This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do you Christians here think children should read the bible?

#271kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 1:53:49 PM
So you're content to just mess with me, not everyone?

I'd like to see your case that rights are based in logic though. I believe we built up rights from my side earlier, where I argued a biological basis. Lets see yours.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#272Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:08:19 PM
kozlo100 posted...
So you're content to just mess with me, not everyone?

I'd like to see your case that rights are based in logic though. I believe we built up rights from my side earlier, where I argued a biological basis. Lets see yours.


You agreed to accept logic. My assumed goal was a fair society that maximizes human well being. I looked at what happened if you suspend either part of that goal, and they were "undesirable". Based on that assumption, I used logic to construct rights - well, the only one I explicity constructed was the one to not be murdered, but I don't want to try to make a full social code and that's the one we're talking about.

I disagreed that rights were based purely in biology as soon as you mentioned instinct.

And I could be lacking evidence, so the button is a bad idea. If the button detects all evidence it is as suspicious as a god in that I can't tell what it's really doing. I prefer to not use mind control and just use natural methods of protecting people's rights.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#273kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 2:13:46 PM
Dial it back to your roots. What is the logic behind assuming that goal?

That's an odd start to the final paragraph though. You were more than content to mess with me knowing you could be lacking evidence. Why is it different with the button?

Also, just to get rid of the 'mind control' stigma, it's a magic button, it needn't work via mind control. Any old method will do, the button just makes sure it happens.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#274Hustle KongPosted 2/1/2013 2:14:38 PM
I disagreed that rights were based purely in biology as soon as you mentioned instinct.


You asserted your position, but certainly have not demonstrated it to anyone's but your own satisfaction.

We're talking the real world of humans, not your ideal world of mandroids, remember.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#275Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:25:53 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Dial it back to your roots. What is the logic behind assuming that goal?

That's an odd start to the final paragraph though. You were more than content to mess with me knowing you could be lacking evidence. Why is it different with the button?

Also, just to get rid of the 'mind control' stigma, it's a magic button, it needn't work via mind control. Any old method will do, the button just makes sure it happens.


Humans seek well being. It's idiocy to think we'll stick to a system of morality that makes us all miserable. That's why this is a practical proof. As for the fairness bit, if you make things too unfair the system will be unstable once people realize that there's no evidence of a supernatural force supporting the system, so the upper class will be overthrown. Also, if you suggest an unfair system I'll suggest one where you're in the lower class. Ultimately the fairness bit is actually redundant because less fairness means less well being.

Well, if the button doesn't give you the chance to present evidence then we have a problem. If it just, say, teleports your child away if you try to kill him (directly or not) without legit evidence then I guess I'll press it assuming I also can somehow be sure it is exactly what I think it is.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#276Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:27:22 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
I disagreed that rights were based purely in biology as soon as you mentioned instinct.


You asserted your position, but certainly have not demonstrated it to anyone's but your own satisfaction.

We're talking the real world of humans, not your ideal world of mandroids, remember.


What do you think rights are?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#277kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 2:37:50 PM
Far421 posted...
Humans seek well being.


That sounds suspiciously like instinct, which you rejected.

I guess I'll press it assuming I also can somehow be sure it is exactly what I think it is.


I thought so. That is the difference in our position, I wouldn't press it. I don't think I could ever be confident that my way of looking at things is the best way. I also think that I haven't the right.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#278Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:44:31 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Humans seek well being.


That sounds suspiciously like instinct, which you rejected.

I guess I'll press it assuming I also can somehow be sure it is exactly what I think it is.


I thought so. That is the difference in our position, I wouldn't press it. I don't think I could ever be confident that my way of looking at things is the best way. I also think that I haven't the right.


Instinct isn't always the best way to well being. However, people at the most basic level want to be happy, so that's what people will try to be regardless of which arguments you use.

I can't be fully confident of that, either. However, to not interfere is just to use a different way of looking at things. You have to choose one.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#279kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 2:52:37 PM
Is people wanting well being at the most basic level not instinct? If not, what is it?

Do you consider inaction to be morally equivalent to action if it produces the same result? I.E. not pressing a button to save a person is equivalent to pressing a button to kill them.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#280Far421Posted 2/1/2013 3:01:31 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Is people wanting well being at the most basic level not instinct? If not, what is it?

Do you consider inaction to be morally equivalent to action if it produces the same result? I.E. not pressing a button to save a person is equivalent to pressing a button to kill them.


Just because morality happens to coincide with instinct somewhere doesn't mean they coincide everywhere.

As for that question second, it's difficult. I'm not entirely certain about it, and I'd guess it's pretty situational. In the case of parent and child, I'd say the parent certainly has an obligation to perserve the child's life if they can, but despite my comically loose use of the word 'murder' I think it's probably a serious but lesser violation than direct killing.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292