PDA

View Full Version : Philosophical Discussions



Cordialfellow
October 29th, 2011, 03:50 PM
Alright. My first thread on BL. I'm so proud of myself. So anyway as something of a wannabe philosopher I am interested in looking at arguments for different philosophical viewpoints i.e. nihlism, freethought etc,etc. But please Ladies and Gentlemen can we try to refrain from religious arguments? I realize that Religion can fall under the purview of philosophy but I'd rather this not escalate into a flamewar thread which the mods lock.

MssrNeko
October 29th, 2011, 04:14 PM
Not to be a stick in the mud, bro, but there's already a philosophy thread two pages back.

You can revive that one.

Cordialfellow
October 29th, 2011, 04:17 PM
Really? Damn it!

Mike1984
October 29th, 2011, 04:20 PM
It's easy to miss....

Counterguardian
October 29th, 2011, 08:40 PM
I think a new thread for this will be fine.

It lets us discuss any and all philosophy we want, instead of just being restricted to just solipsism or theology.



To get the ball rolling, with quantum logic being a whole lot more funny than the classical a priori logic philosopher's exercise, what does this mean for existentialist theories that depend on classical logic to show there is no a priori proof to show we interact in a real world?

Cordialfellow
October 30th, 2011, 06:38 AM
If at all possible can you put that in Layman's terms?
Edit: Never mind I've looked it up.

MZeroX
October 30th, 2011, 06:58 AM
quantum logic takes advantage of the hilarious statistical nature quantum mechanics and the chance that shit doesn't actually happen the way you'd expect it to happen 100% of the time (yay uncertainty principle! well, some people would argue that this is grossly misused, but let's keep this rolling). This basically shits all over the basic rules of truth-valued formal predicate logic. Fun existentialist arguments that use formal logic as their base don't necessarily hold up to quantum logical allowances, meaning the arguments just sort of fall apart due to the premises' truth values being negated in specific cases. Or at least that's the proposition I think Counterguardian is posing here.

I haven't studied enough about quantum logic in general and haven't dealt with Existential arguments for a while, so my 2 cents will have to wait for another time, but this could very much be a fun exercise.

Ivan The Mouse
October 30th, 2011, 06:59 AM
Let's just discuss the reason why economics established that man can never be satisfied. How about that?

MZeroX
October 30th, 2011, 07:00 AM
Let's just discuss the reason why economics established that man can never be satisfied. How about that?alienation and maximization. (lol?)
/discussion

seriously, do you honestly want to wade through Marxism while considering the balancing act between society, individual, and economics fulfillment without establishing the base theory as a premise? well, i guess someone can lay it out and then we can nitpick the argument.
*looks expectantly at other forumites*

eddyak
October 30th, 2011, 08:17 AM
*Strolls into thread expecting juvenile arguments on good/evil, the meaning of life and existence*
*Thread*
*Backs out slowly*

Counterguardian
October 30th, 2011, 08:27 AM
Let's just discuss the reason why economics established that man can never be satisfied. How about that?

We could attack it from a Darwinist angle - The fundamental drive of an individual is to establish himself in a position of superiority in order to ensure maximal chances of survival and procreation. With the development of currency as a universal indicator of material power, this leads to a drive to be fiscally more successful than your competitors.

Thus modern economics is merely a mechanism that channels all of humanity's desires onto a common field, showing what we already knew - we can never be satisfied unless we're on top. And as long as someone is on top, somebody else isn't. Thus the cycle continues.

Ivan The Mouse
October 30th, 2011, 10:10 AM
Now the question is, why can't we be all on top?

Mike1984
October 30th, 2011, 10:24 AM
We could attack it from a Darwinist angle - The fundamental drive of an individual is to establish himself in a position of superiority in order to ensure maximal chances of survival and procreation.

Except that evolution does not in any way preclude co-operation. Indeed, sometimes it encourages it. Further, we're intelligent enough that we can hopefully go beyond that sort of thinking.


With the development of currency as a universal indicator of material power, this leads to a drive to be fiscally more successful than your competitors.

Bollocks.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about how much money I earn, except in terms of being able to buy stuff with it.


Thus modern economics is merely a mechanism that channels all of humanity's desires onto a common field, showing what we already knew - we can never be satisfied unless we're on top. And as long as someone is on top, somebody else isn't. Thus the cycle continues.

Not really. Modern economics is a field which makes entirely unreasonable assumptions about human nature and uses them to come to entirely unreasonable conclusions about how the world should work, which the government and bankers then use as an excuse to royally fuck over everyone else.

When people come to understand that economics is usually a mathematical discipline rather than an experimental science the world will be a much better place.

Cordialfellow
October 30th, 2011, 11:24 AM
@Ivan Because for everyone to be equal we would all need the same amount of money. Meaning that if someone were to buy something they would not be on top. For eveyone to be on top we would have to cater to the lowest common denominator and we would have to all agree to cater to it. Not all people would be willing to cater to the lowest common denomiantor.

Mike1984
October 30th, 2011, 11:32 AM
@Ivan Because for everyone to be equal we would all need the same amount of money. Meaning that if someone were to buy something they would not be on top. For eveyone to be on top we would have to cater to the lowest common denominator and we would have to all agree to cater to it. Not all people would be willing to cater to the lowest common denomiantor.

Only if you assume money perfectly defines your "status", which it quite patently doesn't, hence why many very intelligent people are quite happy to work in academia or less well-paying jobs rather than going to earn absurd amounts of money doing something totally meaningless and pointless like investment banking.

