Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Is it hypocritical...

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:11:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs?

No. There are no objective moral truths, because moral claims cannot be true or false but how you think is necessarily limited by the "cultural inheritance" in which you raise.

Ike, I don't know why I haven't thought of this before but you might be very interested in reading Judith Butler's "Giving an Account of Oneself."

Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse?

What do you mean by "the practical functionality of the universe"?

I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.

You do control your actions and there are "right and wrong" to the extent that culture defines them, but make no mistake... it is culture that defines those parameters.

Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:14:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's hypocritical insofar as you find fault with differing philosophies while not holding your own beliefs to those standards...and you do that (the occasional "I know my beliefs aren't justified" doesn't cut it).
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:15:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:11:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs?

No. There are no objective moral truths, because moral claims cannot be true or false but how you think is necessarily limited by the "cultural inheritance" in which you were raised.*

Ike, I don't know why I haven't thought of this before but you might be very interested in reading Judith Butler's "Giving an Account of Oneself."

Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse?

What do you mean by "the practical functionality of the universe"?

I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.

You do control your actions and there are "right and wrong" to the extent that culture defines them, but make no mistake... it is culture that defines those parameters.

Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:25:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:11:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs?

No. There are no objective moral truths, because moral claims cannot be true or false but how you think is necessarily limited by the "cultural inheritance" in which you raise.

Ike, I don't know why I haven't thought of this before but you might be very interested in reading Judith Butler's "Giving an Account of Oneself."

Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse?

What do you mean by "the practical functionality of the universe"?

I'm referring to the difference between what we know is true about issues like ethics and freewill and what we must assume in practice.

I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.

You do control your actions and there are "right and wrong" to the extent that culture defines them, but make no mistake... it is culture that defines those parameters.

right and wrong to the extent that culture defines them is grounded in collective opinion - an intersubjective verdict - not logical axioms. The latter is required for a proposition to be true about the universe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 11:32:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:25:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:11:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs?

No. There are no objective moral truths, because moral claims cannot be true or false but how you think is necessarily limited by the "cultural inheritance" in which you raise.

Ike, I don't know why I haven't thought of this before but you might be very interested in reading Judith Butler's "Giving an Account of Oneself."

Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse?

What do you mean by "the practical functionality of the universe"?

I'm referring to the difference between what we know is true about issues like ethics and freewill and what we must assume in practice.

Ok.


I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.

You do control your actions and there are "right and wrong" to the extent that culture defines them, but make no mistake... it is culture that defines those parameters.

right and wrong to the extent that culture defines them is grounded in collective opinion - an intersubjective verdict - not logical axioms. The latter is required for a proposition to be true about the universe.

I agree, because normative claims cannot be true or false.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 5:17:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?

It would be weird to write a disclaimer such as this before any communication.

"The below thoughts and opinions are not of my own volition and simply a result from the accumulation of my experiences and genetic makeup. The odds that my experiences and genetic makeup are aligned in a manner such that I output the truth is extremely rare, therefore please use your experiences and genetic makeup to evaluate my writings......just kidding, like you have a choice in how you will consume this information, not to mention your experiences and genetic makeup are way jacked up more than mine."

In all honesty, I don't see any hypocritical conforming to social norms when using communication. It is definitely a social norm to communicate thoughts and ideas like they are a choice. The nature of pre-determinism is that it is so complex that it gives the illusion of choice. Learn how to us that to your advantage.

However, I do find it fascinating thinking about how a group of people would conduct discussions if all believed in determinism and didn't want use mannerism which maintain the illusion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 6:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.marxists.org...

Max Beer wrote a good essay on the subject. Peter Strawson (and Stephen Law) has also done so in modern time. Both conclude the same: neither opinion necessarily impacts on your own personal actions. However, Strawson goes further to conclude that issues like "retribution" become meaningless, as we're just criticising someone for acting as per their previous determination.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:02:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?

I wouldn't say it's hypocrisy, but I would say it's likely an inconsistency that needs to be worked out.

http://www.marxists.org......

