CreateDebate


Flewk's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Flewk's arguments, looking across every debate.
flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

It would be even more difficult to predict recidivism.

I am claiming that there is less variables involved with gene expression than with predicting how a person behaves.

Experience in law enforcement means nothing if we are talking about predictions. While crimes are similar, criminals are unique. Prediction of recidivism may seem obvious in some cases, but it would take at least a preponderance of proof to indict someone for a future crime.

For gene expression, we can perform unethical experiments to determine cause and effect as opposed to correlation.

For preventative measures like gene modification, I think that is ethically similar to behavior modification in a criminal. Ethics will definitely get blurred as we come up with new techniques.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

Are you saying a human being subconsciously posted the same message with almost the same wording without noticing/remembering the previous message (posted within seconds) consciously or subconsciously?

2 points

Since we are rational beings, we can choose to not procreate. We are no longer bound by evolutionary pressure.

The claim that "the purpose of life is to live" is circular. By adding any purpose other than "to live" would resolve the circular nature of the argument.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

My main argument was that perspective is subjective. This is evidence by your perspective regarding "all life" and my example of "my life".

If you want to debate the example I used instead of my main argument, we can do that too.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

Since this was a communication between two individuals, you would have show that your transmission was clear in order to infer that I misinterpreted it.

I already pointed out the different between "point" and "summation". Your ball.

1 point

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/127543/what-is-the-difference-between-behavior- and-act

Easier to let someone else explain it to you.

You have your own definitions for morality, conduct, behavior, act, and probably more. It seems like you are twisting words to try and maintain the logic in your claim.

1 point

Why does he make it so easy for you...

1 point

but what would Christianity more likely lead you to?

Ask the Pope.

The Pope is referring to "socialism" in Europe which is social democracy. Means of production are still privately controlled. The "socialism" that he refers to is the welfare state.

1 point

The way economics works makes me think no one knows anything about economics.

So true.

1 point

This does not really make sense considering all the other statements you have made regarding the fundamental nature of moral reasoning in regards to human behavior

I argued that if you want to convince others to act in a given way, you must invoke moral reasoning. This isn’t to say that people engage in moral reasoning before acting. Usually moral reasoning is done in retrospect in defense of ones actions, and usually only if those actions were a breach of conduct.

You made several statements in support of your original claim which contradict your current claim.

1) Your earlier claim was that all support and development for some economic system must invoke moral reasoning.

To promote one system over another, or to develope a new one, one must invoke moral reasoning.

2) You claimed that social issues are related to human behavior which makes them moral issues.

social: of or relating to society or its organization..

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

It's nice that you can look up a definition, though it doesn't constitute an argument, nor refute my position. Since behavior relates to society, moral issues are social issues. Prac Ap.

3) You continue to expand on the relationship between morality and all human behavior.

Pain is an amoral phenomenon. Intentionally causing it has moral implications. Accidentally causing it has different moral implications.

Since most arguments will lead to the preservation of life, it seems we should focus on this issue.

Why do you believe that preservation of life must be a moral one? Why must it belie instinct? Does a newborn consider its only preservation before crying out of hunger?

All arguments would reduce to the preservation or enhancement of life, yes. It’s not the case that it must belie instinct. A persons actions, driven by instinct can still be explained in moral terms.

3a) This all sounds like normative morality, but...

4) Then you claim that you have been talking about morality in the descriptive sense and not the normative one. Descriptive moralities are not universal, but limited to a specific group/society, at least according to your own source for the definition of morality.

Not in the slightest. I never said everyone was the same. I have been talking about morality in descriptive terms. Moral arguments in this sense are not necessarily morally good in the normative sense.

"“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept."

4a) Descriptive morality refers to a subjective code of conduct. Normative morality refers to a universal code of conduct that defines specific behavior as moral or immoral. Are you sure you have been talking about morality in descriptive terms?

5) Now you claim that moral justifications made after an act accurately reflect actual reasoning before/during the act. What about amoral justifications post-act?

