What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

 DemetriDominov wrote:
What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

Yes!

Is it time for another "is it right to hack criminals" "ethics of hacking" "can wrong ever be right" thread?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/507684.page

What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

This thread reeks of Kant.

Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

Anyways, the OP is kind of indirect so it's hard to answer it in any clear way, so I'll just take a shot in the dark here.

>What actions are justified when normally they would be considered wrong, immoral, or heinous?

Desperate times call for desperate measure. Outside of that it's a case by case basis. They are still wrong, immoral, and heinous choices, but sometimes you can be forced into them.

>Take lying for example. Is lying to someone to spare their feelings ok, when the act of lying itself is not?

I came the conclusion a long time ago that the average person cannot handle the truth when it comes to hard to swallow information. In light of that, the best course of action is to tell people what they want to hear. Honesty is great and all, but sometimes the only way to get things done is from behind the scenes. I positively despise working that way, but I can just complain about people and do nothing or manipulate them and get things done. Often times you don't have the luxury of excess time to do anything but tell them what they want to hear.

>How far does one go before their actions always outstrip their intentions or outcome? Or do the ends always justify the means?

Again, case by case basis. Good rule of thumb is to remember who you are. Sometimes in the course of hunting monsters you become one yourself.

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

I saw the link d-usa posted, but I wouldn't call it the exact same. Unless I'm missing something that one was simply a "why was my thread locked". Unless this thread is pretty much about that thread in a really weird way (if that's what you mean by different wording).

 Necroshea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

Irony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

I thought it was four lefts.

Now we're just going in circles.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Then why not drop a link to it, then report, and not keep bumping it to the top of the forum with pointless rambling?

Irony.

Explain. I'm the one responding to the OP, not utterly derailing the thread.

If it starts to feel good then that is when it becomes wrong, usually.

Killing someone in self-defense / to defend someone else or someone who killed a person close to you.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

I kant believe you went there


Re: OP yes and no? Depends on about a couple hundred different variables unique to your own personal, cultural and religious morality (all three of which are probably different), and the situation at hand.

If we could stick to the topic please.

Thanks.

 reds8n wrote:
If we could stick to the topic please.

Thanks.

Certainly.

Right becomes Wrong when the behavior or actions move from being socially acceptable to socially unacceptable, according to the moral majority and the sociological guidelines or laws they set for that society.


Ta-DA!!!

But the question was "when do wrong actions become right".

Which is why I think this is just the 3rd attempt at a previous question that got already locked twice.

 d-usa wrote:
But the question was "when do wrong actions become right".

Which is why I think this is just the 3rd attempt at a previous question that got already locked twice.

My thoughts exactly.

The problem with all of this is that the thread title is When does right become wrong and then the OP asks us when are wrong things right.

So which is is OP, is it when right is wrong, or when wrongs are right?

 Alfndrate wrote:
The problem with all of this is that the thread title is When does right become wrong and then the OP asks us when are wrong things right.

So which is is OP, is it when right is wrong, or when wrongs are right?

Yeah, please clarify:

Are you wondering if white-hat hackers become wrong if they hack criminals, or are you wondering if black-hat hackers become right if they hack criminals? End justifying the means and all...

I've been taught that three lefts make a right.

So does three wrongs also constitute a right as well?

Seriously though, who has the authority to dictate rights and wrongs on a wide scale? Society? Governments?

I think we need a more philosophical look into this.

Perhaps something along the lines of a social contract.

When you're the person against the person doing things right?

For me, it's just like any other ethics or morality question. Reverse the situation and put yourself in the other person's shoes. Would you be okay with it being done to you?

Killing Hitler would stop the mass murder of certain groups, yes, certain actions are needed, in my opinion it is not the action which is right or wrong, but the reason.

 WarOne wrote:
I've been taught that three lefts make a right.

So does three wrongs also constitute a right as well?

Seriously though, who has the authority to dictate rights and wrongs on a wide scale? Society? Governments?

I think we need a more philosophical look into this.

Perhaps something along the lines of a social contract.

This is the essence of the thread. Thank you.

I'd like to remind those who keep talking about hacking that you're the one's bringing it up, not me. I have no intention of going there, I simply wanted to talk about morality, so please listen to reds8n's advice and stick to the topic.

Nothing is really wrong, just not right in some people's eyes.