Satehi
October 30th, 2011, 12:29 PM
Unlimited number of wants, limited number of resources?

Mike1984
October 30th, 2011, 12:43 PM
Unlimited number of wants, limited number of resources?

That doesn't prevent equality, though, only everyone getting everything they want....

Counterguardian
October 30th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Not everybody wants equality, that's the thing. They want to be better than everybody else.

Which is why communism tends to end up corrupt.

Twelveseal
October 30th, 2011, 06:53 PM
-Fetches popcorn and soda-

Warning: The following is a statement made by the uneducated. Generally speaking, I have no idea what any of your terminology means, though there are a few exceptions.

Minor point, but wasn't the premise to determine why the whole of humanity cannot be satisfied? Or did I miss something? If so, my bad. If not, then the goal herein would in fact be to make sure that all the wants of mankind are satisfied. The idea that any practice that limits the fulfilment of even one person's desires would ultimately fall into the dominion of dissatisfaction. So, wouldn't Satehi's point be accurate? Even when dealing with non-materialistic goals, that statement should still be applicable.

Mike1984
October 30th, 2011, 06:57 PM
Not everybody wants equality, that's the thing. They want to be better than everybody else.

That's true of some people, certainly. However, countries like Sweden (and, indeed, much of Europe) demonstrate that socialism works perfectly well, which would not be true if what you're claiming applied more broadly.


Which is why communism tends to end up corrupt.

No, Communism ends up corrupt because it has no freedom and no accountability, and further the only way to get to the top (after the initial leader dies) is to be a total yes-man, which tends to mean you lack any real belief in the ideology you nominally hold.

It's notable that communist dictatorships usually only become corrupt after the original leader dies. Prior to that point they may be brutal and arguably inefficient, but they do still usually stick by their original beliefs. However, because there is no accountability and no allowance for dissent (even by people who actually do hold broadly socialist or communist beliefs), the people who get promoted are not the ones who genuinely have the good of the people at heart or who believe in the communist ideology the most strongly, but rather those who are seeking power.

This is a fundamental flaw with all political systems, but dictatorships are the most prone to it. The fact that most communist states are corrupt is just a red herring, because the problem there is the fact that it's a dictatorship, not that it supports equality. Other types of dictatorship are just as prone to corruption, it just tends to be more accepted.

RR121
October 30th, 2011, 09:06 PM
As ironic as it sounds considering our vast disagreements on the matters of authority, I agree with Mike, for the most part, with one exception: Europe and Sweden are *not* socialist. They have some socialist policies, but they are not socialist and cannot be counted as successes on that part. The only socialist countries are North Korea, China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam. If Sweden was socialist, we wouldn't have IKEA.

Communism as a system is impractical only because some "entity" is responsible for distribution, and like any entity, is subject to corruption without oversight. Not to mention that there is a lack of proper incentives in the system in order to entice nonbelievers to follow the philosophy. Basically, the system relies on a broad support of the philosophy across the board, and a willingness to participate.

Capitalism as a financial system has enough flaws to make anyone shudder, but the irony is it tends to be successful (so far) despite a reasonably large wealth disparity is because of incentives and a reasonably level playing field, in theory allowing anyone with enough effort to go higher, which in theory contributes to society. Of course, the argument could be made that when a company lobbies a government to a large enough degree, the playing field is no longer anywhere near level, and of course, we can go on and on about that, but the point stands that capitalism does not require belief in it in order to succeed.

SeiKeo
October 30th, 2011, 09:11 PM
China and Vietnam, at least, have pretty much ditched communism anyways, and gone pretty far to ditching socialism.

Mike1984
October 30th, 2011, 09:24 PM
As ironic as it sounds considering our vast disagreements on the matters of authority, I agree with Mike, for the most part, with one exception: Europe and Sweden are *not* socialist. They have some socialist policies, but they are not socialist and cannot be counted as successes on that part.

Yes, they are socialist, in the same sense as the US is capitalist despite not having a completely unrestricted free market.


The only socialist countries are North Korea, China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam. If Sweden was socialist, we wouldn't have IKEA.

Seriously, what?

North Korea, China, Laos and Vietnam are far less socialist than Sweden is. They're corrupt state capitalist societies, not socialist ones.


Communism as a system is impractical only because some "entity" is responsible for distribution, and like any entity, is subject to corruption without oversight. Not to mention that there is a lack of proper incentives in the system in order to entice nonbelievers to follow the philosophy. Basically, the system relies on a broad support of the philosophy across the board, and a willingness to participate.

This is partially true. However, the issue is with the authoritarian nature of it, not with the socialist nature.


Capitalism as a financial system has enough flaws to make anyone shudder, but the irony is it tends to be successful (so far) despite a reasonably large wealth disparity is because of incentives and a reasonably level playing field, in theory allowing anyone with enough effort to go higher, which in theory contributes to society. Of course, the argument could be made that when a company lobbies a government to a large enough degree, the playing field is no longer anywhere near level, and of course, we can go on and on about that, but the point stands that capitalism does not require belief in it in order to succeed.

Well, capitalism as a system works because we don't actually follow capitalism to its full extent. We have a welfare state, we have taxation, we have a legal system. None of those things are a part of "true" capitalism, hence why true capitalism fails so horribly.

And, yes, capitalism does require you to believe in the system for it to work, because it requires people to not forge money, steal property and so on. The only alternative is to force people to obey these rules, and that's no different from what happens in a communist country.

RR121
October 31st, 2011, 12:09 PM
Nnooooooo.

Socialism's key tenets involve the lack of private ownership, and the lack of private companies.

