CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should females perform different roles in the military to males?
Females generally can't meet the male military standards for fitness. Is it fair then, to assign the females that cannot meet male standards different military roles to males which require less fitness?
What military roles might these be? Should less fit men also be able to undertake these roles?
(edited because I was wrong about U.S. army fitness standards differing by gender, they only differ for the Marines, and even this is being stopped)
In the US, combat roles have been opened up to females. However, the fitness requirements for those roles have remained equal. As such very few women have been able to qualify. There is an attrition rate for male service members as well. In this way, the most physically demanding roles are open to women who qualify equally. This was the situation last I knew. It may have changed. But if this is the case, I find it appropriate. Equity has no place in life and death matters
I looked into it and you're right, it's only the marines that differ in the fitness requirements for different genders (Source 1) and this is even changing (Source 2).
Sorry for posting this subject in an irrelevant debate of yours, but I was banned from the debate in which this was relevant.
I’m going to start this by being as clear as I can about the words we are using as I believe there is some confusion here.
-Objective: True regardless of opinion. Not the same as stagnant or fixed.
-Subjective: Experiential. Perspective. That which is subjective is not necessarily false, but it is necessarily incomplete.
-Relative: Associated. Relative is not the same as subjective. The objectively best house to build will vary relative to environment. The best diet will vary relative to a person. Things can be objectively true relative to you whether you subjectively believe it or not.
-Significant: Having a great effect. This applies to both the sentient and non-sentient. To the living and the non-living. A star implosion can be a significant event in the lifeless cosmos around it. A death can be a significant event in the living social circle of the deceased.
-Important: Significant to an entity. Important is an evaluative word. If a thing is important, than it matters (the terms are interchangeable).
-Value: Anything for which action would be taken to gain and/or to keep. All living things value, whether consciously or automatically. There is no value without a valuer.
-Inherent value or value in and of itself: Life creates value and is the only thing that values. The fundamental value of life is life itself. As such life is the only thing with inherent value. Put another way, the thing that makes value possible first values itself. Outside of itself, values are not possible. Thus, one cannot look beyond life to find the value of life. Life’s value is in itself and of itself.
Our conscious experience is our mode of life, it is what we equate with life. Thus, we view conscious experience as having inherent value. However, the only conscious experience one can know is one’s own. As such, one’s own conscious experience (life) is the only thing with inherent value. All other values are derivatives of the value of ones own life (conscious experience).
-Morality: Code of conduct. Morality is both implicit and explicit. Morality applies to both individual conduct and social conduct. Morality is an evolved trait. Morality evolved (like anything else) because it aids the moral agent in survival. To survive well is to thrive. We can know things to be relatively morally correct by how well they serve the function for which morality evolved, survive and thrive.
Now I will try to answer any questions from your post that are not answered above.
Do you believe that objectively nothing matters and if so, why do anything?
Nothing matters outside the framework in which mattering is possible. Which is to say, life provides importance and nothing is important from a perspective outside of life. One can only imagine the importance of life from the perspective of a valuer, a living entity. Since life is important in itself and of itself, it is not important outside itself. Since life is nothing if not organisms, the self valuation of life is observable as the self valuation of organisms. As a human organism who experiences consciously, my own life is the only thing that I can know to be important in and of itself relative to me. This is true for your life as it pertains to you. People immediately close to me are more important to my conscious experience of my life than people who are further (socially or geographically). Though I know that people who are completely unknown to me still have a sense of inherent value relative to their experience of life. My sphere of valuation decreases as greater distance is made. This applies not only to social circles and geography, but also to kind. All life values itself and living things their kind. The degree to which I value other living things varies with (among other things) how similar are our kinds (Dogs vs ants vs flies vs bacteria).
Does this not mean that objectively it doesn't matter at all whether the universe exists or not?
There is a difference between never existing and going out of existence. If the universe had never existed, it would not matter. To think that it would is an error of looking at it from the perspective of existing. From this perspective, it is more accurate to ask if it matters if the universe goes out of existence. That matters a great deal, because we are already here making things matter. The Shmu doesn’t care that it never existed, but once it exists it care a great deal if it goes out of existence again.
Conscious experience itself is significant, as we are aware by our own conscious experience. As such, any effect on conscious experience would also be significant.
Significance is relative. The death of an ant in Africa is significant to whatever that death affects. It is important to the ant in question. But there is no evidence that conscious experience is a disembodied phenomenon. Even if it were, it expresses itself in discreet independent organisms. In your above statement, replace “conscious experience” with something else of significance that we have. Say your statement using “hands” in place of “conscious experience”.
Is your moral code solely concerned with survival, and if so, does this mean that if I should do whatever is necessary for my survival?