Terrorists see their actions as right. Others don't.

 Monster Rain wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

I thought it was four lefts.

No that would be straight.

I think you just do what you think is right and hope no one gets mad at you.

I changed the title for those who were confused.

If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

Of course, that doesn't really form a workable moral philosophy for a population, since actually knowing ahead of time with complete certainty what action will be moral is effectively impossible, and so, rather ironically, a woefully inaccurate method of morality is itself moral in a sort-of meta way.

Wrong can be justified. That doesn't necessarily mean that the justification is a good one or that the action is morally right. It might be that the wrong is for a good reason, or you might just be deluding yourself that it is justifiable to make the action more palatable to yourself.

Depends who defines what's wrong, and how relative your morals are.

Murder is wrong, it is not justified but rather murder is redifined as 'pre emptive strikes' or whatever.

Abortion is murder but is justified by removing the rights of the non-person-hood of the foetus for example.

So what you're basically saying is that if you attempt to do good in a situation and fail, you can still be perceived to be doing bad?

For example: if you lie to spare someones feelings, and they know you're lying - you automatically are perceived as bad even though you tried.

The message is that morality entirely depends on the context of those involved, but we're still comfortable in judging them even though we're apart from the situation.

I find that in itself a very interesting moral question - the aspect that if morality is so individual, so personal, why do we allow others to judge for us what is wrong and what is right?

Oh man.

Only God can judge me, eh DMX?

 Spyral wrote:
Depends who defines what's wrong, and how relative your morals are.

Murder is wrong, it is not justified but rather murder is redifined as 'pre emptive strikes' or whatever.

Abortion is murder but is justified by removing the rights of the non-person-hood of the foetus for example.

Or "Capital Punishment" as retribution for a crime. Yet an "eye for an eye" mentality seems morally acceptable for most of the world.

Abortion could also be considered a murder suicide depending on when it occurred. If it was shortly after conception in the case of a woman on a chemical birth control (which does not prevent conception but rather the embedding of an embryo into the uterine wall and therefore pregnancy) the fetus would really be just one egg cell and one sperm cell. Life had begun even before their union since they're both living cells, but because of contraception, the fertile egg will be voided (and die obviously) with the woman's next cycle. One could say we're denying the right to life with basic contraception, but the consequences of not having contraception, and even the option of abortion is birthing children to a draconian and cruel world where their mothers may not be able to give them the care they need to survive.

Then there is also the debate of what laws should and can pertain to your body. For example there was an American citizen beaten with a cane by the police in a Southeast Asian country because he spit in public. Women all over the middle east are still stoned to death for not obeying the rigid laws that literally smother their bodies, and the debate will likely always rage over the right to choose to be a mother or not.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
So what you're basically saying is that if you attempt to do good in a situation and fail, you can still be perceived to be doing bad?

For example: if you lie to spare someones feelings, and they know you're lying - you automatically are perceived as bad even though you tried.

The message is that morality entirely depends on the context of those involved, but we're still comfortable in judging them even though we're apart from the situation.

I find that in itself a very interesting moral question - the aspect that if morality is so individual, so personal, why do we allow others to judge for us what is wrong and what is right?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Good intentions, and even ostensibly good actions, can nevertheless lead to disaster, and ostensibly bad actions can avert it (think the actions the US took to weaken and ostracise the soviets: a massive number of people were hurt or killed, benevolent governments were subverted, china was empowered, america looked like it was just failing hard at imperialism, etc, but the cold war was ended peacefully).

For another example: the witch hunts. Were there actually demons and magic and whatnot conspiring against mankind, then it would have been outright inexcusable not to eradicate that threat. The issue being this is reality, where those things don't exist, and so trying to fight them is just one big mess of gibbering lunacy.


Of course, I'm really failing to convey the finer points of this philosophy, because there must be a distinction between "random chance makes a good action wrong" and "a poorly chosen action, even if it appears 'good', is immoral, because of its unsuitability to the situation", and the fact that some things that are technically immoral under this are so trivially so that to even bother applying a scale of morality to them is laughable, while actions that are, strictly speaking, moral still carry a weight to them that's vast beyond measure (see above about american actions during the cold war).

Define wrong.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Define wrong.

