This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
On Morality (maybe just an interesting story)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Must? Why?
Post by
Deepthought
Must? Why?
Numerical example:
There are two numbers: X any Y.
One is bigger than the other, neither are infinite.
One must be bigger than the other, even if both are smaller than 1*10^-100000000000000000
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There are two numbers: X any Y.
One is bigger than the other, both are negative (below 0)
One is less then the other, yes; but neither is positive.
Post by
Deepthought
There are two numbers: X any Y.
One is bigger than the other, both are negative (below 0)
One is less then the other, yes; but neither is positive.
X is the largest possible number
in this scenario
, dispite being a negative number.
X/X is 1.
Y/X is <1.
Edit: Hmm, that isn't exactly how I'd like to express it, but ehhnnnn
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
X is the largest possible number in this scenario, dispite being a negative number.
In other words it's the less of two negatives (evils), despite being negative (not good).
Post by
Deepthought
X is the largest possible number in this scenario, dispite being a negative number.
In other words it's the less of two negatives (evils), despite being negative (not good).
It is also this scenario's 0 (your example) or 1 (my last post's example) (aka "the standard"), becauase it is the closest thing to those numbers (1 or 0) available in this situation.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You can't arbitrarily change the standard like that, otherwise
Throw out the standard and you cannot make any moral claims whatsoever.
Post by
Orranis
Either way, prove to me why freedom is good period.
Didn't I already say it is
self-evident
?
But obviously if I'm asking this, then it's not.
Post by
Deepthought
You can't arbitrarily change the standard like that, otherwise
Throw out the standard and you cannot make any moral claims whatsoever.
I'm not doing anything, you suggested a scenario and I made an attempt to clarify it that you haven't disputed. If a standard is unobtainable then it is not really a standard, and in this case (see last sentance) it is not, so within the scenario which we have agreed on it is changed. You can compare the outcome to the standard afterwords, but within the scenario there is most certainly a "good" outcome.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But obviously if I'm asking this, then it's not.
Not necessarily.
Self-evident does not mean everyone has the wherewithal to actually know it.
Post by
Orranis
But obviously if I'm asking this, then it's not.
Not necessarily.
Self-evident does not mean everyone has the wherewithal to actually know it.
The wherewithal being?
I agree that it's good from a human perspective, but from a universal perspective "good" does not actually exist. (In my opinion of course)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If a standard is unobtainable then it is not really a standard
No. No. No. No. No.
It
is
the standard, otherwise you could not say one death is better than 10.
In this scenario
...
It is the standard
. Otherwise
in this scenario
, you couldn't say 1 death > 10 deaths.
A standard is a standard.
Post by
Deepthought
It is the standard, otherwise you could not say one death is better than 10.
In this scenario... It is the standard. Otherwise in this scenario, you couldn't say 1 death > 10 deaths.
A standard is a standar
I think we (read: I) have confused terms here. Can you please clarify what the standard is
vis-à-vis
this scenario?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Getting everyone out safely (stated
here
).
It's by that standard that getting 10 out is better than getting 1 out.
Post by
Deepthought
Getting everyone out safely.
no men dying
Those exact words?
Sorry if I seem obtuse, but I'd really like to clarify this.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The exact words depend on the scenario.
Needless to say...
Getting everyone out safely = no men dying
in this abstract example.
Post by
Deepthought
The exact words depend on the scenario.
Needless to say...
Getting everyone out safely = no men dying
Ah, I believe I see the problem.
Your standard is no deaths.
My standard is the least amount of possible deaths, with 0 being the only number of deaths to aim for.
Now in almost all cases, our standards come to exactly the same thing, but not in this scenario that we have been working with.
In light of the differences between our standards, I don't see this discussion really going any further without us discussing why the differences exist in the first place.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Deepthought, I want to say thank you for being civil. I'm sorry to admit that I've started coming into discussions with you, expecting the worst -- that's a judgment I should not make.
Now, whether we have different standards is sort of irrelevant. You're ultimate argument, if I understand your position correctly, is that there are no universal standards. Now, both of our standards work, correct? Yet mine is universal, and yours is dependent on the particular scenario. So, unless you can disprove my standard, my point still stands, that there can be universal standards of goodness.
Post by
Deepthought
Yet mine is universal, and yours is dependent on the particular scenario. So, unless you can disprove my standard, my point still stands, that there can be universal standards of goodness.
Ah, again, I think I have not expressed myself correctly. When I gave the example of my standard My standard is the least amount of possible deaths, with 0 being the only number of deaths to aim for. I meant for it to be universal too.
Now, I realise that "least amount of deaths" could be said to change from scenario to scenario, but all things considered, I think it works?
I'll give an example.
Say, there are two scenarios: Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there are 40 people, and a maximum of 30 of them can be saved (for whatever reason). In Scenario B, there are again 40 people, but only 15 of them can be saved.
Let's assume that in both scenarios, the maximum amount of people that can be saved, are saved (30 and 15, respectively). Now, despite the deaths of the others, both are considered to be the "good" outcomes
within their respective scenarios
, because the maximum amount of people were saved.
However, Scenario A's outcome (30 people saved) is considered better than Scenario B's outcome, because more people are saved. Neither is considred perfect because both resulted in people dying, but is an inperfection introduced by the scenario and not the standard.
I hope I've made myself clear?
Post by
pezz
Actually the way I've been understanding his argument is that he
does
have a universal standard - less death. (I'm happy to note that that's similar to mine).
As you said yourself, Hyper, there must be a universal standard to compare actions. In this case, both one death and ten deaths are compared to the universal standard of no deaths.
Because we can compare them both to this universal
, we can ask ourselves how the two outcomes relate, and discuss which is 'more good,' relative to each other.
Just because we have a universal standard does not mean we cannot compare relative levels of good intrinsic to different outcomes. On the contrary, that's the only reason such relativisms are even
possible
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.