Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Have fun, though given the rest of your comment, I think we both know this is a pretty spurious question and you already know the answer.
Allow me to begin by quoting the article you linked to:
[...]that no human has ever satisfied this criterion[...]
Accordingly, it makes every kind of sense to ask who determines whether someone is rational or not, or- alternately- by what criterion is the assessment made that someone is sufficiently rational to qualify as "being rational." This is a question that lies at the foundation of the problem of informed consent, which medical ethics has struggled with for a significant amount of time without arriving at any conclusive, repeatable or universal answer, let alone an objective one.
Furthermore, the assumption that rationality is a prerequisite is just that: an assumption. It is a given, just like a deontic system may take the dictates of some favored deity or prophet as being given, or a Gorean might take the knowability and beneficiality of human nature as a given. All of these are assumptions upon which the remainder of a system, thesis or theory is built, and there has so far been no convincing argument to the effect that one particular system or group of systems is objectively (i.e. without such assumptions) correct or the right one or anything like that.
Now, you expressed quite clearly that you were unable to follow my argument, which Elisabella demonstrated that she was able to follow. Accordingly, I will make two assumptions: (a) that I should present my arguments in a manner that is more accessible, and (b) that full comprehension of a subject as complicated as the original works of Kant is beyond your abilities. Please do not take offense at the latter, as you are in good company: the man wouldn't be exceptional if his arguments and thinking were within reach of just anyone.
quote:
Nice. You just defined any approach that is contra your own as irrational.
Yes. That is correct.
I defined my approach first. My approach is well put by an author I will slightly paraphrase here:
"The only sovereign I can allow to rule me is reason. The first law of reason is this: what is, is. From this irreducible, bedrock principle, all knowledge is built. It is the foundation from which life is embraced. Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discover them. Reason is our only means of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to avoid the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the cliff we refuse to see."
In my approach, it is thus admitted that humans think in a certain way, and that certain human functions that are built into our minds- such as morality- also work in a certain way. When making moral decisions, the human mind does not (in its normal state) employ the principle of universality. Yes, I am quite familiar with the specific meaning of the term in this context. Research into the human mind does not support any notion that we employ universality in moral thought.
We may intellectually think in ways that our morality is unable to, but that is discipline in behavior, not morality. I can use discipline to tell myself that I shall exhibit sympathy when a coworker is whining about a non-problem, but that is not empathy. I can use discipline to tell myself that I shall aim two inches behind the most rigid part of a glass window and strike it with as much force as possible to free someone from an overheating car with locked doors, but that isn't aggression or violence, nor does it conform to what my instincts tell me about avoiding harm.
When striking the car window as I explained, it will shatter, and I will suffer minor cuts and swollen knuckles at most, along with some pain from compressing the nerves. Natural would be to find an object to break it with. I have seen a woman try to break such a window with a fire extinguisher and fail. Natural would be to strike dead center. But if I do that, the small elasticity of the window will dramatically reduce the shear force and only my hand will be hurt. Natural would be to aim at the surface. But if I do that, hard wired reflexes will start to slow my hand down before impact to avoid overextending it, and the blow will not be strong enough to break the window, again hurting my hand. Natural would be to hesitate to use full force from the expectation that striking a hard surface will cause injury. But I know I have the strength to break the window if I apply full force in the right place. I know that hesitation will cause failure to break the window. I know that either the window or my hand will be damaged, not both, so I must make it be the window. And I bear the window no malice. I have no fight or flight response. I do not feel a threat. I do not seek to cause harm to the window.
Those are intellectual knowledge that I use to override what nature has provided (which is otherwise sensible).
When I am expressing sympathy for the coworker, I know what facial expressions to make, what tone of voice to use, what words to say, when to say them, and so on and so forth. I give a credible impression of sympathy that passes the cursory inspection of watercooler talk or a conversation at lunch. But I do not feel sympathy for his plight. On my scale of problems, cutting a vacation short- when one has been taking a vacation every year- ranks as a minor nuisance that doesn't call for sympathy. I do, however, feel sympathy for the homeless people who are afraid to go to sleep in the extreme cold this year. It is not that I lack the faculty, but rather that the former scenario doesn't cause a natural response, while the latter does.
Again, I am using intellect and discipline to effect a goal, instead of saying "shut up, you spoiled twat."
So, too, with universality.
I can employ universality in an intellectual exercise. I can choose to behave according to the outcome of an intellectual exercise. But it is not morality that regulates my behavior in that case. Rather, it is my intellect that does so. Morality is a seperate mechanism that is built into the human mind. It does not support universality, as evidenced by much research.
Using my intellect consciously, I can determine what would be the correct course of action for a person with a morality that is different from my own morality. For instance, I am sufficiently familiar with the Qu'ran to say what some Muslim should do in a given situation, most of the time. And I can choose to act in accordance with that. I can even choose to act as a Muslim should in the situation, even when doing so would be contrary to my own morality. That would cause guilt, however, because I had not acted according to my morality.
