|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 6, 2011 12:53:54 GMT -4
It may well be that early on in all of this, it was determined that the radiation concerns simply could not be countenanced. They may have decided to fake the whole thing simply based on this risk. (Emphasis mine) Taking your first very-much-hypothetical proposition as granted for the purposes of this discussion: Why would perpetrating a fraud be more palatable than simply stating that the proposed activity presents an unacceptable level of risk, and subsequently not doing it?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 4, 2011 13:21:02 GMT -4
It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. Even before they can be measured, they must be defined. So how are benefit and harm to be objectively defined? And is the reverse also true? Is a beneficially-intended action which results in harm still to be deemed good? And what do intentions have to do with objective reality? If I intend to paint something green but use red paint instead, it still won't be green. The wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation absorbed and reflected by the surface do not bow to my intentions, only my actions. You had previously stated: "Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could..." Are you now retracting that claim? Is not mankind, owing to our lack of perfect knowledge of our actions' ramifications for untold aeons to come, inherently incapable of discerning objective good from evil, by your definition? And how is this potential to be determined? Actually I thought that was a pretty good analogy, and the "flaw" DataCable pointed out is really just a nit. I dispute this. In addition to presenting a scenario in which the pro/pre-scribed action is, by itself, inconsequential, you are also conflating the situations of contradictory commandments given to a human incapable of comprehending the potential consequences of her actions and a human better-capable of understanding those consequences, with contradictory commandments given to fully-developed adults. Then, by your definition, murder is not objectively immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 3, 2011 21:37:39 GMT -4
Does anyone here have briefcase full of cash? I could probably scare up a briefcase jammed to the gills with Iranian 100-Rial notes.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 3, 2011 0:16:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 2, 2011 23:39:10 GMT -4
3: When the Transformers return to the Apollo 11 landing site, the assent stage is still attached. Returned by the Historical Sticklers Society, no doubt. Also note that Neil jumped from the bottom rung of the ladder directly onto the lunar surface, not the foot pad.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 29, 2011 14:27:18 GMT -4
I really don't know if there is an objective morality... I would think that if there was a God, it would exist. If the existence of objective morality is contingent on the existence of a god, wouldn't that mean that the god decided what is and isn't moral? In that case, morality isn't objective, but the arbitrary opinion of one being. See The Euthyphro Dilemma. Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 29, 2011 13:57:34 GMT -4
How about "good actions are those actions which produce an absolute net benefit, either to the action-taker or others, whereas evil actions are those which produce an absolute net harm, either to the action-taker or to others?" This definition seems to lead us right back to the original issue: How to objectively measure "benefit" and "harm." Further, is "others" limited to members of homo sapiens? Since morality is limited to intelligent agents (the tectonic activity which resulted in the Japanese tsunami could hardly be characterized as "evil"), wouldn't a component be predictable consequences of a given action? Did Alois and Klara Hitler perform an evil act by conceiving their 4th child? How could the (im)morality of any given action possibly be evaluated if millennia of subsequent results yet to occur cannot yet be measured as benefit, harm, or neutral? Under this definition, wouldn't both of the following actions be morally neutral? One sacrifices themself, preventing another from being killed. One kills another, preventing themself from being killed. (Not necessarily in the standard "self-defense" scenario) In both cases, benefit and harm cancel out.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 28, 2011 13:10:57 GMT -4
At its most basic level: are some actions "wrong" or "evil" and others "right" or "good" regardless of the opinion of any given observer or participant? An answer would require a clear definition of what distinguishes "good" actions from "evil" actions, which doesn't involve a rote list of examples. Maybe wiggling one's pinky finger in a westerly direction is the most absolutely evil action one can perform, but with no objective metric, the definitions fall back into the realm of arbitrary opinion. By what process would you propose to objectively measure "evil?" If we're keeping within the "objective" framework, enforcement would support the objective (im)morality of an action only if applied objectively, which I would think discounts the involvement of an intelligent agent.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 26, 2011 2:17:36 GMT -4
And, of course, by whose standards is said parent loving and wise? I've seen people who think they are and are really vicious, petty, and heedless. Oh, I quite agree, I was just granting the characterization to demonstrate other flaws in the reasoning (and torture a metaphor in the process.)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 25, 2011 21:05:26 GMT -4
Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could, but if a loving and wise parent wishes to give you advice on what is good and evil, why reinvent the wheel? Several possibilities: - Said wheel is observed to be of flawed design.
- Said loving and wise parent is observed using a wheel of different design.
- Said wheel is determined to be invented not by said loving and wise parent, but by a monopolistic sibling.
I agree that you must make your own determination on what is right and what is wrong, which includes listening to those you trust on moral issues. And if the advice of one you trust is determined to be incorrect? Perhaps it would mean that "gravity" is not, in fact, a natural force, but some form of Intelligent Manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 25, 2011 3:19:32 GMT -4
I may hit TAM at some point, but Labor Day weekend I'll be at my 3rd straight Dragon*Con in Atlanta, which has a rather popular Skepticism track, so it's sort of a mini-TAM, mixed in with all the other nerd-tastic goodness. Adam's a long-time D*C attendee as well, saw him at a few panels in '09... though now that I look I don't see him yet on this year's guest list.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 3, 2011 1:09:15 GMT -4
Pedant! Guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 1, 2011 5:03:00 GMT -4
I tend to only half-jokingly blame The X-Files for a great deal of the present tinfoil millinery industry.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 29, 2011 20:03:43 GMT -4
How many fighter pilots does it take to change a light bulb? One - he just holds the bulb and the world revolves around him. Rotates. If the world revolved around him, it would be orbiting him, and that action isn't very useful for manipulating threaded fasteners.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 28, 2011 13:50:14 GMT -4
And endless loop of "Can you hear me now?" in Russian?
|
|