Sweden fails on both counts, and very few countries have had that one work out for them. I would categorize it as a highly regulated capitalist market, with broad income redistribution policies, so probably a welfare state.

And "true" capitalism, as you decided to draw up a Strawman to beat on, doesn't exist. Anywhere. Also, regarding forging of currency, theft of property, etc, I would like to wonder how precisely these require belief in the system to work? If anything, a thief can perfectly believe in the system of capitalism, and be quite pleased with their own work.

As far as it goes, capitalism is mostly about incentivizations, so it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not. We provide incentives (force) to *not* steal, and so forth. I'm not going to argue with you that using force to stop theft is a perfectly justified use of it, because really, I just don't care whether you think its justified or not.

Mike1984
October 31st, 2011, 12:17 PM
Nnooooooo.

Socialism's key tenets involve the lack of private ownership, and the lack of private companies.

Sweden fails on both counts, and very few countries have had that one work out for them.

Not really. True socialism means restricted private ownership, but it does not mean absolutely none, and nor is a country non-socialist just because it is not fully socialist.


I would categorize it as a highly regulated capitalist market, with broad income redistribution policies, so probably a welfare state.

But it's clearly not capitalist either. Like you said, "true" Capitalism does not exist anywhere, just like true socialism does not.


And "true" capitalism, as you decided to draw up a Strawman to beat on, doesn't exist. Anywhere.

Exactly....


Also, regarding forging of currency, theft of property, etc, I would like to wonder how precisely these require belief in the system to work? If anything, a thief can perfectly believe in the system of capitalism, and be quite pleased with their own work.

They require a belief in or a fear of the system to prevent them happening.


As far as it goes, capitalism is mostly about incentivizations, so it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not. We provide incentives (force) to *not* steal, and so forth. I'm not going to argue with you that using force to stop theft is a perfectly justified use of it, because really, I just don't care whether you think its justified or not.

And you can argue exactly the same about a communist system. Just like you can force people not to steal, you can force people not to possess private property. Indeed, doing so is if anything easier, because simply failing to enforce private property rules would very quickly make them disappear....

RR121
October 31st, 2011, 12:23 PM
And you can argue exactly the same about a communist system. Just like you can force people not to steal, you can force people not to possess private property. Indeed, doing so is if anything easier, because simply failing to enforce private property rules would very quickly make them disappear....

This is true, to a degree. However, I'd like to hear a proposed mechanism for enforcing a ban on private ownership, or even restricting it...

Yeah, its not pretty. You pretty much have to completely fuck civil liberties and have random inspections of all properties. Which only encourages abuse. Which only feeds back into your system failing.

Mike1984
October 31st, 2011, 12:48 PM
This is true, to a degree. However, I'd like to hear a proposed mechanism for enforcing a ban on private ownership, or even restricting it...

Well, you can't, of course, but that's not what I think socialism is anyway. Socialism does not prevent any kind of private ownership, just like capitalism does not prevent theft. At absolute most it would be made illegal and generally frowned upon, and more likely it would just not be enforced.


Yeah, its not pretty. You pretty much have to completely fuck civil liberties and have random inspections of all properties. Which only encourages abuse.

Well, not entirely. Like I said, it can largely be "enforced" by simply not enforcing private property rights (and by forbidding the use of violence to defend your property). That alone makes any kind of private property ownership pretty much impossible.

Also, Socialism does not mean that there is absolutely no private property, it just means that you don't recognise private property rights as particuarly sacrosanct. The opposite of rigidly-enforced property rights is not absolutely no property rights, it's an absolute lack of enforcement of them.


Which only feeds back into your system failing.

Yes, a "true" socialist system (by your definition, anyway) fails, but by your own admission so does a true capitalist system. The point is that, in reality, we have something in between, that is neither truly socialist or truly capitalist.

RR121
October 31st, 2011, 02:34 PM
Well, you can't, of course, but that's not what I think socialism is anyway. Socialism does not prevent any kind of private ownership, just like capitalism does not prevent theft. At absolute most it would be made illegal and generally frowned upon, and more likely it would just not be enforced.

I'm actually a bit curious now, what precisely is your definition of socialism? As in, what do you consider to be an ideal socialist society? I think we're operating off of different definitions here. And as for the "preventing theft" thing, well, one party considers themselves wronged, so they have an incentive to report it, and while it doesn't prevent theft, it certainly discourages it.




Well, not entirely. Like I said, it can largely be "enforced" by simply not enforcing private property rights (and by forbidding the use of violence to defend your property). That alone makes any kind of private property ownership pretty much impossible.

That'll work out well, because then you encourage theft of the "allocated resources" given to each individual, does it not? I mean, presuming you mean that an individual entity is not entitled to their own privacy in an allocated home, yes, you could do that. However, if each person is allowed to defend their own allocated living space from intruders, you have a problem. And I somehow doubt anybody's cool with a policy where you are instantly subject to anyone walking in, and you have no right to prevent their entry.




Also, Socialism does not mean that there is absolutely no private property, it just means that you don't recognise private property rights as particuarly sacrosanct. The opposite of rigidly-enforced property rights is not absolutely no property rights, it's an absolute lack of enforcement of them.

Yes, a "true" socialist system (by your definition, anyway) fails, but by your own admission so does a true capitalist system. The point is that, in reality, we have something in between, that is neither truly socialist or truly capitalist.

Point taken. However, you have to admit that the model of incentivization, which is more what I consider the important part, is distinctly important. In a socialist society, the idealized motto is "from each according their ability, to each according their need", if I am not mistaken? Noble in spirit, but I find it very hard to believe anyone is encouraged to work to their greatest ability in this system. If you work harder, you...get more taken from you. That's...super.

