I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...

[cielo]

[ QUOTE ]
He may eventually accurately predict that a human with a certain set of norms will have a certain probability of having his genes survive relative to a human with a different set of norms. But no scientist can tell us why gene proliferation (or anything else) is good without making reference to some foundational arbitrary principle (like "god said so," "human survival is good," or "because I want to live").

[/ QUOTE ]

How is because I want to survive arbitrary?

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


cielo

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Au contraire.

If science is to mean only the physical or experimental sciences than Ethics is not a science. But this is not the true definition of science. The philosophical definition of science is the certain knowledge of things in their causes, and Ethics completely fulfills this definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Karl Popper, philosopher of science, a scientific theory is one that can be falsified by testing its predictions against our observations. According to dictionary.com, science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Both of these definitions of science agree with my use of the term and not yours. I guess one can always claim not to have made a mistake by redefining a word to mean something other than what a reasonable speaker of English would understand the word to mean.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
How is because I want to survive arbitrary?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recharacterize the statement as "my survival is good." Now prove it without making a moral assumption of the form "x is good" or "x is bad." At some point, you must make an arbitrary (or intuitive) choice between "x is good" and "x is bad."

[ QUOTE ]

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly my point -- all moral principles derive, fundamentally, from an arbitrary assumption about what is good and what is bad. None of the principles derived from the initial assumption are arbitrary in realtion to the assumption -- they follow from deductive reasoning, the initial assumption, and experience(science). But at base, they too are the result of an arbitrary chioce.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
The system itself could be said to be arbitrary, but what comes out of it is determined by the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i'm thinking along these lines

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
What one ought to do is a fact regardless, and subject to scientific scrutiny. One group of scientists should never try to illegitimatize the subject matter of a different group of scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of ipse dixit.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am accelerating so quickly into the realm of Post Modernism that all concept of meaning applicable to the words you have spoken are blurring into a potential gestalt which as yet escapes me. Except for noob. I suspect that could be key.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds like a very funny joke that i want to get, but i am not smart enough too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was categorized as a Post Modernist on the test linked to by another Thread. I've been pondering the implications of this [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] . "noob" just sounds like a funny word to me. This style of post flows from a subcharacter of myself who's belief in conspiracy theories runs to the galactic level.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

noob is indeed an awesome word

[Peter666]

Thanks.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a simplified take of my opinion on objective values . . . Everything's hunky-dory so long as we agree with each other, but once we disgree it becomes necessary to tell other people how they should live. Not cool.

Scott

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morality is the most useful lie we have ever told.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?


cielo

[/ QUOTE ]


By following moral rules, we increase our chance at "succeeding" as a species. I judge success on a single basis, existance. Existance is the most base, fundamental "good", as subjectively believed by our society. It is this way because the more we value life, the more likely we are to survive.

Since morality is a creation of man, it cannot have any true authority beyond the purpose it serves. For it to function, it must be held as an absolute authority. So we lie, and ascribe morality authority over all, with great results.

It is unfortunately ultimately flawed. As we become more rational we lose our inherent obedience to morality (as we lose our belief in religion), which is why it must be substitued for philosophy. Social contract.

[cielo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is because I want to survive arbitrary?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recharacterize the statement as "my survival is good." Now prove it without making a moral assumption of the form "x is good" or "x is bad." At some point, you must make an arbitrary (or intuitive) choice between "x is good" and "x is bad."

[ QUOTE ]

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly my point -- all moral principles derive, fundamentally, from an arbitrary assumption about what is good and what is bad. None of the principles derived from the initial assumption are arbitrary in realtion to the assumption -- they follow from deductive reasoning, the initial assumption, and experience(science). But at base, they too are the result of an arbitrary chioce.

[/ QUOTE ]



Ah, yes, compelling.

We are now left with the question, "What do you do with your life?" There is a fundamental choice right?, to live or to die, like that one play says right? Assuming that you do want to live (this would be our "arbitrary/intuitive starting poing right?), could you then deduce "correct" ways of action with respect to this end?