That should explain quite clearly that morality is seperate from an intellectual effort that looks like it.
And I posit that anything that the human faculty for morality cannot support is not morality.
Thus, what I outlined, is that there are a limited set of options allowed by the facts:
- You can assert that morality is inherently universal. It is a fact that the human faculty for morality cannot support the principle of universality. Therefore, this assertion also asserts that humans are inherently incapable of being moral. Since it asserts that humans cannot be moral, it becomes pointless to discuss, and we must look for something meaningful that humans can be instead.
- You can assert that morality is not inherently universal. In this case, humans can be moral. In this case, universal morality is not a requirement.
- You can refuse to accept reality and believe that humans are something they are not. That is, according to the commonly accepted definition, a delusion: acting and thinking according to a demonstrably false belief. Delusions are by definition irrational.
My approach is to address what humans can be, and I refer to what humans can be as "moral."
The alternative is the third option, which is defined as being irrational.
·QED·
quote:
Sure, that's pretty much what I said. Also, I love how I'm being called a pompous ass and posuer for talking about this in real language, and everyone is all "Aswad is so smart" when you're just fucking piling on the useless jargony verbiage.
It is not "pretty much" what you said. It has superficial similarities. And I am actually not all that familiar with the jargon. Instead, I use the words or phrases which make sense to me as a layperson. Sometimes, those words are not in the active vocabularies of people who spend less time reading, writing and thinking about such things. That is easily remedied by asking me to clarify, or by using a dictionary, or both.
I have said before, and will say again, that it does not diminish my perception of a person to have them ask me to explain something I have said, or to rephrase it, or to clarify something about it. What does diminish my perception of a person, is when they do not do so, but instead dismiss the content of what I have said on the basis of prejudices against the manner in which I have said it, so long as I have been civil and have made an honest attempt at communicating clearly.
I do possess an above average vocabulary and intelligence, and I keep them both in shape by using them to the best of my abilities. I do not in any way, shape or form look down upon anyone who has a smaller vocabulary or less intelligence. I realize I sometimes come across as lecturing or the like, and that is not intentional, so I apologize when it is pointed out to me in a civil manner. I also realize that some people become unduly self-conscious when encountering someone who is better at something. I know that feeling well, as people are frequently good at things I am horrible at, but want to be good at. But I would never dream to hold it against others that they are good at these things, or ask them to make themselves less for me. Nor will I pretend to be less than I am. However, I would not seek to actively make others feel that unpleasant feeling by parading an advantage.
That, presumably, is why you get dismissed as pompous, whereas I am less frequently dismissed.
Not that it doesn't happen, mind you. But it is infrequent, and it is far more common that others simply don't have the time for the volume I tend to post, which I understand and do not take offense at, or at least no lasting offense (I am human like anyone else, after all). As I recall, Red is one of those who have said as much. I believe I did respond in a negative manner to that at the time, mostly because I enjoyed the exchanges, but those feelings were quickly replaced with understanding of her choice and the reasons for it.
That, presumably, is part of the reason I am lauded by some: I make an effort to remember that there's a human on the other side of the conversation, and to understand their motivations and intentions without ascribing malice to them, and to correct any negative emotional responses I may experience when there is no cause to assume malice.
I am not put off by your posting as some here are, but neither am I impressed by it.
Your arguments so far do not hold, but I am open to the idea that you may be able to demonstrate that your view is correct. If you will engage in rational debate, and be open to the idea that your views may also not be correct, then there is a discussion which can result in increased insight and understanding for all parties, and which can result in both parties being right at the end, from having adopted the stance that is shown to be correct in the course of the debate. I see little indication that such is likely so far, but I'm fine with an exchange of ideas and arguments, as well. The readers will form their own opinions.
See, I'm also invested in being right.
But the rational approach to being right is to discard one's point of view if it isn't the right one, and instead adopting the point of view which is right, whatever it may be. In that way, one can have the ego-wise gratification of being right with none of the baggage, because one is not seeking to demonstrate that one was right from the start, but rather seeking to be right or become right. That way, rationality and honesty can coexist with the gratifying state of being right. Again, I see little evidence of that line of thinking in your posts so far, and I would urge you to try it.
You may find, as I did, that you like that form of being right better.
quote:
I don't accept this premise in so much as I can't tell what the fuck your actually saying.
I was saying that you can't demonstrate that a morality is true or false.
You can only demonstrate that it is consistent with itself, or that it contradicts itself.
