Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines)

So we should prohibit women from joining the armed forces just because some asshole soldier might rape one of them? How sexist IS that?

Pregnancy from rape, perhaps?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

I have faith that god is real, and he has promised when the time is right he will return and fix the world.

Nonsense! For what will God even fix? Our existential concern? Morality? What is even wrong in this world if not your own concerns and dilemmas of your own existence?

God is the majestic product of our existence in the face of disorientation from the absurdity that is the universe hence you cannot find him in reality.

We can take God similarly with the opposite of being and existing- nothingness. Something which we undoubtedly never presume existing therefore never generate to a matter of fact however one must assume that there is an opposite of existence and being otherwise nothing will ever be.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obligation to Help Others

We’re group animals, social animals, and it’s the group that matters most in the end.

Does this understanding, taken in itself, something that in actual practice get us anywhere in answering what is good?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

If that’s so, then I don’t really see how Kantian ethics can work in the real world.

I appreciate that the universal imperative or the categorical imperative in Kantian philosophy terms was brought up. I’d like to talk about it more. :P

In Kant’s ethical theory on his critique of judgement, morality is based not on what you do but on having a good will. Further, having a good will doesn’t only mean to want to do good, but to do good because it is one’s duty. Having someone to want to do good does not make it moral because the maxim lacks the moral import of an action done from inclination but from duty.

A maxim is a ground rule or a subjective principle of action. Following this duty is therefore the moral law.

You are able to know what is right since it is an a priori. Quite the opposite for the pragmatic meta-ethics wherein environment and culture are the only influences for morality.

The categorical imperative states that you should only do something if you would want everyone to do it. Whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. Thus an action can be universalized or the maxim of universalizability.

i.e “If everyone lied to secure bank loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, then the maxim would be impossible.”

This is an example of a ‘contradiction in conception’ much like a performative contradiction because they undermine the very basis of an idea’s own existence hence ‘lying to secure bank loans’ is absolutely morally wrong.

Kant continues to distinguish the duties: the perfect and the imperfect duties.

A perfect duty always holds true, and failure to follow would result in a contradiction in conception. An imperfect duty allows flexibility, often not resulting in a dire contradiction in conception.

The ‘formula of autonomy’ express the idea that an agent is obliged to follow the categorical imperative because of rational will and not outside influences. This formulation requires people to act as if the principles of their actions establish a law in a hypothetical kingdom, ‘the kingdom of ends’.

To answer your question, Kantian ethics can work in the real world. It is also deontological.

EDIT: where are the utilitarians?!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

Attempting to fit the whole entirety of a life time of decisions into a neat little categories of ideological labels seems like a fools errand.

That’s an interesting insight.

In other words you can’t create a ‘perfect moral system’ that’ll be completely applicable to every possible situation and everybody always can follow without ever feeling guilty or doubtful or conflicted about.

However in every case, you did mention that we’re bound to feel guilt over what we could have done or what we have done, therefore doubtful of our own moral decisions. The fact one was doubtful of his/her decision meant an absence of a moral code being strictly followed hence if one followed a moral code thereby neatly categorizing one suggests that there will be no longer the nasty doubt or guilt from every possible situation from that person. That is why it is everyone’s errand to do so and not just the fool’s, I believe.

There can’t be a ‘perfect moral system’ is you universalize it on a aggregate scale, but consequentialists have a say on this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

Originally posted by tghrr:

I’m consequentialist (I think the end justifies the means) because I believe that if the end product is going to make a big difference then it is worth whatever struggles you had to go through to get there. For example, if you needed to find a cure for a disease that could destroy the world but to do this you had to test it on people which caused them more suffering than just dieing from it then I think that would be worth it. Even if these tests were done on billions of people it would still be worth it in my opinion because if the end is something like saving the world it is worth doing horrible things to any fraction of Earths populations.

However, if the end is unimportant and the means are horrible it isn’t worth it. In my opinion you should always consider how bad the means are in comparison to how much good it will do and use that to work out if it is worth it or not. It is unfortunate that people can use ‘the end justifies the means’ to get away with things such as torture (which doesn’t even work effectively).