Max Beer wrote a good essay on the subject. Peter Strawson (and Stephen Law) has also done so in modern time. Both conclude the same: neither opinion necessarily impacts on your own personal actions. However, Strawson goes further to conclude that issues like "retribution" become meaningless, as we're just criticising someone for acting as per their previous determination.

I'll have to read this and maybe it'll change my position. Mind linking the Strawson one? Yeah, the link between moral nihilism and personal action is a different issue from moral philosophy and the idea of basing one's political thought on "hardline ethical issues." I really do feel at the point that the moral nihilist has a problem here.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:20:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:14:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's hypocritical insofar as you find fault with differing philosophies while not holding your own beliefs to those standards...and you do that (the occasional "I know my beliefs aren't justified" doesn't cut it).
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:17:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:20:42 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:14:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's hypocritical insofar as you find fault with differing philosophies while not holding your own beliefs to those standards...and you do that (the occasional "I know my beliefs aren't justified" doesn't cut it).

It isn't really, though. It's like a matter of taste.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:26:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:17:27 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:20:42 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:14:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's hypocritical insofar as you find fault with differing philosophies while not holding your own beliefs to those standards...and you do that (the occasional "I know my beliefs aren't justified" doesn't cut it).

It isn't really, though. It's like a matter of taste.

Between being hypocritical and not being hypocritical, sure. The most ike can get without using doublethink is whim-worship.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 4:50:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:02:40 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?

I wouldn't say it's hypocrisy, but I would say it's likely an inconsistency that needs to be worked out.

http://www.marxists.org......

Max Beer wrote a good essay on the subject. Peter Strawson (and Stephen Law) has also done so in modern time. Both conclude the same: neither opinion necessarily impacts on your own personal actions. However, Strawson goes further to conclude that issues like "retribution" become meaningless, as we're just criticising someone for acting as per their previous determination.

I'll have to read this and maybe it'll change my position. Mind linking the Strawson one? Yeah, the link between moral nihilism and personal action is a different issue from moral philosophy and the idea of basing one's political thought on "hardline ethical issues." I really do feel at the point that the moral nihilist has a problem here.

The Strawson essay comes up if you search the word "Strawson", because it is his magnum opus landmark essay which made him so famous. Ironic, as he always joked that he'd turn to the subject of ethics and free will when his powers of philosophy were waning.

I have a few on his work here:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk... is the actual magnum opus
http://spruce.flint.umich.edu... is a summary of it.
http://www.ashgate.com... is a nice piece on the differing attitudes in regard to his work.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 4:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can academically believe whatever you want and that is different from how you live your life. I don't think methodological skepticism has an adequate rebuttal, nor does ethical naturalism to put it to bed, but I am still happy to assume the former is wrong and the latter is right for the purpose of living a life.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:54:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 4:56:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can academically believe whatever you want and that is different from how you live your life. I don't think methodological skepticism has an adequate rebuttal, nor does ethical naturalism to put it to bed, but I am still happy to assume the former is wrong and the latter is right for the purpose of living a life.

I've always tried to organize my life in accordance with what I best believe to be true. If one doesn't have this initial drive or concern for truth then our communication is going to be pretty obstructed.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 6:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 5:54:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:56:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can academically believe whatever you want and that is different from how you live your life. I don't think methodological skepticism has an adequate rebuttal, nor does ethical naturalism to put it to bed, but I am still happy to assume the former is wrong and the latter is right for the purpose of living a life.

I've always tried to organize my life in accordance with what I best believe to be true. If one doesn't have this initial drive or concern for truth then our communication is going to be pretty obstructed.

One can easily have a concern for truth. However, knowledge - that which we know - changes over time. My opinion changes a lot on issues (such as whether God is a coherent word in itself, whether we have free will, whether language is public or private) and others. However, if I lived my life as if solipsism is true because an adequate rebuttal hasn't been formulated, or I change my entire life to pursue a great ethical campaign against animal cruelty when the next week my mindset changes entirely, then I am not going to ever be able to do anything. It may seem confusing to you how we communicate when we are not wholly truthful, but imagine how much more confusing it becomes when one acts as if everyone is an extension of one's own psyche!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 10:43:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?