Your arguments so far have made no sense in several regards. Why must all people invoke moral reasoning for any type of behavior? I still think you have been talking about normative morality this whole time, yet you claim otherwise. While most "philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept", you seem to think that your specific moral views (universal moral ends) are shared by all rational people.

A rational person can choose a course of action that another rational person would not. This course would not adhere to the theory of normative morality. In order for it to adhere to normative reality, all rational people would be expected to endorse a given course. This is more a statement about the nature of rationality than it is about people.

Yes. This is all true. You should also note that there are varying "codes of conduct" attributed as morally normative. If we go by the Stanford source, this means that your claim of all human behavior belonging to this "code of conduct" is not shared by all normative morality claims.

Non-moral considerations are not irrational, they just aren’t concerned with codes of conduct, or morality (by definition). Any conduct is going to be either outside or inside the scope of a code of conduct. If it is not a breach of a code of conduct, it is not amoral, it’s moral.

First of all, your explanation needs to be adjusted because you have the wrong definition. I think your personal belief in the right answer has skewed the interpretation of morality in your mind. A code of conduct, by definition, considers all within scope to be of a moral issue and all without amoral. A non-breach is only considered moral if the behavior could have led to a possible breach. If the behavior has nothing to do with the particular code of conduct (outside of scope), then it is amoral.

Ignoring the weird definition in your statement, we can consider the following information from your source.

If you are talking about descriptive morality, then: "If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."

If a person is not a part of the group, then a breach of conduct and a non-breach are both amoral because descriptive morality is basically subjective morality.

If you are talking about normative morality, then that depends entirely on the code of conduct. Many philosophers have proposed many different codes of conduct. Your proposed code seems to include all human behavior. If you want to advocate for your specific claim, then that is fine. So far, you seem to be suggesting that your claim is the standard definition of morality, which is different from supporting a specific normative theory.

If you go by Hobbes, then we would be talking about a code of conduct revolving around a strong central government that has absolute power in order to avoid the state of nature (survival of the strongest).

If we go by Kant, then the code only prohibits harm. All other forms of behavior are considered of an amoral nature.

Both of these men advocated for the correctness of their normative theories, but neither have altered the definition of "code of conduct" to include in-scope and out-scope behavior.

It is true that not all rationale is actually shared by all rational people. This is because people cannot all have equal information. The normative definition is meant to show that, given specific conditions, rationality would demand a given course of action. If rationality demands it, then all rational people who are aware of all the conditions would endorse it. But rational people are not aware of all conditions (this makes them fallible, not irrational). This accounts for the differences in normative theories.

It seems that we agree that people cannot be aware of all conditions. We disagree on the reasons for the differences in normative theories. Many of these theories provide the specific conditions under which they are true. Even with normalized information, rational people have still not agreed on a specific normative morality. Much of the debate is over the validity of the conditions themselves. Rationality is subjective in that it is based on perspective which is subjective. If we all shared the same perspective and the same information, then we will probably arrive at the same conclusions.

You can try and support the specific conditions of your claim and your perspective, but that does not mean it is the definition of morality.

Rape or other crimes of passion can be explained in instinctual terms (I know that’s an inverted answer to the question).

I asked you to explain why A explains B, and you give me why B explains A. If you know it is inverted, why even bring it up?

Also, crimes of passion are different from instinct. Instinct is biological. It has nothing to do with emotion. When you sense danger and the fight or flight response kicks in, that is instinct. Your parasympathetic activates and sets off a cascade of chemical responses. A person defending themselves from a crime of passion could act on instinct. Since we consider ourselves rational beings, we should also be able to overcome those instincts (no fight or flight). If we use moral reasoning to stop our instincts, that does not mean instincts do not exist.

Instincts are explained in moral terms only when a person can be expected to alter the course their instincts or biology have set. Thus, if a person pisses their pants on a bus because they could not possibly hold it any longer, they have not chosen, nor could they stop, this action and it is not a moral concern. If someone realizes they have to piss and decides to go right there on the bus, it was biologically driven, but they could have controlled it and this gives it the act a moral consideration.

