Papy on 20/8/2012 at 04:55
Quote Posted by CCCToad
To some extent. In others, it will determine them. The best example is abortion.
Actually, I was more thinking about forms of government, rather than policies. A person's level of moral development won't determine if he is for or against abortion, but I think it will determine what form of government he prefers.
Also, this is out of context, but...
Quote Posted by CCCToad
We all agree that it is wrong to take another person's life without their consent
That first premise is false. I think the vast majority of people will acknowledge that there are situations when killing is the right thing to do.
If you say "we all agree that is is wrong to take another person's life without any reason except for the fun of it", then, yes, I will agree. But in that case, I will also say the premise is irrelevant to abortion because, as far as I know, women don't have an abortion for the fun of it.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
we also (almost) all agree that people should have freedom to do what they want with their own bodies.
That second premise is completely false. For example, if it involves drugs, sex, dangerous sports or even something as extreme as driving without a seat belt, there will be a lot of people who will deny your freedom to do what you want.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
at which point an embryo becomes a separate human being with it's own life depends ENTIRELY upon one's religious beliefs
The third premise is also false. Atheistic people have the same debate.
BTW, I didn't refute your premises only for the fun of it, but to show that using what looks like logical reasoning to justify moral decisions will always be a failure. A lot of philosophers tried before and they always failed.
DDL on 20/8/2012 at 08:27
Quote Posted by Papy
using what looks like logical reasoning to justify moral decisions will always be a failure. A lot of philosophers tried before and they always failed.
[Citation needed] :p
Also,
Quote Posted by Papy
But to me, trying to understand moral values and political concepts through cognitive science is like trying to use quantum mechanics to analyze a chemical reaction. It is simply using the wrong tool.
You might want to look up things like QM/MM, which is EXACTLY the process of using quantum mechanics to analyze chemical reactions. Biological reactions, even. And it's a very powerful (albeit processor-intensive) approach.
Now regarding applications of logic to 'moral' decisions, I don't see any problems with this. Assuming you apply the usual 'broader' boundaries that one applies to all biological systems (biological systems being notoriously more messy than physics or chemistry systems), the only real problem arises if you assume the resultant human decisions will make
sense. We apply fairly strict, generally easily-separable steps in logic to come to frequently irrational conclusions via roundabout means, much in the fashion that evolution often produces entirely stupid solutions to simple problems simply because of what it had to work with at the time.
The cultural influences of human morality are based on the entire history of human cultural development, not hewn from new cloth each time we have to make a moral judgement. Whether we like it or not, the attitudes our parents, our parents' parents, our parents' parents' parents (and so on) all influence our own attitudes, and they do so in fairly predictable patterns. This can lead to, for instance, the response of doing something stupid because "that's the way it's always been done". The fact that it's stupid is irrelevant, strictly: doing something the way
everyone else has always done it is in fact the most logical and rational behaviour.
You're assuming we're talking "cold hard external logical assessment of the situation" in all cases, rather than perhaps "cold hard external logical assessment of the warm squishy stupid logic of actual people dealing with the situation".
You
can use logical assessment to decypher how a series of entirely sensible, rational cognitive steps can ultimately produce behaviour that is more or less nonsensical.
And finally,
Quote:
One last precision... This discussion, for me, is still about whether the ideal of a democratic party should be to always follow majority or if it should rather be to uphold some specific principle. I talked about moral values only because I believe the way we justify them will also justify our political views.
Again, this is not really what democracy MEANS. 'Democracy' is not a highly-liberal idealistic ideology, it's simply a system of government where the populace have a say in how things are run. A society that whole-heartedly embraces war and conquest and repeatedly votes in a party that wants to stomp on all the other countries...would still be a democracy.
Bear in mind that just because in the US the 'democratic' party is more liberal than the 'republican' party, this does not actually have any real bearing on what those political terms mean. Those names are just that: names. A "republic" is not naturally more right wing than a "democracy". Both are simply political systems (in fact one is a subset of the other), that could cover a huge range in ideologies.
And hey, generally speaking a
true democracy is actually far more at risk of being an extremist system, purely because of that tyranny of the majority we were talking about earlier. A republic (which america is) is actually
more limited in its potential to swing wildly in one direction or the other based on tyranny of the majority.
So: should a democratic party always follow majority or should it uphold some specific principle? It should, strictly speaking, always follow majority
because that is its specific principle.:)
Azaran on 25/8/2012 at 21:01
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Fox News is an affront to serious journalism. I -- I'm so furious I can't even see straight. I will no longer respect the opinions of anyone who takes Fox News seriously.
No one who takes Fox News seriously deserves to have their opinions considered.
Yakoob on 25/8/2012 at 21:49
Man wouldn't it be shitty if they got the name wrong and some totally random dude got killed because some extremists thought he was the Navy guy :|
Azaran on 25/8/2012 at 21:55
Actually they often purposefully lie in order to sway and manipulate their sheep, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did that.
Like when they sometimes refer to the president as "Barack Osama" and then claim it was just a mistake :rolleyes:
june gloom on 25/8/2012 at 21:57
It'd be shitty if anyone died due to Fox News' unprofessional behavior.
damdifyno on 2/9/2012 at 01:30
Quote Posted by scumble
I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney is a narcissistic fool. I knew someone who had an internship at PBS and actually met him. Apparently he was mostly concerned how is eyes would look on camera and barely acknowledged the crew...
If he was at PBS, you can bet he was getting ready to go in front of a camera. If I was, I would be interested in how I look too. And I bet you would too. As far as being narcissistic, when I think of the word, I think of Obama. Didn't you hear that he put himself into historical quotes? And didn't you hear that when the astronaut died recently, Obama memorialized him by putting himself into a picture looking up at the moon? Not only that, but he always acts and talks as if his answers and "solutions" are always the best. They are not.
Nobody is perfect, and I do mean nobody, but I learned a long time ago that things are not always what they seem. People should not jump to conclusions which happens way too often. They might regret what they wrote or said. I would rather wait until I have more of the facts before coming to a conclusion.
And as far as the news goes, you would be better off staying away from the mainstream media....CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, and all of the others. I read that all of them are owned and controlled by 6 groups. Only 6! I get my news from other places on the net, like the BBC just for one example out of many. I can not trust the MSM to tell the truth, especially after NBC fired two guys for lying about Zimmerman. If you don't know where to get the news, just google. But I would start with the BBC if I were you.
damdifyno on 2/9/2012 at 01:33
No, it was found later in the news that he was NOT on the right. It was also implied that the other shootings, including but not limited to the Congresswoman, were ALSO _right_wing _by_the_media(!)_, and it was ACTUALLY found later that they were on the left!