So you believe that ‘ends justify the means’ and yet ‘ends justifying the means’ as an excuse is sometimes wrong? But if you believe that the means necessarily have to be compared to its consequences, does the ‘ends’ truly justify the ‘means’ then? your suggesting the ‘means’ curtail the ‘ends’.

You stated that having to test billions of people to get the cure, would still be worth it to save the remaining from annihilation, isn’t this an unfortunate excuse for ‘ends justify the means’ as well? Now replace the word ‘test’ with ‘torture’, if torture doesn’t even work effectively how fares the moral act?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I am a moral relativist. I believe that there is no absolute moral code.

An absolute moral code would suggest that there is ALWAYS a morally “righteous” option given any decision. I believe that this is rarely the case and that people struggle to identify the most righteous path all the time because that moral code is elusive.

Therefore, the ends don’t always justify the means. Winning a game (good impact) by cheating (bad act) may be an example of this.
Therefore, the means don’t always justify the ends. Feeding your family (good act) by stealing from another (bad impact), for example.

We all live somewhere in the middle.

An absolute moral code is also not universal. My Consequentialist outlook may be in conflict with your Consequentialist outlook. The outlook is entirely subjective, so your “ends” and “means” may not be defined as clearly as my own… and this ambiguity basically erodes any moral code.

I do believe, however, that all moral meaning is contained solely in a person’s actions and not in their beliefs or intent.

An absolute moral code would suggest there is always something never to be violated, basically entailing that every other option is technically excusable hence moral.

However, if ambiguity erodes any moral code, moral relativism in itself is not a useful moral code. Like a fallibilism or nihilism because it itself does not establish a good way to live life. But this isn’t a question of tolerance. To say ‘its arrogance to apply your ethical standard given that all ethics are subjective’, sounds like a universal ethical claim. Ethics may be more objective than you think it is otherwise it is a matter of tolerance (no longer ethics).

Yet you believe believe moral meaning is contained solely on a person’s action, doesn’t that imply that there would be no ambiguity if moral meaning were on the act alone which can be assessed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

They aren’t really moral relativists – they believe in scientism

Yes, ‘scientism’ has the tendency to exclude all other viewpoints different from itself. But scientism to dictate ethics? Science is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one. In addition, its empirical methods are impotent to answer moral questions.

If you’re going to do something….please for the sake of humanity and your self…. try to weigh all the possible consequences and make sure you don’t overlook the long term ones.

So your of the first category, right? that consequence is an important matter regarding to morality and ethics. This requires a moral agent to view things impartially and impersonally for all actions as consequence is an important thing. Well, your suggesting heavy strains for a moral agent having to sacrifice several personal commitments and etc. in order to pursue what’s morally obligatory or the best course of action wherein its to minimize ‘collateral damage’. But can one truly weigh all possible consequences? future otherwise unknown consequences and intended consequences vary greatly.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

As I said, it’s NOT the most rational option – it’s simply the easiest.

Indeed, but people tend to follow moral relativism anyway despite it not being the most rational option but simply because it is easy. It might not even be as ‘easy’ as they think it is. How is it ‘easy’? Can moral relativism really apply anything to real life? Does it benefit you at all? I think not.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

btw change the title plz, it’s troll-bait.

Will do. Changed it.

I’d also put myself in the third category, though I don’t think it’s any more rational or ethical than the other two. I think moral relativism is an empty and immature ‘position’; it takes no great intelligence or humanity to stubbornly deny any moral claim or the value of any moral cause. I just lack the will to be anything else.

Lacking the will to be anything else? that you placed yourself in the skepticism category? How is that the most rational option then? If moral relativism is an empty and immature position, why be there at all?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

This discussion would be more of an activity on normative ethics; the practical applications of your morality. Here I will present a handful of questions regarding your ethics.