You have just stated the moral and amoral aspects of behavior. This directly contradicts your claim that all human behavior is moral.

Most arguments rely on preservation/enhancement of life at the root of their morality. This is why the capacity for moral reasoning evolved in people. Instincts become an insufficient guide to life when the brain is large enough to consider many forms of stimuli, including concepts, and choose between alternatives. Instincts aren’t amoral, they’re pre-moral. The extent to when they can be controlled as necessary is the moral concern.

How is amoral different from pre-moral? Amoral just means not moral. Anything before, after, above, below, outside, etc. of morality is amoral. This is how prepositions are used.

Instincts are still sufficient in the basic functions of life. Rationality is only required for complex situations. If you are hungry, you eat. That is the end you have been talking about. It is completely amoral. How you go about getting that food, the means, could be a moral or amoral issue. If you have access to your own stash of food, there is not much morality concerned with eating something that is yours. If you do not have your own food, then that tends to lead to a moral debate. All of these are a means to an end. Are we still talking about ends or means?

You still have not explained why all behavior is moral and why all social issues must invoke moral reasoning.

PS: I think you are talking the morality of ends in regards to the socialism debate. If not, feel free to clarify.

Of course I believe rationality results in my morality, if I didn’t believe that I would change my mind to fit what is rational. For the record, I haven’t argued about my specific code, I have only argued about the nature of morality as such.

Normative morality means that a person believes there is actually a right answer to moral questions and that rationality can help us know it. I know that rational people can disagree with me, we don’t have equal knowledge or experience. This doesn’t mean that I have the right answer or that the other person does. It just means I believe there is a right answer.

We need to review your argument so far.

I have no idea what your actual argument is anymore. Refer to the numbered sections 1 through 5.

There seem to be some contradictions in your arguments.

From this statement, it still sounds like you are supporting a normative morality, but you claimed you have been talking about a descriptive one.

You have a weird definition for code of conduct that is not even shared by your own source.

The nature of morality that you have defined is not the same that has been described on Wikipedia or the Stanford Encylopedia. Where does it say that even behaviors out of the scope of the code are considered moral?

Pain is not bad in and of itself. Breaking your toe is bad and pain helps you to know this. There are moral and amoral reasons one could feel pain. The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain. There can be natural causes of pain that are amoral, such as a tornado dropping a tree on your leg. The pain is not bad, the broken leg is bad. Neither are concerned with morality because neither are concerned with conduct or actions within the realm of control.

So, how does the behavior of stubbing your toe have moral implications? You still have not answered this. You pointed out some moral scenarios and amoral non-behavior scenarios. I am talking about an amoral human interaction.

That’s incorrect. Calling me egocentric is simple ad hominem.

Considering you believe your personal interpretation of "the nature of morality" is true regardless of what the Stanford Encyclopedia or Wikipedia indicates, egocentric is an adequate description.

Talking about the code of conduct scope which relates directly to your claim that all human behavior is moral.

I think I have answered most of this earlier in the post. Satisfying ones hunger is moral in that it is conduct that is in keeping with moral codes and the purpose thereof. It is not a breach of conduct. If you add context that shows satisfying ones hunger through means that is in breach of a code of conduct, the moral value of the activity changes.

This is all based on your definition of "code of conduct". A code of conduct refers to a code of morals. How is something that is not within the scope of the code considered part of the code (since you qualify out of scope issues as moral)?

I’m not confused. If you look back, you will see that I that I distinguish the supply and demand model from the phenomenon of supply and demand. We have a concept of supply which represents the phenomenon, I was referring to the concept of supply and of demand in the above. The concepts are real though the theory of their interaction can be incorrect. The phenomenon are real though the theoretical model, representing the theory of their interaction, can be incorrect. Please don’t restate this when you tell me I’m wrong.

This is the correct interpretation. I am just saying your earlier comments do not reflect this interpretation.

