental human rights are actually the right to live and let live, no matter what life form is involved. Currently we know that evolution of life is developed mostly in terms of diversity (abstract or not), so according to this notion, transcendental human rights is actually developing the diversity of life phenomena. |
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. |
|
22nd June 2018, 10:29 AM | #133 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
This seems like equivocation. You're clearly arguing for people having a moral value that transcends your own self-interest. Do you not believe that transcendental rights exist to at least the degree necessary to make your argument work?
Quote:
Work for what?
Quote:
Do you believe there's a reason to get along, that transcends our self-interests? Can you tell us that reason? Can you make a rational defense of your belief? You say there's more to morality than self-interest. So what more is there? |
22nd June 2018, 10:38 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
I tend to think that morality must transcend self interest to be properly called so.
I have no good argument that there is such a thing. I tend to think so, but I can't find a good argument. But I don't think that self interest is a basis for what I consider moral reasoning, which at its heart is a consideration for others. A consideration for self is not essentially a moral consideration. |
22nd June 2018, 11:07 AM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
22nd June 2018, 11:22 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
22nd June 2018, 11:27 AM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
24th June 2018, 12:26 AM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
There is a suggestive-philosophical way to approach to the Human Rights.
Imagine you are part of a not very wide group of persons that have to decide how organizing a new society. You don't know what the other people are and what you would be in these new society. You even ignore if you would be a black woman, a chinese child or a white elder, a big capitalist or a slave in a coal mine --if slavery or capitalism were programmed, of course. We can suppose that, apart from particular details, some basic rules would be decised that would warrant the basic conditions of existence below which human life would be a hell. Remember that your own life is at stake. In addition, other rules would be established in order to warrant that nobody could dammage the basic conditions previously arranged. These rules are the Human Rights. They are neither transcendental nor government-dependent, but "logical" exigences of human condition. A secondary question is why these rules are not respected in facts. But this is another question. NOTE: my example is a summary of John Rawls' "original position". |
13th July 2018, 04:19 PM | #139 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Why would you apologize for that?
Quote:
As an egoist my most immediate concern would be the appropriation of my own life. The societal conditions I find myself in are such that I am expected to work until about age 35 to produce sufficient value to cover my consumption (fair enough I guess) but am then expected to work another 30 years for free in order to enrich someone else. That's 40 hours per week for a good chunk of my life being commanded by someone else as to which actions I take, for no reward and solely to enrich someone else. Sure, as an egoist plenty of other concerns exist, but that one's by far the biggest one. To give another example. When you first start driving trains you get an older traindriver (called a monitor) to train you for about a year. It used to be (and still was the case when I left a year ago) that we'd "steal hours" which basically meant that we arranged things among ourselves to go home 1 or 2 hours early, while of course still being paid for them. I started out in a cargo depot near the port of Antwerp, and my monitor told me about the history of the depot. At some point in the 1970s the bosses decided to install a time clock which would of course have meant the end of the practice of "stealing hours" (which is what they called it, though strictly speaking it should've been called "refusing to let someone else steal your hours"). It only took one day for the time clock to have been taken apart and sabotaged, at which point the bosses sent someone to repair and had it guarded for a week or so. The day after the guard left the time clock had been taken apart again. The bosses gave up at that point. Here's the thing, nobody (or at least not my monitor) knows who did it, and whoever did it was probably acting out of pure self-interest. Yet it was in everyone's self-interest to support whoever did it acting in their own self-interest. Later I was assigned to Leuven passenger depot and a strike was called. The choice put to us was to either go on strike and not get paid, or go to work and get paid. But again, here's the thing, why would it be in my/our self-interest to limit myself/ourselves to the parameters set by those who act against my/our self-interest? So this was the system: everyone went to work to get paid and sat in the depot, the depot was about 20 minutes walk from the station. At some point the station manager (who was on the side of the bosses) called the depot because there was a train which needed a driver. So someone got up, took a slow and gentle walk to the station, took a good look at the train and said "I'm going on strike" and walked off. So the station manager called for another driver, who took a slow and gentle walk to the station, took a good look at the train and said "I'm going on strike" and walked off. So the station manager called for yet another driver, and to make a long story short, after an hour and 3 tries the station manager just gave up and almost all of us got paid because we technically hadn't gone on strike. And here again, each one of us was acting in our self-interest yet it was in our interest to encourage the rest to do so as well.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|