1. Are you a consequentialist and follow Consequentialism Ethics? Meaning you adhere to the notion that ‘the ends justify the means’. Also means that if a goal is perceived to be morally obligatory or important enough that any manner to achieve it is also moral. Do you believe that your actions’ consequence as the final measure of how moral an act is? Being that if the consequence is ultimately bad for everyone, then the action is morally wrong? An example of this is utilitarianism.

2. Are you a deontologist and follow Deontological Ethics? Meaning you adhere to the notion that ‘the means justify the ends’. Also means that the morality of an action is based on the act’s adherence to a set of rules. Do you believe the act is more important than its consequence such that its consequence is ultimately irrelevant? An example of this moral absolutism.

3. Or do you skeptically believe that neither the act nor the consequence ultimately matters and that no act is ever truly moral? and that morality is a lie and that there is none? Let us include moral relativism in this case.

If so, in any one of the three, which of them is the most ethical and rational approach for us human beings? or rather what suits us the most. There can be no choosing of two, and assume each one is contradictory to the others, unless you can prove otherwise.

Note: There is also virtue ethics and pragmatic ethics in case some of you were wondering that there’s something lacking.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I think that if you want to discuss morality, do that. If you want to discuss the structure of the universe, do that. If you think the two are somehow related, show why in a coherent and defensible way. I have not heard a compelling argument that equates the two from any known philosopher or person yet, and no definition of an original force has adequately unified the concepts, and I am unconvinced the concepts even need reconciliation. The same way that I do not think that flavors have anything to do with the structure of existence beyond the obvious categorical relationships, either.

I did not think to combine and relate all my three argument at once, that’s messy! Respectfully assess each one of them different from one another. Only a genius could try to relate them all.

Indeed, you show fair claims that flavors (the senses) have nothing to do with the intrinsic structure of existence which is respectable. I claim the same, in fact. Although we can go on about the relation of the structure of existence in itself and the perception of humans, but I won’t.

EDIT: @BSG: how do you define God as?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Some things taste better than others.
There must be something that tastes the best.
God/Heaven is defined as the greatest subjective thing ever.
Therefore, if we taste, there is God, and God tastes great.

Or: I use the concepts of extremes to validate whatever I want to.

Or more simply: “However, this argument seems trivial. If “God” is just a metaphor for “there are moral goals that can be fulfilled,” then the conclusion is merely true by definition and no substantial claim is being made.”

I might be making a trivial argument just to point out that we don’t have to believe in obligations at all. Perhaps all obligations are impossible to fulfill. Additionally, saying that “God” is “the possibility of fulfilling our moral goals” is compatible with the Christian God as traditionally conceived. It might be that one way moral goals can be achieved is if an omnipotent entity makes sure of it.

EDIT: Therefore I do not argue that God exists as conceived indisputably but that moral obligations imply a belief in God in the sense that we assume we can complete a moral goal. But then this is one way to make use or understand the word ‘God’. Conceptually God in hindsight is defined as lots of things. God was once defined as a mythical creature, a tradition, and as the ‘explanation for natural disasters’. It too would say no substantial claim was made or nor ever made by those atheists as of how they defined God, right? Your example suits it, except it should be the negation for God.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I admit it my greatest fault here to simply drop and continue another argument abruptly after I agreed that the former argument was indeed incomplete hence disproved. I had not stopped addressing those points that of which disproved the previous ones, rather that I had accepted it and ‘abruptly’ moved on. Leaving us to the third one.

Then you side stepped into philosophy with this not-so-veiled attempt to equate philosophical models of thinking with philosophical models of morality to somehow reframe this perfection idea as a concept of goodness.

What? In no way was the perfection part related to the morality argument. Perfection for God was indeed impossible is what we concluded.

I think your god is ill defined and in an attempt to include both cosmology and morality, is ultimately irrelevant to both the knowable universe or a developed morality.

Ah, my definition for God was ill defined and in that case the argument leads to an ultimate irrelevance, yes? What was a better definition for God if mine was ridiculous? Or more importantly how should we address God at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

First, this wasn’t your original argument that used the concept of perfection to prove God must exist.

