Anarchic Fox on 21/1/2024 at 03:14
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
It's literally what I believe. If you don't want to talk to me, because I'm too shallow, I'll understand. Platonism = Kantianism with different language. Everything that isn't Platonism is wrong.
It's a bugbear of mine. "Bad intellectual habit" is one of my kinder descriptions. It is not a subject which will remain civil if I pursue it.
Quote:
Well, 'right' is the reason I'm opposed to consequentialism. I think ethics can't avoid Kant/German idealism. Right is about what people deserve. The question of better or worse is preceded by whether you can make meaningful normative statements. I expect the problem is that you find German Idealism repulsive, so you want me to express my perspective without any reference to it. It would be dishonest of me to do that.
It's annoying to have a question answered by a digression into some dead white guy's philosophy.
Quote:
Edit: I've tried to be civil, but you are incredibly condescending. If I keep talking I will get angry, so I'm going to call it quits. They can delete this thread if they like, or leave it, I don't care.
Condescension is one of the vices that the virtue of Gentleness resides between.
Should you wander back, here is a copy-paste of something I wrote elsewhere a couple years ago:
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
I think all three approaches can yield a complete ethics on their own ("complete" in the sense that following it is enough to make you a good person), but that each one runs into distinct difficulties. Here are three advantages deontology has over utilitarianism.
First, large-scale utilitarianism ends up relying on arguments about human psychology that aren't empirically grounded. I happen to believe humanity benefits the most when all are accorded full and equal rights, but I do not think this has been established empirically. This is a more acute version of the problem that utilitarianism requires you to choose outcomes that you predict to be most beneficial, but the chaos of human behavior renders such prediction very difficult.
Second, an ethical system must not just be applicable in theory but in practice: it should be helpful in the ethical dilemmas that people actually face. Here utilitarianism has the problem that, while it requires one to weigh the outcomes of various possible choices, in many situations these possibilities are effectively unlimited. Most ethical problems are not trolley problems. Even a simple choice (say, lie or don't lie) subdivides into a larger number of options (lie in an emotionally manipulative way, lie in such a way that minimizes the number of falsehoods said, say the truth in a way that you know will mislead, refuse to answer, say the truth but refuse to elaborate, give all desired information even when you know it will hurt). In practical situations, you may have very little time to decide. A deontological rule will deem an entire subset of options off the table, allowing you to use your limited time and energy to subdivide the fewer options that still remain and choose between them on utilitarian grounds. Even when the rule is not strict, it will often still be stated on deontological grounds. For instance, my rule is not to lie to human beings, while lying to computers or websites is fine.
Third, utilitarians will, like everyone else, sometimes face the dilemma of whether to prioritize their own benefit or benefit to another. An Objectivist can argue that always prioritizing oneself ultimately brings the most benefit to everyone, but I don't believe that. Rather, I think that my happiness is the same as your happiness. And that assertion is deontological, because it is a universal assertion in ethics that does not permit situational considerations. There aren't specific situations in which my happiness will be worth more or less than yours, although there will be situations where I can impact one more than another. So, just like deontological ethics can generally be justified on utilitarian grounds, even pure utilitarianism will contain a nugget of deontology, in the truth that benefit to one person is the same as benefit to another.
I offer it as a shift in topic.
Sulphur on 22/1/2024 at 17:06
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
I suppose it would be useful to know how it's framed, as I imagine a lot of the context people have today for ethics comes from The Good Place.
So for you, is 'good' indefinable?
Best you see it for yourself, I think. The context is a bit of a spoiler.
The thing about 'good' is I can define it for myself, and in terms of my moral framework, I suppose it can boil down to virtue ethics in one way, in that my guiding principle in most cases is 'try not to be a huge asshole'; whether I succeed or not is something that only hindsight can inform. The problem is that a personal definition of what good means is only sufficient for yourself, and when it collides with other folks' very different takes on what morality means, there's no such thing as universal goodness, and in fact the only way you can reconcile that sometimes seems to be via a statistical or quantitative approach, which is where consequentialism comes in as a compromise. It's its own dilemma, that way.
Quote:
It's a cliché, but I agree with Whitehead's famous quote: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." In particular, Plato's dialogue the Meno is better place to start than the Republic in my opinion, and I keep meaning to read the Timaeus (I've heard it contains the earliest expression of what would become Cartesian dualism).
If I was giving an idea of the core of philosophy as distinct from science it would roughly go along these lines: Parmenides -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Anselm of Canterbury -> Descartes -> Leibniz -> Kant -> Frege -> Heidegger -> Kripke. (This list is only chronological, there isn't necessarily any linear development.) Bear in mind I'm biased in favour of metaphysics and ontology. If you're interested, I could PM you a more detailed summary, but no hard feelings if you're not interested, I know I swamp people with info/opinions.