On that note, I understand that theories can be flawed or incorrect. That doesn’t mean that they we don’t use them to explain things. Think of what people sound like when they focus on the fact that a theory can be wrong. “The theory of evolution is just a theory”. I will continue to talk about the theory of supply and demand, the supply and demand model, and how they explain the phenomenon of supply and of demand using the concepts of supply and of demand. The qualifying word (theory, model, phenomenon, and concept) is meant to let you know if I am talking about supply and/or in the world, on a graph or in one’s head. From now on I will also put “of” in front of each so you know I am not holding them together as a singular concept, or phenomenon.

You cannot even admit that you misused the words concept, theory, model, and phenomenon. I am still of the belief that this was a conceptual issue and not a semantics issue on your part.

This is the concept of “supply and demand”. This is not the concept of supply and demand. Does it help if I say “The concept of supply and of demand”?

There is no concept of supply or concept of demand. They are phenomenon. They exist like the rain. The process by which it rains or the process by which supply affects the economy are concepts.

Is this still a semantics issue?

To say the model actually represents the phenomenon involved would be to advocate for the legitimacy of the model. It is to say you believe the theory is true (even while recognizing it as a theory). This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”.

Let's analyze your statement from earlier. "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."

1) "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon"

You use the word model when regarding supply and demand so you must be referring to the "supply and demand" model.

2) "the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."

3) "This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”."

The model of "supply and demand" does not represent the phenomenon of "supply" and "demand" at all. There is no accuracy to contest because the existence of "supply" and "demand" are factual.

Either you misused words again or you do not understand basic economics.

They do differ. One is a mathematical representation and the other is a language representation.

How do they differ in the context of your previous statements?

You claimed that Adam Smith did not use the model of "supply and demand" even though you accept that he used the concept of "supply and demand".

The definition of a economic model includes: "The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques."

A model explains the concept. There is no actual difference if Smith used a graph or a paragraph as long as both referred to the same concept.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

"Unreasonableness" has to do with fairness between various groups. Who is hurt more by a specific legislation is also regarded in that sense.

flewk(1193) Clarified
2 points

Your algorithm is messed up. One of these days, I am going to cut you and the only thing that will come out is hydraulic fluid.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

Your algorithm is messing up. One of these days, I am going to stab you and the only thing that will come out is hydraulic fluid.

1 point

GPA is heavily weighted in terms of admission. It is still the most important factor by far. Standardized tests cannot compare, at least not in the US. This is true for SAT/ACT, GRE, MSAT, LSAT, etc.

The girl speaks of the full package but wants to remove test-taking ability from that package. The point of the GPA, the personal statements, the tests, the extra-curriculars, and more are to provide a complete picture of a student.

To be frank, it sounds like the girl is just not good enough. Not everyone is meant to get into Harvard (or any college for that matter). Complaining that something is too hard means that she has not tried hard enough or she is just not capable enough.

Sometimes, it is just fate. You get no opportunities for some reason or other, so you just have to try that much harder to make up the gap.

1 point

Alexander was played by Colin Farrell.

Lincoln was played by Daniel Day Lewis.

It should be obvious which man was greater.

1 point

Who does not want to see a cat's butt hole?

The people on that <--- side, that's who.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

Before we reach this point, we will probably have identified a few "criminal" genes. What about preventative measures that remove those genes from the gene pool?

2 points

From what I can tell, strict gun legislation alone will only prevent mass murders, not violent crimes. (At least until someone comes up with a better mass-murder weapon.)

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

If all you care about is your life which is probably the most rational view, then the question can be reduced down to "what created my life?". Since perception is subjective, I do not think that there is an absolute perspective regarding life, so there is no reason to limit the objective purpose to one rationale.

1 point

I think a personal purpose can also be an objective one.

I doubt there is a universal objective purpose beyond that of procreation. Even that is not universal since certain disorders prevent the possibility of procreation.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

To live and to fuck. No longer circular.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

making us all endure the bull shit.

I always took you for a coprophile.

flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

A form of love? Not all sex can be declared in the name of love.

Well, we were talking about consensual sex earlier. I figured that would be extended to my previous comment as well.

I am not familiar with the Bible, but I do not recall anything about sex with God = defile.


2 of 71 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]