The other thing to mention on this is that despite determinism, truth still exists. It may not be objective, but there surely are subjective truths.

Take this supposed truth, "An adequate distribution of food, water, & shelter across humanity to minimize the number of people who don't have basic living needs creates better living standards for all individuals."

Obviously this may or may not be a truth. There are a million and one variables which can actually influence whether this is true or not. There may be cases in which it is better to intentionally withhold food/shelter/water. IE: Some have made the argument that supplying food from outside of areas in Africa has just supported artificial populations that the agriculture in the area can't support.

However there are cases where it is a truth. IE: providing school meals to children of low income families in countries that have more than adequate food supplies and ability to grow enough food for everyone.

It then becomes the job of the individual to isolate variables to understand when a position becomes true and when it is not true.

Thus shaping and sharing political views becomes an obligation. However, I would maintain if an individual is maintaining a steady state political belief system they are not doing their job well evaluating subjective truths and they need exposure to training and exposure to teach them how to break the often unconscious human trait of having objective opinions rather than subjective evaluation processes.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 11:29:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the univserse? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?

See my avatar. Yes it's hypocritical.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 7:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 4:56:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can academically believe whatever you want and that is different from how you live your life. I don't think methodological skepticism has an adequate rebuttal, nor does ethical naturalism to put it to bed, but I am still happy to assume the former is wrong and the latter is right for the purpose of living a life.

Pretty much that.

At the end of the day, academic beliefs don't really rule our lives. I know, there ARE many academic beliefs that we do often live our lives by--for instance, the existence of a god--but many questions bear little-to-no relevance in terms of our own lives. I think the question of determinism vs. compatibilism vs. libertarianism is one such question, for instance. Ultimately, we still have the immediate, personal illusion of free will (if you believe in determinism), so ultimately I don't think a hard or absolute determinist is going to sluff through life with the constant thought that no one has responsibility for anything.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:37:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs? Is it possible to make that distinction between the de facto and the practical functionality of the universe? I am inclined to act as though I control my actions and think as though there really is right and wrong because these perceptions are necessarily linked to my humanity. And it is these perceptions that will govern the quality and operation of my life and the events thereof.
Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

Thoughts?
At 6/26/2013 11:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
000ike: Is it hypocritical for me to understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims and that freewill is only a perception, but shape my political views and day-to-day standards on hard-line ethical beliefs?

The Fool: The question itself is hypocritical. First and foremost, you are not accounting for the possibility of being ignorant

As you don't and can't understand that there is no objective truth to moral claims. To understand something is to know how something works. What is it, that you stand- under exactly? no thing? and so you speak nonsense, literally.

Truth is Truth, even to predicate it as objective is to only understand it subjectively, that is, absurdly and uselessly, as it first must be true that objective and subjective are things at all, not the other way around. Did you know that before? Where do you "stand" on that?

000ike: Also, the evaluative premise required to judge this contradiction is itself the source of the contradiction, therefore there is no predicate on which to label it as hypocrisy (which carries ethical baggage).

The Fool: Not only is your reasoning here false, your asking a question, you, yourself, think, you have answered anyway. You don't ask questions in order to evolve your position or understanding, but to hold fast onto what you already think is the case. Thus you "truly" ask false questions. Like a block of Cement is your brain. "Cement head" is what I should call you. And above all that, you are also a Complete Hypocrite.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:09:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 5:54:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:56:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can academically believe whatever you want and that is different from how you live your life. I don't think methodological skepticism has an adequate rebuttal, nor does ethical naturalism to put it to bed, but I am still happy to assume the former is wrong and the latter is right for the purpose of living a life.

I've always tried to organize my life in accordance with what I best believe to be true. If one doesn't have this initial drive or concern for truth then our communication is going to be pretty obstructed.

The Fool: Ah you speak truly today.
"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