Like I said before, I dislike capitalism (and actually all governmental/economic systems thus far invented) a great deal, but I have yet to see a system that doesn't have enough flaws to make anyone's eyes bleed. As far as it goes, I consider capitalism, with appropriate modifications, one of the more successful ones.

Mike1984
October 31st, 2011, 03:02 PM
I'm actually a bit curious now, what precisely is your definition of socialism? As in, what do you consider to be an ideal socialist society? I think we're operating off of different definitions here.

Well, I'm broadly anarchist in nature, so I consider an "ideal socialist society" to be one with essentially no government and collective control of resources, methods of production etc., no real concept of "wealth" and equal distribution of essential resources, not a total absense of private property.


And as for the "preventing theft" thing, well, one party considers themselves wronged, so they have an incentive to report it, and while it doesn't prevent theft, it certainly discourages it.

Well, that is true, but then people in a socialist society are also "wronged" by people having more than their fair share of resources. And, the general attitude that most people have towards investment bankers and company executives suggests to me that such feelings certainly do exist, at least in extreme cases. Conversely, there are plenty of cases where people do not condemn theft (stealing to feed a starving family etc.).


That'll work out well, because then you encourage theft of the "allocated resources" given to each individual, does it not?

Well, having a concept of "allocated resources" that absolutely belong to you is essentially private property anyway. It doesn't matter whether the state retains the right to claim those resources for itself and redistribute them as it sees fit (which is true in every country in the world, in principle at least), what matters is whether there is any concept of something being "yours". Distributing resources equally doesn't stop them being your resources once they're given to you.


I mean, presuming you mean that an individual entity is not entitled to their own privacy in an allocated home, yes, you could do that.

Well, that is one of the only reasonable arguments I've actually heard for why some concept of "private property" is necessary in certain circumstances. If you lack it, then you can't really have any kind of privacy either.


However, if each person is allowed to defend their own allocated living space from intruders, you have a problem. And I somehow doubt anybody's cool with a policy where you are instantly subject to anyone walking in, and you have no right to prevent their entry.

Defending your living space isn't the same as defending your property, though. People can, for instance, steal something that isn't in your house, or even steal it when you're not there.


Point taken. However, you have to admit that the model of incentivization, which is more what I consider the important part, is distinctly important. In a socialist society, the idealized motto is "from each according their ability, to each according their need", if I am not mistaken? Noble in spirit, but I find it very hard to believe anyone is encouraged to work to their greatest ability in this system. If you work harder, you...get more taken from you. That's...super.

Well, that is, of course, a perfectly valid criticism of socialism, in at least some forms. However, I do not believe that the majority of people work harder if they are paid more, and nor do I believe that pay generally comes even close to reflecting the level of effort (or the acutal utility of their work) for the vast majority of people.

Further, socialism does not absolutely prevent people being rewarded differently for different levels of effort (except perhaps pure socialism, which does not truly exist), it just means ensuring that everyone is able to actually survive and that the discrepency is not overly large. Most anarchist communes did pay the management (who were elected from amongst the workers) slightly more than the normal workforce, it just wasn't anything like as much more than they would get in a capitalist society, which IMO is a good thing because most managers do not deserve anything like what they are paid.


Like I said before, I dislike capitalism (and actually all governmental systems thus far invented) a great deal, but I have yet to see a system that doesn't have enough flaws to make anyone's eyes bleed. As far as it goes, I consider capitalism, with appropriate modifications, one of the more successful ones.

Well, this is of course true, which is why no pure system is likely to work. Capitalism is a horrible system in its pure form, and whilst some aspects of it are indeed useful, the basic tenet of it (that private property rights are unrestricted) is one which simply does not come even close to working, and which no government in the world comes even close to implementing (indeed, if they did, then there would be no government in any realistic sense, because they would have no abilty to enforce their rules on private land, and no money to buy their own land).

eddyak
November 3rd, 2011, 03:25 PM
So, I was reading this (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html), and I found it interesting, especially as I'd actually noticed this a while back.

So, 90% of the time, you're arguing when you're wrong, and don't give a shit.

Counterguardian
November 3rd, 2011, 06:22 PM
It seems to be a case of social conditioning more than actual hard-wiring.

Twelveseal
November 3rd, 2011, 06:24 PM
Ahhh. Cracked.com. Those are almost always fun. Thanks Yak.

ratstsrub
November 3rd, 2011, 07:21 PM
So, I was reading this (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html), and I found it interesting, especially as I'd actually noticed this a while back.

So, 90% of the time, you're arguing when you're wrong, and don't give a shit.

Or maybe you're interpreting that incorrectly.

Tobias
December 1st, 2011, 11:46 AM
I have a philosophical question for you all.

I was just downloading a game I want off a torrent. after getting a few megs I noticed my upload speed shot passed my download speed and felt happy, I always feel good if I give more then I take, but after a moment of thought, I wondered why.

see, at first glance doing so is being generous. but in actuality, I dont delude myself into thinking downloading a game is anything other then theft. and by uploading as well, what I am essentially doing is aiding other people in doing something that is wrong, so morally, should one feel good for helping others, no matter what it is you are helping them do, or, if you help someone do something which is wrong, have you actually done something you should feel ashamed of.

Mike1984
December 1st, 2011, 11:52 AM
How is downloading a game "theft"? You're not depriving anyone of anything by doing it. And, uploading a game is a good act, because you're giving up your bandwidth (which costs you money, ultimately) to give the file to someone else.

