Brent Meeker wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: > >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >>>> Bruno Marchal writes: > >>>>> Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor): > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated > >>>>>>>> by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real problem of > >>>>>>>> evil is solved or even really addressed with comp. This is because > >>>>>>>> comp cannot define evil correctly. I will try to explain this more. > >>>>>>> I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of > >>>>>>> Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two > >>>>>>> current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory. With > >>>>>>> that respect the comp hyp can at least shed some light on it, and of > >>>>>>> course those "light" are of the platonic-plotinus type where the > >>>>>>> notion > >>>>>>> of goodness necessitates the notion of truth to begin with. I say more > >>>>>>> below. > >>>>>> Surely you have to aknowledge that there is a fundamental difference > >>>>>> between matters of fact and matters of value. > >>>>> Yes. Sure. And although I think that science is a value by itself, I am > >>>>> not sure any scientific proposition can be used in judging those value. > >>>>> But then, I also believe that this last sentence can be proved in comp > >>>>> theories. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Science can tell us how to > >>>>>> make a nuclear bomb and the effects a nuclear explosion will have on > >>>>>> people > >>>>>> and the environment, but whether it is "good" or "bad" to use such a > >>>>>> weapon > >>>>>> is not an empirical question at all. > >>>>> Hmmm..... This is not entirely true. We can test pain killer on people, > >>>>> and we can see in scientific publication statements like "the drugs X > >>>>> seem to provide help to patient suffering from disease Y". > >>>>> Then it can be said that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is bad for > >>>>> such or such reason, and that it can be "good" in preventing bigger use > >>>>> of nuclear weapon, etc. Again, we don't have too define good and bad > >>>>> for reasoning about it once we agree on some primitive proposition > >>>>> (that being rich and healthy is better than being poor and sick for > >>>>> example). > >>>> OK, but the point is that the basic definition of "bad" is arbitrary. > >>> That isn't "just true" > >>> > >>>> It might seem > >>>> that there would be some consensus, for example that torturing innocent > >>>> people > >>>> is an example of "bad", but it is possible to assert without fear of > >>>> logical or > >>>> empirical contradiction that torturing innocent people is good. > >>> People don't want to be tortured. Isn't that empirical proof? > >>> > >>>> There are people > >>>> in the world who do in fact think there is nothing wrong with torture > >>>> and although > >>>> they are not very nice peopel, they are not as a result of having such a > >>>> belief deluded. > >>> I think they are. Can you prove they are not? > >>> > >>>>> Recall that even the (although very familiar) notion of natural numbers > >>>>> or integers cannot be defined unambiguously in science. Science asks us > >>>>> only to be clear on primitive principles so that we can share some > >>>>> reasoning on those undefinable entities. > >>>> But there is a big difference between Pythagoras saying 17 is prime and > >>>> Pythagoras > >>>> saying that eating beans is bad. You can't say that "prime" and "bad" > >>>> are equivalent > >>>> in that they both need to be axiomatically defined. > >>> Badness can be axiomatically defined (treating people as means rather > >>> than ends, > >>> acting on a maxim you would not wish to be universal law, not > >>> doing as you would be done by, causaing unnecessary suffering). > >> But such a definition doesn't make it so. > >> > >> I think discussions of good and evil go astray because they implicitly > >> assume there is some objective good and evil. In fact all values are > >> personal, only individuals experience suffering and joy. > > > > Only individuals can add numbers up, that doesn't make maths > > subjective. > > That depends on how you mean "subjective". Math is objective in the sense > that everybody agrees on it. But it's subjective in the sense that it > depends on minds (subjects).
Everything objective is subjective in that sense. Ethics is no worse of than anything else. > Good and evil are not even objective in the sense of universal agreement, Wrong-headed people can reject any objective truth. Ethics is no worse of than anything else. > except possibly in the self-referential form such as, "My suffering is bad." > So I think concepts of good and evil need to be built on the more fundamental > personal vales. > > > >> Rules such as Kant's (which by the way says you shouldn't treat people > >> *only* as ends) are attempts to derive social, ethical rules that provide > >> for the realization of individual values. > > > > Kant's is explicitly more than that. > > Sure. I was just correcting the common misquote. > > > >> But individuals differ and so ethical rules always have exceptions in > >> practice. > > > > All that means is that you can't have rules along the lines > > of "don't tie anyone up and spank them" since some people > > enjoy it. It doesn't stop you having more abstract rules. Like > > Kant's. > > But the problem is justifying the rules. And much ink has been spilt defending them. > For example there is a rule here that it is wrong to drive your car more than > 70mph. It's a rule balancing risk of accident against time spent traveling. > Yet more than 80% of the people break this rule. Their personal balance of > risk and time is different. > > > >> Everybody can agree that *their* suffering is bad; but that doesn't show > >> that making other people suffer is bad > >> - it is necessary for society to be able to punish people. > > > > "X is bad" doesn't mean you shouldn't do it under any > > circumstances. > > But then what does it mean? You shouldn't do it unless you are avoiding something worse. > Brent Meeker > So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it > enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a > mind to do. > --- Benjamin Franklin, Autobiographical Writings 1791 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