I keep wondering if there's much mileage to be gained given that Socrates and Plato were operating during a different context and culture, and the didacticism of the approach tends to render these less than inviting to me, at least I know I can soldier through if there's something concrete, something cemented at the end, whatever that may be (though the Meno seems to be exactly about the fact that virtue itself is a catch-22 when poorly defined?). I wouldn't mind a sort of beginner's guide as it were, so feel free to PM, though as I said above, time and motivation are the two elements that decide where I happen to splice my attention out at any given moment.
Fire Arrow on 2/2/2024 at 20:26
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
It's a bugbear of mine. "Bad intellectual habit" is one of my kinder descriptions. It is not a subject which will remain civil if I pursue it.
Rubbish. If you can't put everything into a context where it can be compared, there can never be progress in philosophy. Far from a bad intellectual habit, it is a virtue I cultivate to see how things fit together. Rip into me then, I'm sick of your high and mighty attitude; if you had all the answers there wouldn't be any problems in the world.
Quote:
It's annoying to have a question answered by a digression into some dead white guy's philosophy.
Not a philosopher then, huh?
I'm not interested in the opinions of dead white utilitarians, this is a thread about 'virtue ethics' after all.
Pyrian on 3/2/2024 at 06:19
Clearly, we are here to discuss virtue and not to demonstrate any. :D
Anarchic Fox on 3/2/2024 at 16:35
Quote:
Not a philosopher then, huh?
No, I'm not. I'm a physicist with an interest in philosophy.
I was having fun in the conversation. I did not expect my words to have this impact.
DuatDweller on 4/2/2024 at 18:33
You all seem to forget the 42 negative confessions of Maat.
If you failed the trial of the weighting of the heart though you will not go to hell, you would be annihilated from existence, period.
If you passed the trial you would be welcome to the reed fields and be happy forever.
This is where historians believe the bible took ideas for the commandments.
Quote:
42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)
The negative confessions one would make after death could be individualized, that is, vary from person to person. These were the confessions found in the Papyrus of Ani
from 1 to 21
I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men or women.
I have not destroyed the grain.
I have not reduced measures.
I have not stolen the god's property.
I have not told lies.
I have not stolen food.
I was not sullen.
I have not committed fornication.
I have not caused (anyone) to weep.
I have not dissembled.
I have not transgressed.
I have not done grain-profiteering.
I have not robbed a parcel of land.
I have not discussed (secrets).
I have brought no lawsuits.
I have not disputed at all about property.
I have not had intercourse with a married woman.
I have not had intercourse with a married woman. (Repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god.)
From 22 to 42
Quote:
I have not (wrongly) copulated.
I have not struck terror.
I have not transgressed the Law.
I have not been hot(-tempered).
I have not been neglectful of truthful words.
I have not cursed.
I have not been violent.
I have not confounded (truth).
I have not been impatient.
I have not discussed.
I have not been garrulous about matters.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not disputed the king.
I have not waded in the water.
My voice was not loud (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed a god.
I have not made extollings (bragged).
I have not harmed the bread-ration of the gods.
I have not stolen the khenfu cakes from the blessed (dead).
I have not stolen Hefnu-cakes of a youth, (nor) have I fettered the god of my town.
I have not slain sacred cattle.
Starker on 4/2/2024 at 19:51
Number 37 will shock you!
Anarchic Fox on 4/2/2024 at 22:38
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
You all seem to forget the 42 negative confessions of Maat.
Interesting. I had never heard of these. Ani sounds... rather dull, though. "I have not discussed... I have not been garrulous about matters... My voice was not loud."
If they can be individualized, though, I can come up with a few that are more pertinent to the era. I have never used a sockpuppet; I have never been a landlord; I have never abandoned a friend.
Quote:
This is where historians believe the bible took ideas for the commandments.
I've been reading Exodus on and off for the last year, and I was startled to find the Ten Commandments appearing three separate times in the book, with major variations among them. The first time they appear there are a lot more than ten!
Sulphur on 5/2/2024 at 04:01
I've actually been reading up on the Negative Confession after playing Asscorgis, and those confessions tend to be tailored to the individual and the part of Egypt they lived in, and not necessarily all universal. Essentially, your heart shouldn't betray you in the Hall of Ma'at (the Egyptian personification of order amongst other things) because it bears a record of your life, so when you say those (having been conveniently written on your tomb's walls for you to remember), you confess that you have not done things you shouldn't have so your heart is not heavier than Ma'at's feather. There's even usually a spell inscribed on a heart scarab for the person that is intended to order the heart not to betray you during your protestation of innocence.
Anyway, if your heart isn't heavier than the feather representing Ma'at, you can join Osiris in the afterlife; else your heart is devoured by Ammit, and that's it for your soul.
This is also something I intend to work into my Faithful Assassins' Oranges quasi-review, which I may actually write at some point.
DuatDweller on 5/2/2024 at 16:00
Quote:
Anyway, if your heart isn't heavier than the feather representing Ma'at, you can join Osiris in the afterlife; else your heart is devoured by Ammit, and that's it for your soul.
Yeah but you were literally erased from existence, as in you never existed at all.