Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Pyrrho: what is a benefit is a complex question, yes. Something that improves someone's quality of life. I make the determination using my judgement and experience. I have a lot of previous data to draw on regarding what is generally likely to improve the quality of someone's life. Of course everything is a sliding scale and includes probability judgements, I can never be sure of the total effect of my actions. I can just do my best. I want to help people enjoy their life, be happy, be healthy, save them unecessary suffering and discomfort. It's true that caring about the environment could well be covered as an indirect way of caring about humans and animals, yes. I suppose I think of it as distinct, but the reason I care about it is the knock-on effect on life. So you're quite right.
...
I still do not know what you mean by "benefit," as "quality of life" is equally perplexing. Perhaps giving specific examples of what you mean might help with this.
I hesitate to make suggestions about this, as I do not want to lead you away from whatever it is you are thinking. You might want to formulate a couple of examples that help clarify your meaning before reading on, to avoid any influence from what follows.
I will ask a couple of questions even though it might lead us off on some tangent.
How would you select between someone having a really enjoyable, short life, and one that is longer and enjoyable, but not as intensely enjoyable? Which is more "beneficial" for the person? And would it be a good idea for me to take a massive dose of morphine that would be very enjoyable, but may quickly end my life? (That is hypothetical, as good morphine is not easily available. Also, you need not worry about me blindly doing whatever you suggest; were the morphine at hand, I would decide for myself regardless of what you say.)
Since you said originally that the consequences are what matters, would it be a good idea to just kill everyone as quickly as possible, to prevent their future suffering, and the suffering of those not yet born? Granted, one also prevents their future pleasures, but people (and animals generally) are more capable of feeling pain than pleasure. Since I have posted on that before, I will simply quote myself:
(August 11, 2015 at 11:20 am)Pyrrho Wrote:
(August 11, 2015 at 5:32 am)ignoramus Wrote: ...
Nothing really good or really bad lasts a long time.
...
I disagree with that saying. David Hume expressed it well, so I will simply quote him:
Quote:Admitting your position, replied PHILO, which yet is extremely doubtful, you must at the same time allow, that if pain be less frequent than pleasure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of our common insipid enjoyments; and how many days, weeks, and months, are passed by several in the most acute torments? Pleasure, scarcely in one instance, is ever able to reach ecstasy and rapture; and in no one instance can it continue for any time at its highest pitch and altitude. The spirits evaporate, the nerves relax, the fabric is disordered, and the enjoyment quickly degenerates into fatigue and uneasiness. But pain often, good God, how often! rises to torture and agony; and the longer it continues, it becomes still more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhausted, courage languishes, melancholy seizes us, and nothing terminates our misery but the removal of its cause, or another event, which is the sole cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with still greater horror and consternation.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 10, David Hume.
Humans, and animals generally, are much more capable of experiencing pain than pleasure. You cannot have a continuous orgasm, but you can be in continuous agony.
Maybe the U.S. should use all of its nuclear weapons to try to destroy all animal life, or as much of it as possible, in order to prevent future suffering. (If we do not use them, it will be the biggest waste of money in the history of the world, but as you have not said anything about wasting money, that may be irrelevant to your system. However, the waste of money does bother me, as some of my money has been spent on such things, whether I wanted them or not.) If we could strategically kill everyone with them, should we? Granted, it does not make people happy and healthy, but it does save them from unnecessary suffering. Indeed, the only realistic way to prevent all suffering is by dying, and since one can die right away, that means that future suffering is unnecessary.
If you would rather reply to any of this in a PM or email instead of here, go ahead.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Got a question. In #5 life has no inherent purpose. Do you mean human life or all life? What about the those hind brain instincts (purpose). For instance taking in life supporting nutrients or continuing the species? Flight of flight reaction?
Great list!
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
(August 15, 2015 at 11:10 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Could you explain the difference between Agnosticism and Ignosticism? I looked up the definitions but I'm still confused.
robvalue can answer for himself, but the distinguishing characteristic of ignosticism is the idea that the term "god" is meaningless. Therefore, saying "god exists" is like saying "sdfadsafdjsl exits." In other words, it is not really saying anything.
A standard agnostic is someone who does not say that the term "god" is meaningless, but says that he or she does not know whether god exists or not. The ignostic says that the question of "god's" existence is meaningless and therefore nothing is being asked when one utters, "does god exist?"