I believe that people have the gift of knowing right from wrong at an early age. Any parent that has multiple children who has perhaps caught the two year old slapping the new baby has seen the child trying to cover up the crime or deny it. Perhapse a young child has taken candy or a toy from a sibling or another child and suddenly realize they have been observed and begin acting guilty. Conversly a child that helps another or gives a loving hug seem to understand that this is the right thing.
Wrong, as I have been taught, is to go against the 10 commandments.

Relapse wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Define wrong.

I believe that people have the gift of knowing right from wrong at an early age. Any parent that has multiple children who has perhaps caught the two year old slapping the new baby has seen the child trying to cover up the crime or deny it. Perhapse a young child has taken candy or a toy from a sibling or another child and suddenly realize they have been observed and begin acting guilty. Conversly a child that helps another or gives a loving hug seem to understand that this is the right thing.
Wrong, as I have been taught, is to go against the 10 commandments.

Look up Catholicsms notion of 'natural law' - it is an interesting concept.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

So your argument is that what is right is right, except when its not?

Does Batman always follow the rules?
Or Zorro?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Does Batman always follow the rules?

Batman has his own rules

Two wrongs may not make a right, but two Wrights makes an airplane.

 dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If an action is genuinely justified, it necessarily can't be wrong. The issue with so much moralizing is rubbish like "this action is wrong, that action is right" and so on, with no depth and only occasionally an attempt to think of exceptions, when morality is entirely based upon context and purpose. If an action is truly appropriate to the situation at hand, it is necessarily moral; if said action appears appropriate but ends disastrously, then it was not appropriate, and so is immoral.

So your argument is that what is right is right, except when its not?

It's about the suitability of an action to the situation, and the accuracy of the motivations for said actions to reality. I believe I explain it a bit clearer in my post on this page, though as I'm typing on a keyboard roughly the length and width of one of my thumbs (with a screen that only shows me the first half of any line I'm typing while typing it) trying to explain in better detail isn't an appealing option at the moment.

You have to live with the results of your actions. The world is full of corrupt power structures and is not always a just place. My advice is be very careful and think before you act. Then go big. And don't get caught. Eat your vegetables too.

Can doing wrong ever be justified?

This is a rather odd question. If the act can be justified then it isn’t wrong. It may not be nice act, it may occasionally be downright brutal. But that’s not the same as a wrong act.

To take an obvious historical example, the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan, which under most circumstances would be abhorrent and murderous, were perfectly justifiable in the context of ending World War 2. It was therefore the right thing to do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Killing Hitler would stop the mass murder of certain groups, yes, certain actions are needed, in my opinion it is not the action which is right or wrong, but the reason.

Killing Hitler before the war may well have been justifiable, but then again only with the benefit of hindsight. Before the war his full intentions regarding ‘undesirables’ where not known. It’s still a matter of historical debate just how much of the holocaust was pre planned and how much was decided as the war went on.

Once the war had started killing Hitler would have been a massive strategic blunder that could have extended the war (and thus gotten more people killed) as killing him would not necessarily have brought down the Third Reich and may well have resulted in someone competent and less inclined to interfere with his generals plans in taking over. In fact I seem to recall reading that the allies stopped planning assassination missions for that very reason. That’s an interesting example of how the ‘right’ act could have unfavorable consequences.

You could also debate how right it was to ally ourselves with another horribly murderous regime (The Soviet Union) which was arguably even worse than the Nazis.

In fact WW2 is full of examples of acts that were justifiable but still arguably ‘wrong’.

It would be interesting for those involved in this discussion to state their belief system.

After all, science provides answers to these questions. If you have chosen to believe in science then there is no discussion, the answers are finite until proven otherwise.

If you believe in something else, magic, spirituality, misguided atheism or whatever then this discussion will be of far more interest and worthwhile to you.

I do wonder how many people here have scientific beliefs and would be interested to know their reasons for participating...

What are 'scientific beliefs'? Also, what do you mean by 'misguided atheism'. It sounds like you're flamebaiting.

I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

No trick questions here.

Science doesn't so much provide moral answers as disprove/discredit faulty ones.

I believe in technology/engineering, with more or less mysticism depending on the mood I'm in (I have, for instance, facetiously attempted to faith-heal a computer before, with inexplicable success, and technology seems to have a disordinately long functional life in my hands) and more or less Adeptus Mechanicus jokes/references. After all, human engineering demonstrably exhibits powers ascribed to various idols in their own folklore, when not surpassing those abilities, so it certainly seems a more fitting focal point for belief than dubious and now unimpressive myths.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Science doesn't so much provide moral answers as disprove/discredit faulty ones.