I always try to upload as much as I download, and if the torrent is dying (so there are not many seeds left), I tend to continue seeding it for a long time.

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded

Tobias
December 1st, 2011, 12:06 PM
I disagree, but let's side step that because it's irrelevant.

General question. You take an action that in now way benefits you, possibly inconvienances you, to help someone else.

That action however, aids them in doing something immoral.
Good/bad

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 12:07 PM
Immoral.

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:11 PM
That depends on your view.
Since I like downloading, especially things that I can not access otherwise, because of money or the fact that they aren't available in my region, I support other people doing the same.
I know pirate logic. I know that those dudes wouldn't buy the stuff they download if it wasn't available for downloading. So I am only helping.
I'm a student, and I already pay the money I get to the creators of the things I like, so unless I am going to prostitute myslef they aren't getting any more money outta me.

Mike1984
December 1st, 2011, 12:14 PM
I disagree, but let's side step that because it's irrelevant.

General question. You take an action that in now way benefits you, possibly inconvienances you, to help someone else.

That action however, aids them in doing something immoral.
Good/bad

Helping someone do something you believe to be immoral is definitely immoral, even if you're not gaining anything from it yourself. On the other hand, it's considerably less immoral to aid someone to commit an immoral act than committing that act yourself would be (because you're at least doing it for altruistic motives), so....


That depends on your view.
Since I like downloading, especially things that I can not access otherwise, because of money or the fact that they aren't available in my region, I support other people doing the same.
I know pirate logic. I know that those dudes wouldn't buy the stuff they download if it wasn't available for downloading. So I am only helping.
I'm a student, and I already pay the money I get to the creators of the things I like, so unless I am going to prostitute myslef they aren't getting any more money outta me.

There are two seperate questions here. Whether piracy is immoral, and whether aiding someone to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. What Tobias was asking about was the second, even if he used a rather controversial example to explain it.

Kotonoha
December 1st, 2011, 12:14 PM
My view on this subject. (http://www.cristgaming.com/pirate.swf)

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:16 PM
...you use Limewire in 2011?
Can I call you "Granny Koto"?

Tobias
December 1st, 2011, 12:16 PM
Oh for the love of....


Hey, the torrent thing was just elaborating on what brought up the question, it literally has nothing to do with the actual moral quandary, just forget that part if it bugs you.

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 12:17 PM
Call it is it moral to give someone money to go out and buy a gun to shoot someone if you wish.

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:18 PM
But it is an interesting more or less philosophical discussion of an everyday thing, don't you think?
So if your question is answered, continuing with it should be cool.

Theocrass
December 1st, 2011, 12:18 PM
Just popping into to say that something roughly analogous to copyright is important even in foraging cultures and the like. Only certain families/individuals have the right to tell certain stories, sing certain songs, and do certain dances. And they take violations of these rules very seriously. Like, you'd be relegated to a position of sociopolitical inefficacy for the rest of your life if you broke them.

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM
uh... what.

Mike1984
December 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM
Oh for the love of....


Hey, the torrent thing was just elaborating on what brought up the question, it literally has nothing to do with the actual moral quandary, just forget that part if it bugs you.

Yeah, I already pointed that out, but you probably didn't see it because I edited it in after Koto posted....

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM
Well, but this is not about tradition or identity, this is about financial profit. And I can justify my pirating habits by the fact that I can't spend more than the money I get from working on the weekends.

Theocrass
December 1st, 2011, 12:21 PM
Err ... I'm not sure if copyright is the right word. Maybe it's intellectual property rights?

Or perhaps intellectual ... something?

I'm sorry, it's early in the morning and I haven't had power and internet since last night. ;_;

Mike1984
December 1st, 2011, 12:25 PM
Just popping into to say that something roughly analogous to copyright is important even in foraging cultures and the like. Only certain families/individuals have the right to tell certain stories, sing certain songs, and do certain dances. And they take violations of these rules very seriously. Like, you'd be relegated to a position of sociopolitical inefficacy for the rest of your life if you broke them.

Two things. Firstly, "so what?" Killing your enemies brutally is pretty common in foraging cultures too, that doesn't mean we should follow them. And, secondly, even if they do, their idea of it is likely a lot less biased towards big businesses and against normal people than ours is.

Also, whether copyright infringement is immoral is a seperate argument from whether it is theft (hell, I don't even consider theft to be immoral in all cases). Murder is immoral, but it is not theft (unless you horribly bastardise the meaning of theft, or totally miscontrue why murder is wrong). Theft means to take something from someone, thereby depriving them of it, and downloading films does not do that. I am depriving no-one of anything.

Kotonoha
December 1st, 2011, 12:27 PM
...you use Limewire in 2011?
Can I call you "Granny Koto"?

I use WinMX, whippersnapper!

(I kid, but I was never too fond of Limewire. Ahh, good times downloading episodes of anime which took days and often didn't even finish so I watched the half-downloaded videos...)

About Tobias's original point though, I have kind of felt something similar before. "I bought a physical copy of this PSP game, but I want to play it off the memory stick, so I'll pirate it and be totally justified because I paid! Wait, I torrented it so other people are getting it off of me"

Theocrass
December 1st, 2011, 12:28 PM
Two things. Firstly, "so what?" Killing your enemies brutally is pretty common in foraging cultures too, that doesn't mean we should follow them. And, secondly, even if they do, their idea of it is likely a lot less biased towards big businesses and against normal people than ours is.