To give more details, to the question "Does god exist?"
Weak atheist: I do not believe god exists (and do not believe god does not exist). (The weak atheist simply does not believe the statement "god exists" and does not affirm that god does not exist.)
As you can see from the link to ignosticism, there is some dispute over whether ignosticism is compatible with agnosticism or some form of atheism. Also, an ignostic may simply say he or she is an atheist when asked such things, to avoid having to explain his or her position and to give a simple answer that gives at least an approximation of their position (that is, it is more akin to atheism than theism).
Bold Mine:
This is where I was getting confused because it seems like a person could be both.
robvalue can answer for himself, but the distinguishing characteristic of ignosticism is the idea that the term "god" is meaningless. Therefore, saying "god exists" is like saying "sdfadsafdjsl exits." In other words, it is not really saying anything.
A standard agnostic is someone who does not say that the term "god" is meaningless, but says that he or she does not know whether god exists or not. The ignostic says that the question of "god's" existence is meaningless and therefore nothing is being asked when one utters, "does god exist?"
To give more details, to the question "Does god exist?"
Weak atheist: I do not believe god exists (and do not believe god does not exist). (The weak atheist simply does not believe the statement "god exists" and does not affirm that god does not exist.)
As you can see from the link to ignosticism, there is some dispute over whether ignosticism is compatible with agnosticism or some form of atheism. Also, an ignostic may simply say he or she is an atheist when asked such things, to avoid having to explain his or her position and to give a simple answer that gives at least an approximation of their position (that is, it is more akin to atheism than theism).
Bold Mine:
This is where I was getting confused because it seems like a person could be both.
To take a position on the bolded part would automatically be controversial. However, I can uncontroversially say this about the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism: Even if they are compatible with each other, agnosticism does not entail ignosticism. One can easily be an agnostic without being an ignostic. If one takes the position that the word "god" is meaningful and one does not know whether a god exists or not, one is an agnostic and not an ignostic.
The essential feature of an ignostic is the idea that the word "god" is not meaningful. If one is consistent on that, one will not say any of the following:
"God exists."
"God does not exist."
"I do not know if god exists or not."
In all of those sentences, the word "god" is used as though it is meaningful. Of course, as I previously stated, an ignostic might give an approximate response rather than one that is technically correct, if the ignostic does not want to bother with a lengthy conversation about this.
A strict ignostic response to the question (or, from an ignostic standpoint, the pseudo-question) "Does god exist?" would be something like:
"'God' is not a meaningful term."
"What do you mean by the word 'god'?"
Sometimes, though, one does not want to waste time talking with people who speak gibberish, and so one might respond as though they were making sense to avoid the kinds of responses one will likely get from those ignostic responses.
And matters can get more complicated, as one could acknowledge some conceptions and uses of the term "god" as meaningful, while saying that in some other cases the term "god" is not being used meaningfully. This makes me think of a story I have posted before.
Quote:Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"
(August 15, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Bold Mine:
This is where I was getting confused because it seems like a person could be both.
To take a position on the bolded part would automatically be controversial. However, I can uncontroversially say this about the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism: Even if they are compatible with each other, agnosticism does not entail ignosticism. One can easily be an agnostic without being an ignostic. If one takes the position that the word "god" is meaningful and one does not know whether a god exists or not, one is an agnostic and not an ignostic.
The essential feature of an ignostic is the idea that the word "god" is not meaningful. If one is consistent on that, one will not say any of the following:
"God exists."
"God does not exist."
"I do not know if god exists or not."
In all of those sentences, the word "god" is used as though it is meaningful. Of course, as I previously stated, an ignostic might give an approximate response rather than one that is technically correct, if the ignostic does not want to bother with a lengthy conversation about this.
A strict ignostic response to the question (or, from an ignostic standpoint, the pseudo-question) "Does god exist?" would be something like:
"'God' is not a meaningful term."
"What do you mean by the word 'god'?"
Sometimes, though, one does not want to waste time talking with people who speak gibberish, and so one might respond as though they were making sense to avoid the kinds of responses one will likely get from those ignostic responses.
And matters can get more complicated, as one could acknowledge some conceptions and uses of the term "god" as meaningful, while saying that in some other cases the term "god" is not being used meaningfully. This makes me think of a story I have posted before.
Quote:Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"
Sometimes, a term can start out as being meaningful, but be slowly stripped of its meaning until nothing is left.
Yes I agree, I too think the term god is meaningless, but does the position change given the definition of god? The Christian god for example is a defined concept with attributes, so would you be an agnostic towards that god or do you maintain the ignostic position?
August 16, 2015 at 1:36 am (This post was last modified: August 16, 2015 at 2:13 am by robvalue.)
Thanks again for all the very interesting questions! It's way deeper than I expected I hope I've addressed all points, if I've missed anything please let me know.
The point of all this is to try and see if I can at least attempt to answer any question put to me, about anything, without having to dodge it entirely as I have seen from some theists. And of course to test my beliefs are consistent, as far as possible. "I don't know", "that's a very complex moral issue" or "this is the answer to the best of my knowledge" are adequate answers, in my opinion. If anyone wants to make the case that they are not adequate, feel free to. I'm not claiming to know everything, or to put myself forward as an authority on anything. I'm answering personally, to the best of my ability.
As it happens, the questions have been great and are producing very interesting results
Wizard:
Yes, the position can change if the question becomes more specific. The ignostic position is just a general, pre-emptive one; as is "atheist". For all I know, the person may just say "apples are gods". So I then say I yes, I believe in apples. Or the universe, or whatever they say "is God" as well as just existing.
So basically, if anyone asked me "do you believe in God" I would always reply, "What do you mean by God?". (As Pyrrho said, it depends on the audience. I may just say no if I think there's no productive dialogue to be had.) My answer would then depend on what they say. I think definitions are incredibly important. I find when listening to debates, one of the participants has not at all made clear what they mean by one of the terms and is using multiple different definitions at various points; deliberately or otherwise. To ask the question "what is God" can be useful in itself. I don't think people in general have a fucking clue! It can help the person understand themselves what their beliefs actually mean.
If someone says, "the Christian God" then I can reasonably say no, I don't believe the character in the bible is real. I can't know that for sure; however, if the person adheres to a literal interpretation I can make the case that the being is self contradictory and so cannot exist.
Brewer:
Thank you! Yes, I mean all life has no inherent, objective purpose. Any purpose can only be assigned by a sentient being. I know what you're saying, certain life forms appear to just do something specific, and human brains have reflex actions and so on. However, this "purpose" is only apparent when we analyse what is going on and apply our notions of cause and effect. We then proclaim that the purpose is to produce such results.
So it's more like we are observing what happens, and then assigning meaning based on that observation. To us, it is meaningful that a certain bacteria always does this and that. The language becomes difficult, because we are always viewing things through our own filters. I suppose it's a matter of defining exactly what I mean by "purpose" in this context. I mean achieving something which objectively amounts to more than just performing the actions themselves. This "something more" is subjectively added by the importance to any particular observer. From the point of view of our entire reality, it's all just stuff moving about. Maybe "meaning" would have been a better word. Purpose and meaning are concepts granted only by thinking agents, and as such are subjective and not inherent properties.
Pyrrho:
Yes, morality is extremely complex! When I say quality of life, that is a huge sliding scale in itself. The examples you refer to are very difficult to answer definitively because there are a massive number of issues at hand. So I'd have to say that in both the morphine one and the "should we wipe out all life" one, these would require huge amounts of careful analysis to try and answer. In both of these, I would say that I would avoid as much as I possibly could being solely responsible for making such a decision, I'd want to include as many other relevant people in the discussion as possible.
Now, some theists may say "you didn't answer the question, you're belief system sucks!" To this, I'd say I did answer it, my answer is just that "I don't know". It's too complex to give a simple answer to.
These kind of situations are going to be very rare. And since they both have a whole lot at stake, they require a lot of careful analysis, not some glib binary answer (you know all this of course ). Most of the time, morality is much more simple. I'll give some examples:
-Someone asks me directions, to which I am confident I can give an accurate answer. Unless there is some compelling extra reason not to, I would always give them the directions. I have given them a small positive effect to them. I've saved them time it would otherwise take them trying to find the place. I've removed the worry of them not knowing where they are going. There appears to be no negative "cost" to balance. Of course, morality is a very complex subject (which is why religion fails at it so hard by trying to introduce black and white thinking). You could always make further arguments such as I'm robbing them of the experience of finding the place on their own. This is true. I don't put myself forward as some sort of ultimate authority on anything, let alone morality. I do my best, but ultimately every aspect could be debated. I don't have time to analyse in such detail every decision I make, it's not practical. In this example, the possible negatives don't appear tangible enough to withhold the information. And clearly they want the info, or they wouldn't ask me.