In your opinion. The fact is it depends on what you are comfortable with as an answer but I don't wish to really get involved in discussing the subject. I'm really just interested to see if any agnostics are part of this discussion and knowing what their reasons are, just out of curiosity.

 Casey's Law wrote:
I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

So scientists don't believe in any unproven 'sciencentific' theories? Belief is not a zero-sum game. To test a hypothesis, there's usually some some level of belief in likely potential outcomes. Incidentally, agnostics are atheist, per the correct meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

Science is not a creed, it's a method.

No trick questions here.

You didn't ask any questions.

No thanks, buddy.

 Albatross wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
I certainly am not, Albatross.

By misguided athiesm I mean atheists who believe in disproved or unproven sciencentific theory.

So scientists don't believe in any unproven 'sciencentific' theories? Belief is not a zero-sum game. To test a hypothesis, there's usually some some level of belief in likely potential outcomes. Incidentally, agnostics are atheist, per the correct meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

By scientific belief I mean a belief in science's answers over those of religion or otherwise.

Science is not a creed, it's a method.

No trick questions here.

You didn't ask any questions.

Agreed and Exalted

 LuciusAR wrote:


This is a rather odd question. If the act can be justified then it isn’t wrong.

Dropping A-bombs to end the war and killing Hilter before his due: That’s an interesting example of how the ‘right’ act could have unfavorable consequences.

You could also debate how right it was to ally ourselves with another horribly murderous regime (The Soviet Union) which was arguably even worse than the Nazis.

In fact WW2 is full of examples of acts that were justifiable but still arguably ‘wrong’.

I'd like to remind everyone that the US has it's own fair share of murderous and genocidal regimes, notably those responsible for the genocide of the native population on this continent, the subjugation of their race and other non-white races, and the forced exodus and exclusion of native people from our borders *looks at everyone south of Texas*. It first should come as no surprise then that US favored the idea of allying itself with the Stalinist Regime, when the alternative was allowing it to fall to fascism, which was already known for its atrocities and threat to freedom when Communism was less of a threat to freedom and more of a threat to capitalism. The cliche, but true saying of choosing the lesser of two evils applies to it, considering Stalin was less apparent of a madman before the war then he was after it.

But again, you're right, hindsight is 20/20, and it's not just WW2 being full of examples of justifiable wrongdoings, but war and violence in general. The question may seem weird, but I think you're view is exactly what I was hoping someone would say, because I'd like to ask what gives the justification to take a life, start or end a war, perform genocide, steal, cheat, lie, spy upon, or otherwise take vengeance upon another?

I feel that this question is important considering we as a gaming community love our quotes and possibly live them in a tongue in cheek semi-serious way. "Hope is the first step to disappointment" is a very true saying regardless of the way you look upon it, but may become a serious issue when people actually begin to believe that "Innocence proves nothing."

Clearly a lie was drawn someplace in the sand we dared not cross because we cannot yet find justification for what we believe is morally ill. So, again, what gives the justification to do wrong?

OP, I'd suggest reading up on double effect. Thomas Aquinas undertook this analysis to explain why an action that has forseeably harmful consequences may still be justified. He argued that certain criteria must be met to justify such an act:

- the act itself must be beneficial or at least not harmful
- the harmful consequence cannot be the means by which a beneficial consequence results
- the actor cannot intend the harmful effect
- the benefit must be proportional to the harm

I'm using "beneficial" and "harmful" instead of "good" and "bad" to emphasize that the analysis does not propose its own morality but rather assumes an a priori moral system. In the language of Aquinas, "beneficial" could not also mean "immoral." For those who see no issue with means justifying ends, "beneficial" of course only need answer to the perspective of the actor. It should be apparent that the double effect analysis has no bearing on that outlook -- where the meeting of desire, will, and capacity justifies anything: "I am strong, therefore I am right, therefore I am good." Rather, Aquinas obviously had something else in mind when he talked about "goodness" -- hence double effect.