Also, whether copyright infringement is immoral is a seperate argument from whether it is theft. Murder is immoral, but it is not theft (unless you horribly bastardise the meaning of theft, or totally miscontrue why murder is wrong). Theft means to take something from someone, thereby depriving them of it, and downloading films does not do that. I am depriving no-one of anything.

Oh boy Mike.

You dun fucked up son!

FORAGING CULTURES (most of them, at least) DO NOT PRACTICE WARFARE AND THEY GENERALLY DEAL WITH ALL CONFLICT (Including the kind of personal conflict that would lead to murder) BY AVOIDING IT. That's how they remained foragers. Have a problem with another group in the area? Move on to a new area! Have a problem with your brother? Move to another band of your relatives!

The only exceptions are sedentary foragers, who only exist in two places. (Actually, most foraging cultures have been forced out of foraging by globalization and colonialism)

terraablaze
December 1st, 2011, 12:29 PM
Co oping another culture's myths or the myths and deities of another group within the same culture has also been fairly common in the past.

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 12:31 PM
About Tobias's original point though, I have kind of felt something similar before. "I bought a physical copy of this PSP game, but I want to play it off the memory stick, so I'll pirate it and be totally justified because I paid! Wait, I torrented it so other people are getting it off of me"

IIRC there are ways to stop uploading on torrents?

Kotonoha
December 1st, 2011, 12:32 PM
IIRC there are ways to stop uploading on torrents?

But that's being a leeching dick.

Theocrass
December 1st, 2011, 12:53 PM
Co oping another culture's myths or the myths and deities of another group within the same culture has also been fairly common in the past.

Um ... within the same culture would indicate that the two groups were pretty similar. Anyways, deities and really big myths would not have those same protections, because they would not be restricted to one family/person. However, certain stories extending from those things would be.

****************************

Let us speak of the darker side of donation!

Consider the following:
There have been many times in the past when mass dumps of clothing (either donated or just unwanted) were dumped in third world countries. This is seen as an act of charity, something that benefits the people there. What no one seems to realize is that this can be directly responsible for the collapse of such a country's textile industry.

So, I ask you!

Is participating in the organization of these clothing dumps an immoral act?

I3uster
December 1st, 2011, 12:55 PM
That is incredibly case dependant imo.

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 12:55 PM
No, that just makes it a Law of Unintended Consequences result, not immoral.

Kotonoha
December 1st, 2011, 12:56 PM
I'd say it's not immoral unless you specifically intend to hurt their industries.

terraablaze
December 1st, 2011, 12:57 PM
The Buddhists and Taoists of China often saw themselves as enemies but whatever. Pretty sure there is an idealogical difference between how a tribe might treat its stories and myths and how a company treats its products so the analogy still isn't a very good one.

Mike1984
December 1st, 2011, 01:10 PM
Let us speak of the darker side of donation!

Consider the following:
There have been many times in the past when mass dumps of clothing (either donated or just unwanted) were dumped in third world countries. This is seen as an act of charity, something that benefits the people there. What no one seems to realize is that this can be directly responsible for the collapse of such a country's textile industry.

Perhaps, but at the same time, it gives clothes to the very poorest, who otherwise couldn't afford them at all.

Theocrass
December 1st, 2011, 01:10 PM
@ Terraablaze: Tribes is not a good word to use for this. Buddhists and Taoists are two religious groups, though I don't know much about Taoists, so I couldn't say if they were completely different cultural groups as well.

ratstsrub
December 2nd, 2011, 12:30 AM
But that's being a leeching dick.

"Why you have valid counterargument!"

D:


In fact someone may be able to construct an appropriate analogy between the whole leeching vs seeding deal with piracy. At the least it'd be funny.

Counterguardian
December 2nd, 2011, 01:36 AM
You mean like:

P1. All peer-to-peer sharing must originate from a purchased copy.
P2. To "pirate" the file, you must first download it.
P3. The only people who download things are people who do not have it.
Sub-conclusion 1. Therefore when you "pirate" you do not have an original copy.

P4. Leechers are people who download without having an original copy.
Sub-conclusion 2. Therefore you are a leecher.

P5. After you download a copy it is still not an original copy.
P6. In order to be a true seeder you must have an original copy.
Sub-conclusion 3. You will always be a leecher.


And for the bonus:

The most horrendous people in history have been males.
Males have dicks.
Therefore dicks are bad.

Leechers are bad.
Dicks are bad.
Therefore when you're a leecher you're also a dick.

Therefore when you pirate you are and always will be a leeching dick.


Q.E.D. BITCHES!!!

ratstsrub
December 2nd, 2011, 01:39 AM
Well that's one way you could go.

By the way, deny all premises.

Ivan The Mouse
December 2nd, 2011, 04:30 AM
The most horrendous people in history have been males.
Males have dicks.
Therefore dicks are bad.

Major + middle
middle + minor
minor + Major

...I feel that there's something wrong with this statement. Let me check my logic book.

eddyak
December 2nd, 2011, 07:09 AM
I disagree, but let's side step that because it's irrelevant.

General question. You take an action that in now way benefits you, possibly inconvienances you, to help someone else.

That action however, aids them in doing something immoral.
Good/bad
The action itself is good. The results are bad.

It shouldn't be reduced to something as simple as "It's your fault he hurt someone cos you gave him the money to buy a gun" or "It's not my fault cos I didn't know what he was going to do with the money".

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 07:34 AM
The action itself is good. The results are bad.

It shouldn't be reduced to something as simple as "It's your fault he hurt someone cos you gave him the money to buy a gun" or "It's not my fault cos I didn't know what he was going to do with the money".