Further, I said that the reason this is so, is that when you have stripped everything down to the smallest pieces of logic and ideas, you are left with parts that cannot be proved or disproved. The parts you are left with can be compared to some ideal, such as that forwarded by Kant. When comparing in that way, however, you are not determining truth. Instead, you are determining if the morality is approved by the ideal you compare it to. And that ideal is not objective. In fact, it cannot be objective. Some of the reasons for that were thoroughly covered by Wittgenstein. Others have been formally proven in advanced mathematics (when they were making models for black holes).
I hope that is clearer.
quote:
I still have no idea what this is supposed to actually mean.
It means you have decided what a morality may be, on no other basis than how you think a morality should be. It also means that how you think a morality should be is a part of your morality. A part that deals with how to think about, and behave with regard to, other moralities. That is the part of morality which can contain such things as tolerance and the ability to see others' points of view as valid and so on. It is a part that Kohlberg wrote about as stage 5 of the moral development of humans, but he didn't generalize his ideas as I have done here, rather leaving his work incomplete.
Finally, I commented that this makes you no different from anyone else with a fixed, absolute system of morals that contains some notion of tolerance: you will accept as valid those moralities that are similar to your own, but reject the validity of moralities that differ much from your own. As an example, a Catholic will see the validity of the Protestant view, even if they don't agree with it, but the beliefs of a Satanist are beyond what they can tolerate, so they reject that as invalid.
As a moral relativist, I accept all moralities as equally valid to my own. That does not mean that I will sit idly by when someone acts in a way I will not put up with. It means that I will act according to my own morality, and others will act according to theirs. It means that when I meet a person who faithfully adheres to values I dislike, I will consider that person to be a highly moral person, and respect that about them, even though I don't like them overall. It means that I do not claim that any one morality I approve of is correct, while others are wrong.
As a moral relativist, I act according to my morals and the reality around me, while I judge the moral quality of others according to the morality they profess to adhere to. The two are seperate things. One is the situation I am in, where I act according to my own beliefs. The other is one specific quality of another person- the quality of being moral- that I see as being entirely specific to that person and that person's worldview and beliefs. Thus, when I judge the quality of being moral, I judge it in the context of the person, and since that person's morality is part of that person in my view (seeing as morality does not have a seperate, objective existence), I judge that quality according to that person's own standards. As such, I judge them the way they would judge themselves if they saw themselves from the outside and tried to be honest in their judgment.
quote:
Again, I'm the one being called a pompous poseur?
If you will be more specific in your implication that I have done or said something objectionable, I will duly address that implication. I was, for the most part, addressing claims you had made previously, with some additional commentary. If there was anything incorrect, distasteful, inappropriate or otherwise objectionable about that, I would appreciate if you could point it out to me in a more specific manner, so that I may address the problem.
quote:
I dare anyone -- Elizabella, luscious, anyone -- to translate that paragraph into English and explain what he just said. I doubt any of you can do it.
Elisabella did it, so your doubts are unfounded.
She simplified a couple of minor points, presumably for the sake of clarity, but clearly demonstrated that she fully understood what I meant by that passage.
quote:
So...demonstrate how its false.
I have pretty much done so.
What remains is to adequately explain the demonstration to you.
quote:
Maybe. Its hard to say when you bury whatever it is you're trying to say under this sort of needless wordiness and complexity.
If and when you find something needlessly wordy or complicated, feel free to point out the relevant passage and the error you think I have made. I will be happy to explain the purpose of the exact wording used in any passage, or to admit fault if there is fault, and I will also be happy to explain anything that appears complicated in a manner that is more readily accessible (though, as a general rule, that will take more space than the version that appears complicated). There may also be cases where the complexity is because something is implicit, assumed to be known (based on your posting history, usually), or uses terms that carry with them a connotation or context that is not explicitly stated, and I will also be happy to make such things explicit in the interest of clarity, where necessary.
Also, someone noted that my habit of using long sentences and subclauses can be difficult to read.
That is partially an occupational hazard, and partially a consequence of English not being my native language. The Germanic languages have several words that require a full subclause or extensive rephrasing to express in English, and since I am a native speaker of Norwegian, the result will inevitably be that some ideas that are single words in my language become not only multiple words but multiple ideas in English, and accordingly I don't notice that reading the result is harder than what would be the case when a native speaker writes (since a native speaker "feels" the "size" of the words, and has them seperately in their mind, and can thus readily split the idea over several sentences where I have to think carefully about how the idea should be split).
If that aspect of my writing is a problem for you, let me know, and I will try to keep the answer to short sentences in Simple English with no nested subclauses and few single subclauses. If you prefer, I can also rigidly adhere to the Simple English syntax, grammar and vocabulary as per an up to date dictionary for that subset of the English language. It's not that I can't write accessibly, merely that it takes more effort to do so in some cases, and that I need to be aware of it. Language is a habit, too, after all.
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Misogyny and BDSM - 
Profile
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread