Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Good and Evil on the Marco Scale

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 2:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most of you already know what you think is my opinion of morality. A sort of Nihilism or Relativism. I have said, "Sure! Morality exists. All sorts of moralities! For there are all sorts of standards to measure it by. But one that is entirely binding to all? Absurd."

But now I go further. Not only do good and bad only exist by certain imagined standards, but even by any of those standards, no act can sum to being practically applied as good or bad on a macro level. Due to, what through my own imposed standards of logic, could be called a perfect and ever-adjusting balance of the universe.

Let us take an example. Murder is a good one. Let us use the standard of "Pain is bad. Pleasure is good", since, in one way or another, this is align with most systems of moral measurement. My assertion is not that killing someone has no effect on either pain or pleasure. My assertion is that all murder together has an equal effect of pain and pleasure. So, even using a moral standard, murder, in general, cannot be immoral. Though, committing a murder yourself still can be. A single murder causes the suffering for those who loved the person that died and possibly in the way the person was killed. This is really the big societal reason that murder is outlawed. However, there are far more implications than just those. There is also how much "good" or "bad" the person killed may have committed if they hadn't of died. There, still, is also how much "good" or "bad" they may have, themselves, experienced if they hadn't of died. Now, let us imagine that we kill off everyone all at once. The result is that there never anymore "good" or "bad" from that point on. With no one there, there is no one to care. A balance. However, we must ask, was this balanced established or simply continued? I assert that it is continued. For when all "good" and "bad" consequences are taken into account within a closed system, no matter what standard used, they always end up canceling each other out.

Many argue about whether society has been progressing or degrading. In fact, it has never gone anywhere. To conclude otherwise is simply the cherry picking of data. Let us take the assertion that it has progressed as another example. Proponents will point to the increase in living standards and human rights. But do these things really conclude less suffering? We generally come to that conclusion only because we see it's truth on an individual level. Give a starving person some food and they will feel better. Give an oppressed person some liberty and they will feel better. Let us, rather, look at whole societies. It turns out we always have to choose our worries and our joys. For the medieval peasant, they had the worries you might expect. But for a, say, modern day hipster, these worries are replaced with new things from which just as much strife is obtained, no matter how, in contrast, we may observe the latter's worries as being trivial.

Ah! But then you may retort; so if everyone in the world was hooked up to a torture or pleasure machine, it wouldn't disrupt the balance? But you are silly to ask. For my assertion is not concerning hypothetical possibility. It's obviously possible to imagine some situation where there is a disrupted balance. Rather, my assertion implies that it is not practically possibly to disrupt the balance. In other words, it's not necessarily that it can't happen but that it won't happen. For the series of events that would be necessary to lead up to such circumstances would imply consequences that would either prevent it or balance it with opposite results.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 2:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is Kelly Clarkson so fat?

Because there's a balance.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 3:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 2:58:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Why is Kelly Clarkson so fat?

Because there's a balance.

Why are clouds blue?

Because there's a balance.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 3:36:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I wrote a strond and lengthy response to this and then I deleted it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 3:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 3:36:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I wrote a strond and lengthy response to this and then I deleted it.

Well...thanks for your time.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 4:19:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 3:41:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/5/2012 3:36:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I wrote a strond and lengthy response to this and then I deleted it.

Well...thanks for your time.

Most interesting, Freedo. Most interesting, indeed.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 4:27:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 4:19:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/5/2012 3:41:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/5/2012 3:36:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I wrote a strond and lengthy response to this and then I deleted it.

Well...thanks for your time.

Most interesting, Freedo. Most interesting, indeed.

The Fool: You know I do that ALOT ! Its gets long to the point where I figure I will just write a whole article on it later.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:07:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ahhh, balance. We all love symmetry. It is a pretty concept, quite a pretty word. In synthetically manifesting symmetry, we see the natural beauty that it has the potential to present, and figure that perhaps, this is the way it aught to be.

Then, in exploring reality, we begin to believe that symmetry is actually a physical law; something that is innate within all things. However, this is only to an extent. In terms of essence of things -- the transfer of energy, for example, or the biological drive for homeostasis with oneself, with others, and with one's entire ecosystem, there is always some degree of uncertainty. Decay, exhaustion, emission, radioactivity.

One comes to realize that the pursuit for symmetry and the achievement of symmetry are two entirely different things. The Universe seems to tend toward perfect geometric shapes, a perfect balance of energy and matter, and the perfect balance of creation and destruction -- the incessant battle between happenstance that just so happens to spur order vis a vis the immediate degradation into chaos from order, almost reflexively. But, it isn't actually the case. The Universe is filled with ellipses, oblong constructions, and general imbalances.

This means that certain conditions instigate an imbalance. It also means that balance, as a pursuit, can be satisfied as "what is good," rather than some esoteric interpretation of a series of unrelated senstations, such as "pleasure" and "pain." Because, I can't think of a greater good to strive for than that which the Universe itself strives.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 2:00:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:07:13 PM, Ren wrote:
Ahhh, balance. We all love symmetry. It is a pretty concept, quite a pretty word. In synthetically manifesting symmetry, we see the natural beauty that it has the potential to present, and figure that perhaps, this is the way it aught to be.

Then, in exploring reality, we begin to believe that symmetry is actually a physical law; something that is innate within all things. However, this is only to an extent. In terms of essence of things -- the transfer of energy, for example, or the biological drive for homeostasis with oneself, with others, and with one's entire ecosystem, there is always some degree of uncertainty. Decay, exhaustion, emission, radioactivity.

One comes to realize that the pursuit for symmetry and the achievement of symmetry are two entirely different things. The Universe seems to tend toward perfect geometric shapes, a perfect balance of energy and matter, and the perfect balance of creation and destruction -- the incessant battle between happenstance that just so happens to spur order vis a vis the immediate degradation into chaos from order, almost reflexively. But, it isn't actually the case. The Universe is filled with ellipses, oblong constructions, and general imbalances.

This means that certain conditions instigate an imbalance. It also means that balance, as a pursuit, can be satisfied as "what is good," rather than some esoteric interpretation of a series of unrelated senstations, such as "pleasure" and "pain." Because, I can't think of a greater good to strive for than that which the Universe itself strives.

Notice: I do not assert that balance is something inherent in the universe. It is a phenomenon of measurement. Just as mathematics. It is purely human.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 5:04:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 2:50:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
My assertion is not that killing someone has no effect on either pain or pleasure. My assertion is that all murder together has an equal effect of pain and pleasure.

How do you come to think such a thing?
why can't it be pitched in one or the others favor?

So, even using a moral standard, murder, in general, cannot be immoral. Though, committing a murder yourself still can be. A single murder causes the suffering for those who loved the person that died and possibly in the way the person was killed. This is really the big societal reason that murder is outlawed. However, there are far more implications than just those. There is also how much "good" or "bad" the person killed may have committed if they hadn't of died. There, still, is also how much "good" or "bad" they may have, themselves, experienced if they hadn't of died. Now, let us imagine that we kill off everyone all at once. The result is that there never anymore "good" or "bad" from that point on. With no one there, there is no one to care. A balance. However, we must ask, was this balanced established or simply continued? I assert that it is continued. For when all "good" and "bad" consequences are taken into account within a closed system, no matter what standard used, they always end up canceling each other out.

why do you think this???

Many argue about whether society has been progressing or degrading. In fact, it has never gone anywhere. To conclude otherwise is simply the cherry picking of data. Let us take the assertion that it has progressed as another example. Proponents will point to the increase in living standards and human rights. But do these things really conclude less suffering? We generally come to that conclusion only because we see it's truth on an individual level. Give a starving person some food and they will feel better. Give an oppressed person some liberty and they will feel better. Let us, rather, look at whole societies. It turns out we always have to choose our worries and our joys. For the medieval peasant, they had the worries you might expect. But for a, say, modern day hipster, these worries are replaced with new things from which just as much strife is obtained, no matter how, in contrast, we may observe the latter's worries as being trivial.
Ah! But then you may retort; so if everyone in the world was hooked up to a torture or pleasure machine, it wouldn't disrupt the balance? But you are silly to ask. For my assertion is not concerning hypothetical possibility. It's obviously possible to imagine some situation where there is a disrupted balance. Rather, my assertion implies that it is not practically possibly to disrupt the balance. In other words, it's not necessarily that it can't happen but that it won't happen. For the series of events that would be necessary to lead up to such circumstances would imply consequences that would either prevent it or balance it with opposite results.

I don't get why pleasure and pain must be balanced.

how do you come to think such?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 3:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 5:04:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
how do you come to think such?

It is a matrix of mathematical human imposition. Picture, for a moment, that there is an infinite supply of red marbles and blue marbles. By knocking one into a direction, it hits others and that is it's individual effect. But those marbles it hit hits others and those others hit more still. We end up having an equal amount of blue marbles and red displaced, no matter the color of the original marble or the ones it hit.

This is a very crude example. It is chaos theory.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 3:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 3:28:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/6/2012 5:04:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
how do you come to think such?

It is a matrix of mathematical human imposition. Picture, for a moment, that there is an infinite supply of red marbles and blue marbles. By knocking one into a direction, it hits others and that is it's individual effect. But those marbles it hit hits others and those others hit more still. We end up having an equal amount of blue marbles and red displaced, no matter the color of the original marble or the ones it hit.

This is a very crude example. It is chaos theory.

Though, that doesn't really answer your question. How I came to believe it has more to do with me being a raving lunatic.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 3:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 3:29:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/6/2012 3:28:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/6/2012 5:04:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
how do you come to think such?

It is a matrix of mathematical human imposition. Picture, for a moment, that there is an infinite supply of red marbles and blue marbles. By knocking one into a direction, it hits others and that is it's individual effect. But those marbles it hit hits others and those others hit more still. We end up having an equal amount of blue marbles and red displaced, no matter the color of the original marble or the ones it hit.

This is a very crude example. It is chaos theory.

Though, that doesn't really answer your question. How I came to believe it has more to do with me being a raving lunatic.

There are a finite number of people.. murders.. etc...

and there's no reason, regardless of this fact, that there can't be more pain or happiness than the other... perhaps the imbalance is infinite too.. perhaps the blue marbles are Bigger and so displace the little red ones more than the red ones displace the blue.. or somethings?? :P

It would seem you're asserting things which you have no reason for asserting.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 9:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 2:00:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/5/2012 7:07:13 PM, Ren wrote:
Ahhh, balance. We all love symmetry. It is a pretty concept, quite a pretty word. In synthetically manifesting symmetry, we see the natural beauty that it has the potential to present, and figure that perhaps, this is the way it aught to be.

Then, in exploring reality, we begin to believe that symmetry is actually a physical law; something that is innate within all things. However, this is only to an extent. In terms of essence of things -- the transfer of energy, for example, or the biological drive for homeostasis with oneself, with others, and with one's entire ecosystem, there is always some degree of uncertainty. Decay, exhaustion, emission, radioactivity.

One comes to realize that the pursuit for symmetry and the achievement of symmetry are two entirely different things. The Universe seems to tend toward perfect geometric shapes, a perfect balance of energy and matter, and the perfect balance of creation and destruction -- the incessant battle between happenstance that just so happens to spur order vis a vis the immediate degradation into chaos from order, almost reflexively. But, it isn't actually the case. The Universe is filled with ellipses, oblong constructions, and general imbalances.

This means that certain conditions instigate an imbalance. It also means that balance, as a pursuit, can be satisfied as "what is good," rather than some esoteric interpretation of a series of unrelated senstations, such as "pleasure" and "pain." Because, I can't think of a greater good to strive for than that which the Universe itself strives.

Notice: I do not assert that balance is something inherent in the universe. It is a phenomenon of measurement. Just as mathematics. It is purely human.

You think that mathematics is "purely human?"

Perhaps, to the extent of the way it's manifested.

However, I would consider Mathematics more a discovery than a contrivance.

Let's take language, for example, which is essentially the same analogue. Language, in and of itself, is obviously a contrivance. However, it does relate to real things. I don't mean the concepts they're attempting to communicate are necessarily valid, but the communication does refer to actual concepts, observations, synapses, or whatever. These exist despite the communication, and thus, the communication is only a means to reflecting it in a way that something real is translated and shared.

In this way, although all things involved in such communication are manmade, the only thing manmade about it is the translation, but not what it originally was. What language is attempting to communicate does exist, though, and it exists despite humanity.

In fact, everything is communication, really. Matter is the receiver and transmitter, while energy is being transmitted. In terms of our senses, matter communicates with our organs, which in turn, communicate with our brains, and we interact by communicating back in various ways.

These translations themselves are real to the extent that they're translations, but what they're translating remains real.

Alright, so that said. Mathematics. It is a translation; indeed, I myself consider it a language. However, everything that this language describes is actual, and exists in reality. This is why one could apply Mathematical statements to describe and manipulate reality itself.

Physics -- our latter day runes, spells, and incantations.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 10:01:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 9:53:10 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/6/2012 2:00:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/5/2012 7:07:13 PM, Ren wrote:
Ahhh, balance. We all love symmetry. It is a pretty concept, quite a pretty word. In synthetically manifesting symmetry, we see the natural beauty that it has the potential to present, and figure that perhaps, this is the way it aught to be.

Then, in exploring reality, we begin to believe that symmetry is actually a physical law; something that is innate within all things. However, this is only to an extent. In terms of essence of things -- the transfer of energy, for example, or the biological drive for homeostasis with oneself, with others, and with one's entire ecosystem, there is always some degree of uncertainty. Decay, exhaustion, emission, radioactivity.

One comes to realize that the pursuit for symmetry and the achievement of symmetry are two entirely different things. The Universe seems to tend toward perfect geometric shapes, a perfect balance of energy and matter, and the perfect balance of creation and destruction -- the incessant battle between happenstance that just so happens to spur order vis a vis the immediate degradation into chaos from order, almost reflexively. But, it isn't actually the case. The Universe is filled with ellipses, oblong constructions, and general imbalances.