 Manchu wrote:
OP, I'd suggest reading up on double effect. Thomas Aquinas undertook this analysis to explain why an action that has forseeably harmful consequences may still be justified. He argued that certain criteria must be met to justify such an act:

- the act itself must be beneficial or at least not harmful
- the harmful consequence cannot be the means by which a beneficial consequence results
- the actor cannot intend the harmful effect
- the benefit must be proportional to the harm

I'm using "beneficial" and "harmful" instead of "good" and "bad" to emphasize that the analysis does not propose its own morality but rather assumes an a priori moral system. In the language of Aquinas, "beneficial" could not also mean "immoral." For those who see no issue with means justifying ends, "beneficial" of course only need answer to the perspective of the actor. It should be apparent that the double effect analysis has no bearing on that outlook -- where the meeting of desire, will, and capacity justifies anything: "I am strong, therefore I am right, therefore I am good." Rather, Aquinas obviously had something else in mind when he talked about "goodness" -- hence double effect.

Thats pretty good Manchu...

I was going to be pithy by saying "what does wrong really mean?". But, what you posted takes the cake.

One way could be argued is from what perspective?

 Casey's Law wrote:
No thanks, buddy.

Go with god, brah.

@whembly: Without conceding that I understand your question I will attempt to answer or at least address it in the context of the specific example Aquinas himself addressed, taking human life in self-defense. Aquinas held that the preservation of human life is good and that the taking of human life is bad. The standard objection -- including on Dakka -- is to suggest that the hypothetical possibility (much less the fact) that there exists some person who does not value my life means that my life cannot have intrinsic value, i.e., the property of value is merely subjective and therefore cannot be intrinsic. This is truly as far as their argument goes ("everything is an opinion") and, this being absurd, they must append to it the further demand that I empirically prove the intrinsic value of my life even though they themselves offer no empirical proof that the question is or even can be empirical in the first place. It's a coy sleight of hand that depends entirely upon its own premise, namely that all experience is totally subjective -- which, as I said, they never prove. So that position tautologically collapses in on itself.

Basically the classic strawman argument.

Kind of except the important part is not the substitution but rather the tautology. The people who argue from subjectivity truly do not see this Cartesian duality as needing proof. It is for them "the way things are." It certainly has its uses: it makes science as we know it possible, for one (very huge) thing. But it doesn't prove itself. It's exactly as much of an assumption as Thomas Aquinas's assumption that God exists in a certain way. At least Aquinas conceived of the potential need to prove his assumptions (whether he did so well is a different matter). In any case, I am amazed at how many people fail to realize that the scientific method is itself not a scientific datum. And furthermore, actual scientists very rarely live up to the standards of the scientific method in practice -- just talk to any historian or sociologist of science. Funny enough, when you ask about this issue people say "it's not important that we do science perfectly as a matter of fact; our work is justified because we strive for this goal." That argument seems familiar: "it's not that we need to be perfect people; it's that we strive to be like the Perfect Person that justifies us." That very strong parallel makes a lot of sense considering when and where science actually came from.

On the other hand...

True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

 Manchu wrote:
True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

Why should we be regarding these sociological constructs in Cartesian terms? Why is it you are utterly dismissive of physicalism as 'absurd'?

Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

 Manchu wrote:
True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

But the only useful notion of truth is that of a sufficiently accurate abstraction, whether you're talking about notions of physical objects* or more nebulous ideas**, as nothing can be conveyed in anything but an abstract manner of one degree of accuracy or another, and inherently depends on subjective interpretation by the observer, which may have a smaller or lesser impact depending on the standardization of the abstraction at hand and their own conformity to/knowledge of said standard (which would itself inherently be an abstract idea subject to their own interpretation to one degree or another, of course).

For scientists, usefulness only comes into the picture in the sense of whether or not a category or system is actually necessary and useful, with the ordering of things into categories/by systems only considering where a given thing most accurately fits.

*As nothing but an object itself can be a perfectly true and accurate representation of itself, any other representation sacrifes degrees of resolutions to one extent or another.

**Such as philisophical notions, for one, which can thus not be perfectly and genuinely true*** when conveyed due to the vagaries of even formalized language and the necessary differences between their creator and any observer.

***Even in the sense of being perfectly accurate representations of the idea itself, to say nothing of the abstractions and comprises necessary for it to originate/exist in a human mind at all, or commment on whether the idea was even accurate to start with.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

How? Kant's answer to OP's question would be ''when the situation has changed enough that it's necessary to use a different maxim to obtain a universally valid answer''.