So it's really complex. Analysing benefits and cost is no simple matter, it's just the starting point of what is important.
Other random examples of improving the quality of someone's life: Intervening when someone/thing is hurting them, such as a rapist or an object pinning them to the floor. Providing a sympathetic ear to help someone unburden or think through their problems. Giving them some food when they are starving.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
robvaule, I am still not satisfied with your response to my questions. However, in the overall scheme of what the thread is about, I do not find your belief system to be particularly problematic. Quite the opposite, really. But I am still not fully satisfied. I do not think that the effort it will take to achieve complete satisfaction will be worth the minimal gains to be had, so I am not going to pursue the matter any further, unless you prod me to do so. And even then, I might just suggest that you read David Hume's Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.
Too bad you are so far away and unable to drink, or I would want to buy you a beer and have a pleasant chat in a local pub.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(August 16, 2015 at 1:36 am)robvalue Wrote: Thanks again for all the very interesting questions! It's way deeper than I expected I hope I've addressed all points, if I've missed anything please let me know.
As it happens, the questions have been great and are producing very interesting results
Brewer:
Thank you! Yes, I mean all life has no inherent, objective purpose. Any purpose can only be assigned by a sentient being. I know what you're saying, certain life forms appear to just do something specific, and human brains have reflex actions and so on. However, this "purpose" is only apparent when we analyse what is going on and apply our notions of cause and effect. We then proclaim that the purpose is to produce such results.
So it's more like we are observing what happens, and then assigning meaning based on that observation. To us, it is meaningful that a certain bacteria always does this and that. The language becomes difficult, because we are always viewing things through our own filters. I suppose it's a matter of defining exactly what I mean by "purpose" in this context. I mean achieving something which objectively amounts to more than just performing the actions themselves. This "something more" is subjectively added by the importance to any particular observer. From the point of view of our entire reality, it's all just stuff moving about. Maybe "meaning" would have been a better word. Purpose and meaning are concepts granted only by thinking agents, and as such are subjective and not inherent properties.
Works for me. Thanks Rob!
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
August 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm (This post was last modified: August 16, 2015 at 3:25 pm by robvalue.)
You're welcome
Pyrrho: fair enough! Yes, it would be great if we could meet up for a chat. It's a shame I don't live closer. I shall check that out if my brain is up to it. Morality is ridiculously complex, as complex as you want to make it really. I don't expect to have easy answers ready for it. I'm glad you find my beliefs reasonably consistent anyhow I'm not entirely sure what your objection is, feel free to PM if you would like. I would imagine my morality isn't going to be much different from your own, broadly speaking.
Someone ask me what I'd do if God turned up and told me to kill people. I can answer questions like that without needing any thought at all. It rhymes with fuck off. No wait, it is fuck off.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(August 15, 2015 at 4:47 am)robvalue Wrote: 3) I do not claim that anything I say is certainly correct, nor do I claim to know everything. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. I can speculate, but I'm aware that is what I am doing.
4) My morality is based on evaluating the consequences of my actions. I weigh the likely benefit to humans, animals and the environment against the likely costs. No other definition of morality matters to me. My answer to any moral question may be that it's very complex and I'd have to consider all angles. I don't have instant answers to everything.
7) I believe in people and animals being treated as fairly as possible, regardless of their particular attributes or personal choices. Of course some choices to harm others must be met with removal from general society in order to prevent further harm to others.
Go for it!
An interesting combination, is that you've formed your own morality (4), which you accept is not "certainly correct" (3), but you're comfortable applying it to and judging others (7).
I wonder if with 7 you're dealing with 'right and wrong' or just the practicality of the situation. It seems like applying a philosophy you are uncertain of to everybody to the point that they would be removed from general society would be a big move based on something you aren't certain of.
While if it's a practicality, it'd be a much less big deal. For example, I don't think murder (or anything really) is wrong, but I'm comfortable sticking local murderers in jail because the implications of murdering willy-nilly would be bad for me. While some African Warlord can murder people much more willy-nilly'r than anyone in my area, and I don't feel the need to do anything about it.
I hope I've addressed all points, if I've missed anything please let me know.
It rhymes with fuck off. No wait, it is fuck off.