My moral code is concerned with surviving and thriving. Since we are social creatures as well as individuals, we have developed mechanisms through which thriving means more than individual abundance. Your personal well-being is not isolated from your loved ones. You value them a great deal. If you’re fortunate, you may value some of them so much, that your existence would not be worth continuing if they were removed from it. Those are the kinds of people for whom you would could conceive of dying. Similarly, there are certain actions that, if you took them, you would no longer be the person you are. Depending on the kind of person you are, you my feel it is worth dying before acting in despicable ways, since such action would irreversibly eliminate who you are anyway.
Does this mean that when George Soros was rounding up fellow Jews in Nazi Germany he was morally justified because it allowed him to survive and thrive?
It is not clear that clear cut moral judgments can be made concerning unique and desperate situations. Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely. Moral dilemmas play on the fact that we are both individualistic and social in nature. The life boat scenario is a good example. But our daily lives are not in a life boat or Nazi Germany. Moral codes are meant for guiding daily life and common scenarios.
"Human consciousness is important in and of itself, not necessarily beyond itself. It is not important in and of ant consciousness, which is important in and of itself..."
It feels like we're talking about different things here (I was talking about judging the difference between a chimp's consciousness and a human's), but maybe I just don't understand?
You are a human making the judgment. You will always make the judgment from the perspective of an entity. The nature of the entity determines the objectively appropriate judgment. I know you think that things can still be important even if they are important to no one at all, but it just isn’t so. This isn’t to say that objective truth does not exist on such matters, but only that the objectively correct judgment varies with context.
You'd agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant, though? Do you hold that things can be significant without the involvement of consciousness and if so how?
Yes. An event can take place that has an effect on many non-living, non-conscious things while still being significant insofar as there was a substantial effect. But it is only to living things that a significant event can be important.
"that importance would be based on their own valuation of their own (and their kind’s) conscious experience as more important than others, which it is (in and of itself)."
Subjectively more important? I personally think that if something is objectively significant or objectively matters, that it is, as a result, objectively important.
Not merely subjectively important, but objectively important relative to them. If you have to take have to take chemo to stay alive, that is objectively important to you. Since you need it, and it could kill me, the objective truth of the matter varies depending on the context. This is true regardless of our subjective opinions or experiences of chemo.
Human consciousness is more important to humans than to ants. Ant consciousness is more important to ants than to humans. They are not wrong and neither are we. We are both objectively correct as the value of my consciousness is in and of itself, just like theirs.
"The only way to affect the whole is to affect each and every. There is no such thing as consciousness as a whole if it is not the total of the consciousness of each."
How would you describe the aggregate effect of a stimulus on a group? How would you rephrase, for example, "capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole"?
When someone says that capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole, it is assumed that you are referring to people that it has had an impact on at all. Naturally capitalism has done nothing for uncontacted tribe of the North Sentinel Island. But at least capitalism has a far reaching effect. The death of unknown person in unknown place has a local effect. It is certainly important to those who it effects, objectively so. But as Capitalism is to a Sentinelese, it does not affect me.
We could get sadists off the streets by allowing them to be voluntarily imprisoned in exchange for being allowed to torture animals all day. This would reduce the number of intensely sadistic people in society which would theoretically decrease the amount of humans harmed by them. Assuming that it worked (and I see not why it wouldn't work), would you support such a measure? Further, would you support the blanket removal of restrictions on animal testing/experimentation?
I would not support such a measure as it neglects the sadism of those who maintain such a program. I believe there are appropriate circumstances for animal testing and it should not be banned in all cases for all things.
"As a person, I’m disturbed by the torturous cat who toys with the poor little mouse."
Does this have anything to do with the suffering of the mouse?
"Right, because we don’t want those animals to suffer. Because if we were ok with making animals suffer we would be detrimental to our kind."
Why is the first sentence not sufficient reason? I am aware that suffering is horrible, and thus I want to prevent suffering.
The first sentence is not sufficient if you want to make decisions on more than just emotion. Emotions feel just as strong even when not driven by reason.
If we speak of the underpinning foundations of morality, is it not possible that subconsciously this awareness of the horror of suffering is part of why we are moral? Perhaps this is part of why we evolved empathy.
By knowing the underpinning foundations, and caring about them, we can apply them consistently become more moral than our emotions have room for.
Suffering is not an evil in all cases. Suffering and the potential to suffer is essential. It is also not the case that empathy is good in all cases. Our development of empathy has been crucial to our survival both individually and as a species. But empathy is an extension of a theory of mind that children develop in early childhood, which allows them to learn how to lie. Empathy is one reason we can act strategically in warfare or push the right buttons in an interrogation. Empathy is a tool of saints and torturers alike.