Sorry, we had that concluded.

Second, this isn’t much of an argument to me anyway “Morality exists and can be acted on, if we use the word “God” to mean morality is accomplished, then God exists when we believe in morals.” I don’t even know what that means.

I choose not to go further in explaining once more. But, fundamentally why isn’t it ‘much of an argument’? How do you see it as, BSG, if you don’t understand it?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Do you know what “begging the question” means?

We can’t very well talk about Kant when you can’t get basic logical fallacies right.

I keep starting to explain how Kant would view your beliefs but that gives your beliefs too much credit, as we all have done for pages.

Can you please put your “Ought for Perfection” in a logically coherent context, and then define how it isn’t circular reasoning?

(You know, even though it very much is.)

What’s ‘ought for perfection’?

I honestly say I’ve lost all enthusiasm now, but that’s totally fine.

Allow me.

Did you know, according to Hume in the problems of induction science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence? I like existential comics.

We can’t very well talk about Kant when you can’t get basic logical fallacies right.

Well, let’s start that. :)

(1) We conceive of an obligation to promote the greatest good.
(2) Ought implies can, hence if we have an obligation to do something, it must be possible to carry out
(3) ‘God’ is the metaphor of the ability to succeed in our moral obligations
(4) Therefore, the assumption that we have an obligation to promote the greatest good logically implies the belief in ‘God’.

In this particular case, what is the fallacy? If the case is that we must correct it. Present your own explanation (mine don’t make sense) whether how it is or how it isn’t so. (We should have been doing this all along)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

It seemed to me that Wargamer was all too content to stay inside the hypothetical rather than test his idea(s) for any practical application; a sort of reality filter.

I honestly don’t understand how he can challenge others’ beliefs but keep his own behind a hypothetical filter and refuse to let real-world examples through to him.

Well, from this point whatever I might say would seem apologetic. But I’ll be bold enough and ask for these ‘real-world’ examples and ‘practical applications’, and from what I understand is the ‘scientific case’. By the way vika, you did conclude that free will was an illusion, however I went on anyway not because I refused your conclusion but because I would make further point that even without free will, you still had moral obligations, hence the argument carries. ( I believe it had stopped there, up until ought implies can insight from 404. )

EDIT: However it might seem – I do not dismiss your beliefs (thats the point of this thread to begin with) or facts, and in my earnest hope answer it with what I could. Also, I see most posts recently as complains about me, and that my case is illogical, but why is it illogical? Please state. Let’s try again, please?

What I do know, Wargamer, is, unless you change that debate style, and start being willing to open your own beliefs up to the same type of scrutiny as you seem willing to put others through, you are not worth the time of day to talk with.

Alright, I’ll do that. (surprisingly, I was already doing that, its as if your angry at me)


But 404 mentioned something most meaningful:

Harmonizing the two wherever possible and minimizing conflicts is definitely the best course. While (current) science shows free will as illusory from an objective viewpoint, the subjective perception of having a free will is most important to personal and collective morality, right?


btw, would either of you know anyone knowledgeable in Kantian philosophy? I’m curious to see whether Kant is being misused/abused here.

Yes, I really wanted to see anyone present Kant’s philosophy too. I myself could not determine my own validity from what I understood from Kant.

EDIT: This would be most needed to see if I really was blurring nonsense about Kant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

Wargamer1000: Actually, ought implies can fails where:

  1. an agent imposing an obligation misperceives the ability of its subjects to actually follow same.
  2. factors beyond any agent’s control or ability to adapt/account for exist.

Ought implies can does not fail at those.

First, factors beyond any agent’s control such as ‘I ought’ any particular act, yet ‘I can’ fails the same act. ‘I ought’ implies the ‘can’, to actually do ‘can’ is a different notion or that ‘can’ for the act may fail (for factors are nearly almost beyond an agents perception). This uncertainty through implying considers the metaphor.