How is helping someone to do a clearly bad thing a "good" action, at least if you know that is their intent?

eddyak
December 2nd, 2011, 04:11 PM
The action itself is good, no matter your intention, or theirs.

You often say yourself that killing is always an evil action, even if that death would save others. It's the same, but in the opposite direction.

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 04:55 PM
The action itself is good, no matter your intention, or theirs.

You often say yourself that killing is always an evil action, even if that death would save others. It's the same, but in the opposite direction.

Yes, but that's because killing is a fundamentally evil act and always must be. Helping someone else is not always a fundamentally good act. It depends on what you intend to get out of it.

Shikieiki
December 2nd, 2011, 05:07 PM
Someone gives you a weapon because you're goin to kill a man that raped and killed your daughter, and other children. IMO, this is a good action. I don't see anything wrong with the "The end justify the means" thing.

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 05:15 PM
I'd consider that to be a difference in personal values, though. Some people feel that there are times when another person should die, others don't.

Counterguardian
December 2nd, 2011, 07:46 PM
What's the context of this argument again?

I'm kind of lost and I'd like to weigh in.

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 07:49 PM
Someone gives you a weapon because you're goin to kill a man that raped and killed your daughter, and other children. IMO, this is a good action. I don't see anything wrong with the "The end justify the means" thing.

Yes, but only because you consider killling said man to be a "good" (or, at least, acceptable) act in the first place. It's much the same, in fact, as Tobias' "piracy" example (if applied to me) in that respect.

The question is whether doing something that you would usually consider a good action in order to help someone else do something you would consider to be an evil action is good or evil. So, if you consider the action to be good in the first place, it doesn't fit with the question being asked.

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 08:01 PM
What's the context of this argument again?

I'm kind of lost and I'd like to weigh in.

I believe the argument was originally just a multitude of examples in regards to Tobias's original query: "Is helping someone to do something immoral (or maybe illegal) in itself an immoral act?"

Then you get things like "Are you aware that your actions will support immoral activities?" and "Is the basic act of helping another fundamentally a moral action regardless of the action required, or is the morality of aiding someone else determined by the action?"

And there were examples of ways that aiding someone can produce immoral or counterproductive results, such as giving someone money, which they then use to buy a gun and kill someone with.
Which led to Shiki's response.

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 08:24 PM
Helping someone to do something illegal is certainly not an immoral act (at least not solely because it is illegal), and nor, for that matter, is doing something illegal yourself. The government does not have the right to define personal morality.

As for helping someone to do something immoral, it depends what your intention is. If you lend someone money out of kindness and they use it to buy a gun to shoot someone, then that was a good act, because you didn't know they were going to use it for that purpose and there is no reason you should have known. If, on the other hand, you lend someone money knowing (or strongly suspecting) they'll use it to buy a gun to kill someone, then that is an immoral act (unless you feel that the person in question deserves to die).

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 08:32 PM
In other words, your stance is basically that the morality of aiding another is a matter of context as opposed to being a strictly "good act", regardless of the situation.

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 08:39 PM
Yeah. Otherwise, aiding a murderer in disposing of their victim would be a "good" act, and even aiding them in the murder itself would be, provided you never directly harmed the victim.

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 08:43 PM
I tend to agree with you, though I suppose my opinion on it is a little different. To me, the act of aiding another is fundamentally a "good act", but doing so in a situation that you feel is fundamentally immoral outweighs the merit of helping others. Assisting someone in something that you feel is wrong doesn't make it any more "right".

eddyak
December 2nd, 2011, 10:26 PM
The act is good. The consequences are irrelevant at the most basic level, as far as the act itself is concerned.

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 10:35 PM
Basically that. One just has to take into account the reprecussions that result.

But that goes with any action really, and in turn, the limits of our individual awareness in regards to said action.

ratstsrub
December 2nd, 2011, 10:48 PM
So what you're saying is, if I assist someone in what I feel is right, then it's right.

; )

Mike1984
December 2nd, 2011, 10:53 PM
The act is good. The consequences are irrelevant at the most basic level, as far as the act itself is concerned.

But how can the act be good when you know that you're aiding someone else in doing something bad? The consequences aren't what is important, what is important is the fact that you are aiding them in committing an act which you yourself would never commit.

Counterguardian
December 3rd, 2011, 03:45 AM
I think you can pretty much reduce this to an example of definitions. Helping can be seen as a "contribution" as opposed to a "subtraction", and hence I believe eddyak's argument revolves around this - adding is good, so any helping act is good. However we're not really considering the whole picture here. Say you contribute to a loss, for example you give someone the money necessary for them to go on a psychotic slaughter - on one level you can be seen as "contributing" to something and hence the act in itself is "good" by eddyak's description; however if we look on another level we can also see that the act in itself is also a "subtraction" from a "balance of money that keeps people alive", that is it is now a "taking" action and hence it is bad.

That is, by considering the component parts one does not consider the opposite implications. Say we have a "morality ball" and it is moved positively by moral actions and negatively by immoral actions, and it is moving with a negative vector. I can define however many positive vectors I want, but the fact that the net result is a negative vector means that these positives that I define are being cancelled out by something else - or put simply: they may as well not be there.


Thus by saying that "but a positive thing was contributing to the result", one is essentially presenting a biased sample of the entire context and presenting it as a representation of the whole.

ratstsrub
December 3rd, 2011, 03:57 AM
So wordy.

The things that give the moral weight isn't helping independent. Helping only seems moral because of the connotation involved, a strict (and objective) analysis of helping should yield that it's morally neutrally. If you want to say that helping is fundamentally good, you'll be begging the question.

