Larry of the Lawn Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Utilitarianism is how those who support torture justy themselves. Fuckin a right, buddy. Sorry for the profanity but I got my inauguration drunk on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 Just now, larrytheimp said: Fuckin a right, buddy. Sorry for the profanity but I got my inauguration drunk on. I'm pretty disappointed no one called me out for misspelling that on the politics thread title (it was a typing error), as soon as I noticed I was thinking about doing some kind of doubling-down shtick but nobody ever mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, WinterFox said: I'm pretty disappointed no one called me out for misspelling that on the politics thread title (it was a typing error), as soon as I noticed I was thinking about doing some kind of doubling-down shtick but nobody ever mentioned it. I missed it. But then we had a Bakker thread up in Lit with 'Great' spelled 'Greart' for a month or something. If someone is picking apart your spelling, it's because they have no actual substantive argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 16 hours ago, Gorn said: Large majority of people throughout history will agree that torture is objectively wrong. Yet not too long ago US government managed to legalize it merely by renaming it and applying to a universally disliked group of people. And even today you will find passionate defenders of "enhanced interrogation" on this board, who are nonetheless morally opposed to torture and agree that it is objectively wrong. Sure. But this basically proves the point that with an objective standard such things can be criticized. In fact, the situation you describe in the last sentence does not even need a "material" objective standard, it seems sufficient to demand "formal" consistency to show that the position is not tenable. But again, one needs an objective standard of avoiding internal contradictions and being logically consistent to mount any criticism. These things are the minimal tools we need for *any* discussion. If one side does not except logics in a wide sense, namely what constitutes licit moves from one statement to another, what amounts to contradiction, circularity etc. no discussion is possible. (I am not saying that torture is completely indefensible; obviously one could try "lesser evil" or other consequentialist defenses, like torture one person to save 100 or so. But again, if correct, this would be an objective statement and would appeal to general principles like that some evil is admissible to avoid greater evil etc. the defender takes to be correct, not merely expressions of emotions or culturally contingent.) moral skepticism/relativism/nihilism is not self-defeating in the way "logical nihilism" would be. But I do not think that the phrase "unjust laws" from the thread title can be made to make sense if one does not accept some standard that is both different from the actual laws and "stronger" (in whatever sense) so that one can speak of "unjust laws" without either self-contradiction or simply expressing emotion/dislike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 10 hours ago, larrytheimp said: The shit is in the details though. Oh, absolutely. But then, this is already the case today, isn't it? 10 hours ago, larrytheimp said: If you're using a utilitarian framework then surely it's better to kill one innocent perso to save the lives of three? How do you define innocent? There will always be borderline cases, extenuating circumstances (self defense, saving others), and contextual anomalies. Oh, yes. For the record, I personally support a strong universal humanist framework as a basis for any moral/legal structure. Utilitarianism is not enough. Borderline cases is why we have judges and juries. 8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Utilitarianism is how those who support torture justy themselves. Nah. From a truly utilitarian point of view, torture is worthless, though I'd rather not go into details as it might derail this thread. Utilitarianism often yields surprising results. Once you start digging, you realize that most "utilitarian" arguments out there are either moral arguments -disguised as utilitarian- or take a short-term approach to problems. In the long-term, to address issues like criminality or even terrorism, it's actually much better to avoid any forms of harshness or cruelty, which create problems of their own, when they're not downright counter-productive. You want to look at countries like the Netherlands or Sweden as models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 On 20-1-2017 at 2:51 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said: So, there is no objective morality? ... Of course not. Subjectivity all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Quote Of course not. Subjectivity all the way down. You fucking relativist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 52 minutes ago, Seli said: Of course not. Subjectivity all the way down. Next to the turtles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 13 hours ago, Rippounet said: In the long-term, to address issues like criminality or even terrorism, it's actually much better to avoid any forms of harshness or cruelty, which create problems of their own, when they're not downright counter-productive. You want to look at countries like the Netherlands or Sweden as models. Long term predictions are extremely difficult to make because over time, small side effects of policies grow into dominant ones. For example, it is possible to build societies which implement a genuine version of liberty, equality and fraternity for all while remaining productive, wealthy and peaceful... with just one small caveat: not enough people want to have children anymore for the fertility rate to be above replacement. This doesn't matter at first (and possibly even appears to make things better), but ultimately it causes severe problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Next to the turtles? No. Next to the dreams, the ideas, the fallen angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 14 hours ago, Seli said: No. Next to the dreams, the ideas, the fallen angels. That's what he meant by turtles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Cowabunga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 22.1.2017 at 9:44 AM, Seli said: No. Next to the dreams, the ideas, the fallen angels. No. Practical reason is similar to logic, it lies deep down and is often not explicit. Everyone who tries to speak reasonably has to accept some basic rules on reasoning (like avoiding contradictions). Everyone who acts implicitly accepts some forms of practical reasoning, e.g. what is called hypothetical imperatives: If I want a coke, I have to want to go to the fridge etc. Or from a different angle: every striving is after something taken to be good. The big question is how to get from such elements that relate only to an individual and his desires, volitions and acts to a general morality. In any case, if someone puts the question "Should an unjust law be broken?" it is assumed, whatever the deep justification, that laws can be unjust (against legal positivism in a simple form) and that implies that there is a standard according to which a law can be justified or not. Otherwise the discussion is simply moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 20 hours ago, James Arryn said: That's what he meant by turtles. Of course. That was why I referring to a Pratchett quote. Quote “All right,” said Susan. “I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.” REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. “Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—” YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. “So we can believe the big ones?” YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. “They’re not the same at all!” YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. “Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—” MY POINT EXACTLY.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 21 hours ago, James Arryn said: That's what he meant by turtles. The dream of the blue turtles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.