Hi Saibal

>> No I don't need to invoke morality, the price I pay for that is to have 
to explain explicity what I mean by a "good outcome", what measure I 
choose here to determine this, etc.

Saibal, by using the terms 'good'/'bad' and 'right'/'wrong' you can not help 
but invoke morality because that is the language of morality. And we are able 
to see what standard of morality you are invoking by examining your 
justifications. 

You are a consequentialist. You assess the rightness/wrongness of supporting 
Nazis by balancing outcomes. You judge 9/11 to have been good or bad because of 
the outcomes it had for x,y,z. This is consequentialism and it is a moral 
perspective. You don't escape that fact by also claiming you have no time for 
morality, all that does is reveal you to be inconsistent.

"9/11 was a good thing to have happened, despite the perpetrators not 
having "good" intentions, i.e. the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted to 
achieve something that I would not have preferred. You are invoking the 
concept of "moral quality of an act", not me."

No, Saibal you invoke the moral quality of the act by describing it as a good 
thing. What else do you think your doing by describing something as a 'good'? 
Having a cup of tea? The fact that the intentions of the perpetrators plays no 
role in your judgement is paradigmatic of the teleological nature of 
consequentialism. One of the many reasons so many people find that kind of 
reasoning unconvincing and shallow.
 
 
"Moral philosophy"???. Well, I consider philosophy to be pseudoscience, 
I already told you what I think about morality, so I don't have to tell 
you what I think about "moral philosophy".


I'm assuming that you are using 'pseudoscience' pejoratively here which is  
silly coming from someone who believes in multiple realities which amount to a 
bunch of subjectively calculated sums. 

But the truth is that philosophy isn't even close to being a pseudoscience. 
Philosophy is all very 'meta' and exists to draw out the flaws in reasoning we 
all engage in. I'm going to ignore your disdain for philosophy, mate, because 
it is too embarrassing to watch people who engage in little else besides 
pseudoscience and metaphysics shoot themselves in the foot. :)

"Morality in previous centuries has been invoked to justify the burning 
of people at the Stake for blasphemy, no one at the time argued that 
this was "immoral" based on a reading of all those philosophers. "

Rubbish. Take slavery : for a long time justified by teleological claims that 
the suffering of the few was outweighed by the benefits for the many it was 
eventually over thrown by deontological concerns about the sanctity of self 
determination. And of course people did argue that slavery was immoral. Of 
course people did argue that burning people at the stake was immoral. And it 
was precisely because people did engage in moral philosophy and those ideas 
dissipated into society that we are now at a point where we can argue about the 
morality of eating a cow and can take it as given that torture is wrong. 


"John is a good example, he doesn't read past the first sentence when I 
wrote hat 9/11 was a good thing to have happend,"

Well I did read past the first sentence, but I needn't have. Look, if the gears 
in your brain are grinding away and delivering up moral statements like '9/11 
was a good thing' then its time to visit the brain mechanic for a moral m.o.t. 
Maybe, if you really fancy yourself as a moral nihilist, then change the 
gaskets and abandon the use of moral terminology. Compare:

 "Supporting the Nazis was useful for the Arabs way back when"  

 with 

 "Supporting the Nazis was the right thing to do way back when"

 Do you see the difference?

 I think having a go at people for taking you at your word is foolish.

All the best.

> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 03:07:46 +0200
> From: smi...@zonnet.nl
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> Chris,
> 
> No I don't need to invoke morality, the price I pay for that is to have 
> to explain explicity what I mean by a "good outcome", what measure I 
> choose here to determine this, etc.
> 
> 9/11 was a good thing to have happened, despite the perpetrators not 
> having "good" intentions, i.e. the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted to 
> achieve something that I would not have preferred. You are invoking the 
> concept of "moral quality of an act", not me.
> 
> 
> "Moral philosophy"???. Well, I consider philosophy to be pseudoscience, 
> I already told you what I think about morality, so I don't have to tell 
> you what I think about "moral philosophy".
> 
> Morality in previous centuries has been invoked to justify the burning 
> of people at the Stake for blasphemy, no one at the time argued that 
> this was "immoral" based on a reading of all those philosophers. So, 
> it's of no use other than to condemn people we don't like. Not invoking 
> morality will force you to use rational arguments.
> 
> John is a good example, he doesn't read past the first sentence when I 
> wrote hat 9/11 was a good thing to have happend, because he has 
> programmed a concept of "morality" in his brain to create a mental 
> block in such a case. Whatever explanation I give has to be wrong 
> because his sense of "morality" (which he can't expand on), tells him 
> so.
> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> Citeren chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi Saibal
> >
> > When you say something is "good" you have some concept of morality in 
> > mind whether you like it or not. Otherwise comments like 'this is 
> > good' or 'that is good' are meaningless gibberish. In your case it is 
> > very obviously consequentialism you have in mind because you are 
> > attempting to balance outcomes in order to quantify the moral quality 
> > of an act. Typically the fact an event like 9/11 can, through some 
> > specious reasoning, be equated to a 'good' has been regarded as a 
> > reason to abandon  the kind of reasoning you are fumbling with. But I 
> > suspect you are too stubborn to acknowledge a few thousand years of 
> > moral philosophy and rather than stand on the shoulders of giants 
> > prefer to swill around in the gutter. This is why John is right to 
> > call you an ass. Your 'arguments' show no more moral wit than a 
> > donkey.
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> >
> > From: smi...@zonnet.nl
> > Sent: 28 August 2013 6:14 AM
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
> >
> > Morality is an ill defined concept, you can just as well invoke
> > religion. I never appeal to any notion of "morality", when I say that
> > something is "good", then I have some specific outcome in mind. I think
> > I did explain that.
> >
> >
> > An alien visiting the Earth may well conclude that the "right" thing to
> > do is to exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth, citing the
> > damage we do to the environment and the fact that we are not going to
> > be persuaded to change our ways. From an animal life conservation point
> > of view that decision can be argued to be the "right decision".
> >
> >
> >
> > Citeren John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> A professional ass who goes by the pseudonym <smi...@zonnet.nl> because
> >> he's understandably too embarrassed to give his real name wrote:
> >>
> >>> The modern history of Guatemala was decisively shaped by the
> >>> U.S.-organized invasion and overthrow of [blah blah]
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Ass
> >>
> >> Once somebody knows that you said "supporting the Nazis was the right thing
> >> for the Arabs back then" and "I believe that 9/11 was a good thing", why on
> >> earth would anybody who was not drooling and locked inside a rubber room be
> >> interested in your opinion of the morality of ANYTHING?
> >>
> >>  John K Clark
> >>
> >>
> >> **
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> > send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> > send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                          

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to