Fingolfin
December 5th, 2011, 10:49 AM
What is love? I cannot comprehend it. No, seriously, in my life I never understood it. I understand caring about someone and camaraderie, but love seems like a bunch of boloney to me. I hear people say that "You just 'know' when you're in love," but that never happened to me.

I didn't have any epiphanies that enlightened me to this abstract concept. I had friends that I was fond of, and would fight to protect, but I never met anyone that made me think: "I would like to spend my entire life with them. I would like to share everything with them." I never felt that, so is love real or is it some imaginary thing people have cooked up in their spare time?

Then again, maybe I'm just not sure and I'm making a big deal out of something that's less complex than I thought it was. Maybe I have felt it and it's just that I haven't realized it.

I3uster
December 5th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Baby don't hurt me.
Don't hurt me.
No more.

qsurf
December 5th, 2011, 11:20 AM
So...I'm prolly going to offend a whole load of people reading, but my two-cents (including A LOT of guesswork) on this 'love' matter.

There are two ways to look at Ogodaka: Biologically (via the body's reactions and the such) or Emotionally (on the level of the 'mind', which I know jack about since this whole thing also confuses me to no end).

Biologically, it's basically the body reacting to correct pheromone markers given off by an ideal mate, whether they be male or female (ideally the opposite gender for our species' survival). I would imagine that every time one around this ideal mate, the Endorphin kicks in and the body prepares itself for mating, and also releases enough adrenaline to prepare to fight any challengers for the mate (especially if one is male, hence the protective feelings for your significant other...not quite sure about females though). Like I said though, this is a lot of guesswork on my part on the biology of falling in love, but basically, one's natural scent is logically the trigger for such an event.

As for the emotional side...I dunno, from what I've observed, it's all about communication on all levels and absolute trust in each other, that in turn brings a sense of comfort and freedom around each other. Which also does mean that you could in fact love your best friend as long as you trust them absolutely and that the both of you don't even need words to communicate.

Fingolfin
December 5th, 2011, 11:20 AM
Baby don't hurt me.
Don't hurt me.
No more.

Yes, love is a love song by Haddaway. It all makes sense now.

@qsurf
So I'll fall in love when I smell the right one? I must try this.

I3uster
December 5th, 2011, 11:27 AM
Well, to put it simply it is a mixture of human instincts and social construct.

qsurf
December 5th, 2011, 11:36 AM
@Ogodaka: Biology's weird like that ^^;;;

Oh this reminds me:
"If It Smells It's Chemistry"
"If It Crawls It's Biology"
"If It Doesn't Work It's Physics"

...get it? ;)

mewarmo990
December 6th, 2011, 08:16 AM
What is love? I cannot comprehend it. No, seriously, in my life I never understood it. I understand caring about someone and camaraderie, but love seems like a bunch of boloney to me. I hear people say that "You just 'know' when you're in love," but that never happened to me.

I didn't have any epiphanies that enlightened me to this abstract concept. I had friends that I was fond of, and would fight to protect, but I never met anyone that made me think: "I would like to spend my entire life with them. I would like to share everything with them." I never felt that, so is love real or is it some imaginary thing people have cooked up in their spare time?

Then again, maybe I'm just not sure and I'm making a big deal out of something that's less complex than I thought it was. Maybe I have felt it and it's just that I haven't realized it.
As long as you're talking about romantic love-

Well, it's largely romanticized by people, to be honest. And it also depends on what you are looking for in a romantic partner, which differs for everyone.

But that doesn't mean you can't find it. The whole "want to spend entire life with them, etc." is something that comes later; at least, people who decide that right away are usually dead wrong.

Basically, a combination of emotional and physical intimacy that goes beyond normal friendship. The ratio just differs from couple to couple. Not that big a deal; IMO people who make it their mission in life to fall in love or constantly be in relationships are ignorant, needy, and insecure. "You know it when you see it" is pretty much how I think, ever since I learned the hard way, ahaha

Fingolfin
December 6th, 2011, 09:27 AM
I see. I'm not even sure if I want fall in love though. It sounds great and everything, but I like my privacy and I don't like living a predictable life. That's what I'll have with the old fall-in-love-and-get-married routine. It is kind of boring, in my opinion. I mean, a man should spend his life exploring the world rather than being stuck in one place for the rest of his life. He should taste everything the world has to offer, do something great or build something, and die.

mewarmo990
December 6th, 2011, 10:00 AM
I see. I'm not even sure if I want fall in love though. It sounds great and everything, but I like my privacy and I don't like living a predictable life. That's what I'll have with the old fall-in-love-and-get-married routine. It is kind of boring, in my opinion. I mean, a man should spend his life exploring the world rather than being stuck in one place for the rest of his life. He should taste everything the world has to offer, do something great or build something, and die.i
And there are many women (or men, if you prefer) that think the same way. I know one myself.

Just gotta find someone that works for you. And don't let opportunities go.

Guy
December 6th, 2011, 11:28 AM
What is love IMO, love is not something that can happen on first sight, it is when you are with someone you like and enjoy your time with her(him, whatever), it is a feeling of companionship that goes deeper than mere friendship, you like beeing with someone and want to spend time with that person, you keep thinking about her, not in the "I need to tap that" sense, but on the "I need to talk to her". At least that's what I felt

ratstsrub
December 6th, 2011, 11:52 PM
What is love

Baby don't hurt me

mewarmo990
December 7th, 2011, 03:15 PM
Baby don't hurt me

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/000/128/slowpoke_pokemon.gif (http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php?p=495929#post495929)