Second, an agent misconceiving the ability of its subjects (or peers?) to actually follow the same moral obligation ‘ought that I can’ for the agent and for its subject, ‘I cannot do from your ought’ which exhibits no error as ought implies can implicits to the self first and foremost, if others ought not or cannot then hence is possible.

“In order for agent A to achieve goal B, agent A ought to do C (wherein C is relevant to B).” Ought implies can is not an is-ought statement, meaning to ought does not casually follow that it must be, but only that it can be henceforth. The logic of entailment has a different claim for ought implies can.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Basically? Deals with abstract concepts. Imagination, problem solving.

Thank you.

Now allow me to proceed;

Certainly you have moral obligations that you consider to uphold. These moral obligations are ought to be, and can actually be done as Ought implies can dictates. You cannot have unrealistic moral obligations like ‘save the unicorn race’ because it cannot be done. There are no unicorns consequently you failed your obligation anyway.

If this was the case, would it be natural to assume that you would want to successfully accomplish such moral obligations you had? Realizing that your moral obligation is definitely uncertain, as another individual may have a different or contradictory moral obligation to yours, yes? How would you determine that the morality you’ve postulated with is actually a right or a wrong? But one would rationally conclude that you must act your morality and assume that you have complied and followed the best moral obligation possible.

There is the metaphor of the ability to succeed in our moral obligations. Logically, does it not imply that wishing you had the best moral obligation that can actually be achieved suggesting the necessary assumption to believe in the metaphor?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Sorry, I deleted post.

We have a conscious mind.

But what does it do?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

In other words, morality and decision making are linked. What you frankly refuse to accept is that decision making is not the remit of the conscious mind.

Yes, morality and decisions are linked. But if decision is not the remit of the conscious mind, the conscious mind does not decide. If that’s the case what is the conscious mind to you, vika?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Humans have no free will. We finally agree.

I was presuming.

However,

Um. that’s the whole point of law. To maintain and preserve social order.

This is lacking, the point of law is to uphold moral obligations, which is to maintain and preserve social order. No morality means no moral obligation therefore no need to preserve social order; let the people die.

To assume man has no free will, is to assume man has no morality. A disgusting insight if you ask me.

Morality and free will have nothing to do with one another. If you boil it down to the basics, morality is just a personal cost-benefit analysis of what is best for self, what is best for the friends and loved ones of self, and what is best for the culture the self knows.

On the contrary, morality is not defined as cost-benefit analysis for what is best for the self. That would be free will (even if its a distorted free will nonetheless). Morality is whats good and bad plainly or given postulates to the self of whats practically good and whats not, not the analysis.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Morality is understandably denied, hence what is good and what is bad is absolutely irrelevant.

No, because at some point it was probably beaten into your head that acting like a dick to others is a bad thing.

Yes, this is true. But if such an idea even reaches to you, do you know what that suggests? the necessity for morality! hence free will.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Your conscious mind never makes any decisions. Ever.

It sounds almost like a what a follower of skepticism would say. Suppose that humans are not conscious and therefore have no free will. Morality is understandably denied, hence what is good and what is bad is absolutely irrelevant.

Laws would not even consider ‘preserving the social structure’.

That’s why matters of fact(empirical observation), and relation of ideas (rational analysis) don’t easily march together hand in hand.

Kinda depressing that I’m getting to know what your arguments will be, before you even make them.

Did you know I was going to use ethical realism as my next argument after the previous one? wow.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

A syllogism;

(1) determining the varying concepts of what is beneficial and detrimental is free will.
(2) the essence of morality is to stand that there are different rights and wrongs.
________________________________________________________________________
:Therefore, free will is the essence of morality.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

How do you jump to that conclusion? We’ve already agreed that morality is different for each and every brain.

It was from free will. You see, the fact that you’ve determined the varying concepts of what is beneficial and detrimental, and such is different for every individual – free will was exercised. Technically, to stand that there are different rights and wrongs is the essence of morality, is it not?

We’ve been debating on and off, on different subjects, for two years now, and you still haven’t twigged that I’m a woman? Seriously?

I was referring to lonelucas, but good to know.