Admit you just like to bash on Kant. Which is admirable, of course, but in it's time and place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

By the great power of making stuff up.

I would consider this question unanswerable since there isn't a universal definition of right and wrong. As such, the best answer is "maybe", But I will go out on a limb and say "definitely maybe".

If a 'wrong' action can be justified,was it even wrong in the first place?

This thread is neither exploding in angry rants nor locked. It's been a dull weekend in the OT forum.

Do what you feel is right.
Apologise if it isn't.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Frazzled's motto: right, wrong, I'm the guy with the boom stick.

OK my real motto is "family is the only thing that matters.* The rest of the world can burn."
*And I have a boom stick.

'Can doing wrong ever be justified?'

Only if you're Richard B. Riddick.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

It's about the suitability of an action to the situation, and the accuracy of the motivations for said actions to reality. I believe I explain it a bit clearer in my post on this page, though as I'm typing on a keyboard roughly the length and width of one of my thumbs (with a screen that only shows me the first half of any line I'm typing while typing it) trying to explain in better detail isn't an appealing option at the moment.

Your first explanation was clear enough. You're talking about a vague sort of consequentialism. And, seemingly, assuming a neutral frame of reference according to which value is established. On the whole that isn't a bad way to run your life because its pretty easy to eliminate neutrality and insert personal bias; but on a more profound level its basically just a handwave to all of morality.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

Physicalism is certainly dualistic. It slides the definitions around to seem otherwise. Generic modernity splits the world into things that exist subjectively and things that exist objectively. Physicalism is nothing more than claiming that the only "real" kind of existence is objective and that objective means material. Even on your own terms, there are more things that phsyical things. Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

 Manchu wrote:
Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

You just presented two means by which a physicalist would define happiness as existent.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Frazzled's motto: right, wrong, I'm the guy with the boom stick.

OK my real motto is "family is the only thing that matters.* The rest of the world can burn."
*And I have a boom stick.

Word brah!

@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

Well, the intellectual sort of mystery. There will always be a distinction between experience and knowledge.

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

Physicalism is certainly dualistic. It slides the definitions around to seem otherwise. Generic modernity splits the world into things that exist subjectively and things that exist objectively. Physicalism is nothing more than claiming that the only "real" kind of existence is objective and that objective means material. Even on your own terms, there are more things that phsyical things. Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

Good grief that's a slippery and unstable platform.

Yes, so we explain happiness under physicalism as a result of the human brain undergoing a chemical process due to stimuli it interprets as positive. Nonexistant constructs vs subjective unknowables of the mind is the very reason physicalism is nonduality. You can claim it belongs to duality all you want, but the majority (sculpting our reality again) believe otherwise and therefore, you're wrong. In the same way that I can't claim the elephant seal belongs to the bird family, until the majority believe it and it becomes true...

You would explain, from the cartesian stance you've been carrying here and in the animal rights/bullfighting thread, happiness as being entirely 'of the mind' and not immediately understandable or 'knowable' by science, in the same way you were citing human rights as existing in some state beyond the definable or measurable state.

So you can claim all you want that physicalism belongs to Cartesian and it just doesn't fit, because it is actually an opposing school, it specifically targets and dismisses dualism as a construct and instead places it's stance firmly in the singular position of the 'mind as brain'. Physicalism relies on the eventual explanation of everything by science and understanding as real or having a real or solid explanation, your Cartesian claim the mystery of 'the other' as it's dominion.

We can explain happiness as a construct of society built around the chemical reactions taking place in the brain in response to stimuli.

We can explain human rights as a construct of society built around the sociological needs of a growing society, drawn up from enshrining needs of the physical into protected status in the society's set rules. And they are indeed very very mutable.

It's not really a matter of opinion, but of history and argument. Historically, physicalism is only possibly because of Cartesian duality. As a matter of argument, physicalism is nothing more than a very poor shift in definitions. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong because you and your imaginary majority say so. I might buy (because I would have to) that kind of argument if you and a gang of brownshirts were busting into my house at night but in this world of text you're going to have to give an actual counterargument. As I mentioned to dogma, "explaining" happiness as chemical reactions is not really explaining happiness at all except to the extent that you are saying (as you do about everything that is not made of atoms or energy) that it doesn't exist.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

The issue isn't a lack of mystery; it is a lack of sensible meaning. When I ask about happiness, I'm not asking about dopamine. The physicalist insists that my question is therefore meaningless. Nothing has been explained. If anything, mystery has been generated, namely the mystery of why the word (comprised of things like happiness) apparently does not exist except in a sense that is not ordinarily apparent (as chemicals, or atoms, or leptons).