This means that certain conditions instigate an imbalance. It also means that balance, as a pursuit, can be satisfied as "what is good," rather than some esoteric interpretation of a series of unrelated senstations, such as "pleasure" and "pain." Because, I can't think of a greater good to strive for than that which the Universe itself strives.

Notice: I do not assert that balance is something inherent in the universe. It is a phenomenon of measurement. Just as mathematics. It is purely human.

You think that mathematics is "purely human?"

Perhaps, to the extent of the way it's manifested.

However, I would consider Mathematics more a discovery than a contrivance.

Let's take language, for example, which is essentially the same analogue. Language, in and of itself, is obviously a contrivance. However, it does relate to real things. I don't mean the concepts they're attempting to communicate are necessarily valid, but the communication does refer to actual concepts, observations, synapses, or whatever. These exist despite the communication, and thus, the communication is only a means to reflecting it in a way that something real is translated and shared.

In this way, although all things involved in such communication are manmade, the only thing manmade about it is the translation, but not what it originally was. What language is attempting to communicate does exist, though, and it exists despite humanity.

In fact, everything is communication, really. Matter is the receiver and transmitter, while energy is being transmitted. In terms of our senses, matter communicates with our organs, which in turn, communicate with our brains, and we interact by communicating back in various ways.

These translations themselves are real to the extent that they're translations, but what they're translating remains real.

Alright, so that said. Mathematics. It is a translation; indeed, I myself consider it a language. However, everything that this language describes is actual, and exists in reality. This is why one could apply Mathematical statements to describe and manipulate reality itself.

Physics -- our latter day runes, spells, and incantations.

http://www.google.com...'s%2520Existence.pdf&ei=oxnQT7-YGsbs0gGu55jIDQ&usg=AFQjCNFRjh2ps98eQxPNYR5qe-a1Hvkm9g&sig2=Qm2L8Nb6m5eKf6Sbgy1H0g
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 10:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 9:53:10 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/6/2012 2:00:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/5/2012 7:07:13 PM, Ren wrote:
Ahhh, balance. We all love symmetry. It is a pretty concept, quite a pretty word. In synthetically manifesting symmetry, we see the natural beauty that it has the potential to present, and figure that perhaps, this is the way it aught to be.

Then, in exploring reality, we begin to believe that symmetry is actually a physical law; something that is innate within all things. However, this is only to an extent. In terms of essence of things -- the transfer of energy, for example, or the biological drive for homeostasis with oneself, with others, and with one's entire ecosystem, there is always some degree of uncertainty. Decay, exhaustion, emission, radioactivity.

One comes to realize that the pursuit for symmetry and the achievement of symmetry are two entirely different things. The Universe seems to tend toward perfect geometric shapes, a perfect balance of energy and matter, and the perfect balance of creation and destruction -- the incessant battle between happenstance that just so happens to spur order vis a vis the immediate degradation into chaos from order, almost reflexively. But, it isn't actually the case. The Universe is filled with ellipses, oblong constructions, and general imbalances.

This means that certain conditions instigate an imbalance. It also means that balance, as a pursuit, can be satisfied as "what is good," rather than some esoteric interpretation of a series of unrelated senstations, such as "pleasure" and "pain." Because, I can't think of a greater good to strive for than that which the Universe itself strives.

Notice: I do not assert that balance is something inherent in the universe. It is a phenomenon of measurement. Just as mathematics. It is purely human.

You think that mathematics is "purely human?"

Perhaps, to the extent of the way it's manifested.

However, I would consider Mathematics more a discovery than a contrivance.

Let's take language, for example, which is essentially the same analogue. Language, in and of itself, is obviously a contrivance. However, it does relate to real things. I don't mean the concepts they're attempting to communicate are necessarily valid, but the communication does refer to actual concepts, observations, synapses, or whatever. These exist despite the communication, and thus, the communication is only a means to reflecting it in a way that something real is translated and shared.

In this way, although all things involved in such communication are manmade, the only thing manmade about it is the translation, but not what it originally was. What language is attempting to communicate does exist, though, and it exists despite humanity.

In fact, everything is communication, really. Matter is the receiver and transmitter, while energy is being transmitted. In terms of our senses, matter communicates with our organs, which in turn, communicate with our brains, and we interact by communicating back in various ways.

These translations themselves are real to the extent that they're translations, but what they're translating remains real.

Alright, so that said. Mathematics. It is a translation; indeed, I myself consider it a language. However, everything that this language describes is actual, and exists in reality. This is why one could apply Mathematical statements to describe and manipulate reality itself.

Physics -- our latter day runes, spells, and incantations.

oops. Just google conceptualist argument for the existence of God. It's not compelling, but it's rational.