 Manchu wrote:
It's not really a matter of opinion, but of history and argument. Historically, physicalism is only possibly because of Cartesian duality. As a matter of argument, physicalism is nothing more than a very poor shift in definitions. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong because you and your imaginary majority say so. I might buy (because I would have to) that kind of argument if you and a gang of brownshirts were busting into my house at night but in this world of text you're going to have to give an actual counterargument. As I mentioned to dogma, "explaining" happiness as chemical reactions is not really explaining happiness at all except to the extent that you are saying (as you do about everything that is not made of atoms or energy) that it doesn't exist.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

The issue isn't a lack of mystery; it is a lack of sensible meaning. When I ask about happiness, I'm not asking about dopamine. The physicalist insists that my question is therefore meaningless. Nothing has been explained. If anything, mystery has been generated, namely the mystery of why the word (comprised of things like happiness) apparently does not exist except in a sense that is not ordinarily apparent (as chemicals).

Happiness: The enjoyable result of the release of chemicals into the brain, reducing stress or discomfort and bringing about a positive sense in the individual. Also, a word created to explain this chemical reaction as an 'emotion'.

Emotion: Various behavior and perception shifting effects on the human brain, to wide ranging outcomes, brought about by stimuli promoting the release of various chemicals into the brain.

You can claim that's not 'sensible', science is not here to placate your constructed sensibility. You can also claim that it's 'very poor' and again, science is not here to meet your personal criteria, it exists to answer questions and explain, you can choose to reject it's explanation and it will still have explained the reason.

You can also use a wide ranging vocabulary and cite philosophy all you want and you're still saying, basically, that the earth is flat because despite being shown evidence to the contrary, you choose to believe something else that you or someone else has said. You are choosing belief over science, you are choosing the spoken idea over the physical and presented fact.

MGS, I should clarify that I have no problem with science. I think it is awfully useful. I just don't think it's the only tool in the human tool box. And I think the issue of human existence in the world takes more tools.

Please then clarify what exists in the human experience that we need to explain that science does not already cover adequately?

I read this thread while listening to college radio.

I had to get the mood RIGHT!

I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

I think the only way to answer this question in a meaningful way would require right and wrong to be placed inside of a particular philisophical view point. As it stands you might as well ask what color is infinity or what does thursday taste like.

 Frazzled wrote:
I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

That does sound like fun, doesn't it? I don't know the answer but some people say it's only a matter of time.

And just think of all the guns! Oh (Creator Figure) I'd probably go into shock.

 xole wrote:
I think the only way to answer this question in a meaningful way would require right and wrong to be placed inside of a particular philisophical view point. As it stands you might as well ask what color is infinity or what does thursday taste like.

That'd be a daft question, we all know thursdays taste yellow.

There is only one"truth" and that is the human right of surviving women.

Lying to a women is never wrong , in fact it is expected.

This philisophical viewpoint is known as survivalism.

So many big words and concepts hurt my brain.
I'll just leave this link :

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=related&v=X5cQcmAtjJ0

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

How? Kant's answer to OP's question would be ''when the situation has changed enough that it's necessary to use a different maxim to obtain a universally valid answer''.

Admit you just like to bash on Kant. Which is admirable, of course, but in it's time and place.

1. Thank you for ruining what I considered to be a halfway decent pun.
2. I admit as much all the damned time. The only reason "Kant sux" isn't my sig is because I didn't want my sig to be so negative.

 Frazzled wrote:
I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

Mission accomplished.

We need a clear-cut operational definition of wrong.

That being said, there is no such thing as right or wrong because no two people can 100% agree on everything so we have no basis of comparison. What we are left with is "screws /helps others" and "screws/helps me." Pick one of each. Try for "helps me/helps others," but that is rarely an easy option, so choose who to help wisely.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

And what is wrong with this?

There's plenty wrong with Kant's ethics. It doesn't conform to moral intuitions. The exemples given are all directed according to pre-existing conclusions. It is inapplicable in many situations. And it's bloody boring to read.

I Kant deal with this...