Though relative to an individual is one definition of subjective, I appreciate the distinction, and it helps my understanding of what you're saying. My issue is that I see not how you would describe the fact that an effect on consciousness has significant consequence.
"Significant: Having a great effect. This applies to both the sentient and non-sentient. To the living and the non-living. A star implosion can be a significant event in the lifeless cosmos around it. A death can be a significant event in the living social circle of the deceased."
How can it be significant if it doesn't affect consciousness? As far as I can see, things only can be significant if they have an effect on consciousness. How/why does a star's implosion have significance?
"Morality evolved (like anything else) because it aids the moral agent in survival. To survive well is to thrive. We can know things to be relatively morally correct by how well they serve the function for which morality evolved, survive and thrive."
Your definition of morality differs here from mine. I'd agree that it is prescriptive of how to act, however when morality is reduced to survival I have no reason not to kill you if it increases my chances of survival.
"Nothing matters outside the framework in which mattering is possible."
We should make distinctions between words to make this easier to discuss, as you have done. The issue is that when I say "matters" I mean the definition "to be of consequence, importance or significance" (Source 1,2). You seem to be using "matters" to mean your definition of importance here, when I am talking about your definition of significance.
"If the universe had never existed, it would not matter... it is more accurate to ask if it matters if the universe goes out of existence."
It's of significant consequence whether the universe exists or not, and I think if we use the same definitions we agree here. If the universe appeared from nothing, or disappeared into nothing I would view these events as of significant consequence.
"Significance is relative."
How would you describe the fact that the suffering of conscious entities has significant consequence?
"Say your statement using “hands” in place of “conscious experience”."
Our hands only hold second-order significance as a result of their relationship to our conscious experience. In other words, our hands only have significance because they have an effect on our conscious experience.
"My moral code is concerned with surviving and thriving."
I don't feel that you've answered my question here, though your answer would appear to be "yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive". This means that as long as what you do is best for you, it is moral (sounds very much like Randian objectivism). As such, as long as I can get away with it, it's perfectly moral for me to disarm the U.S. citizenry and install myself as dictator for life.
"Depending on the kind of person you are, you my feel it is worth dying before acting in despicable ways, since such action would irreversibly eliminate who you are anyway."
Yet wouldn't such a choice be against your moral code?
"It is not clear that clear cut moral judgments can be made concerning unique and desperate situations."
I would have thought, under your definition, that whatever helped you most to survive and thrive would be most moral. My moral code can make clear cut judgements if it has complete information (which of course we never have).
"Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely."
Why is that? In any case, it was certainly necessary for him to thrive.
"But our daily lives are not in a life boat or Nazi Germany. Moral codes are meant for guiding daily life and common scenarios."
Personally, I think that these are the most important moral situations. If people in Nazi Germany stood up for what was right, rather than doing what was expedient, things could have been very different. It's the same with social justice today, the majority don't believe in it (it's split the left), yet most people won't speak against it because doing so is against their self-interest.
"I know you think that things can still be important even if they are important to no one at all, but it just isn’t so."
I don't see how it wouldn't be important that consciousness exists. Without consciousness, nothing would be of significant consequence. Note that important here is a close synonym to significant. Perhaps if I said it was important to reality itself then we would agree?
"This isn’t to say that objective truth does not exist on such matters, but only that the objectively correct judgment varies with context."
If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?
"Yes."
I assume you mean only objectively significant to humans?
"An event can take place that has an effect on many non-living, non-conscious things while still being significant insofar as there was a substantial effect. But it is only to living things that a significant event can be important."
This sounds like statistical significance, though "substantial" is undefined and entirely subjective. Note that important and significant are synonyms (though they can have differences in meaning).
"If you have to take have to take chemo to stay alive, that is objectively important to you. Since you need it, and it could kill me, the objective truth of the matter varies depending on the context."
The objective truth of the matter would be that it's important for the person with cancer to have chemo and important that the person who doesn't need chemo doesn't have it. The reason for this importance is because of the effect it has on consciousness.
"Human consciousness is more important to humans than to ants. Ant consciousness is more important to ants than to humans. They are not wrong and neither are we. We are both objectively correct as the value of my consciousness is in and of itself, just like theirs."
Conscious experience has consequences that are of significance, as we know from our own experience. It's like how we assume other people are conscious because we are conscious, we can tell that suffering is of significant consequence because we have felt those consequences ourselves. This is the most important thing to understand and where I think we are talking past each other.
"When someone says that capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole, it is assumed that you are referring to people that it has had an impact on at all."
I was trying to explain the aggregate effect of a stimulus on a group, in this case, consciousness. When I asked you to rephrase "capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole" I meant that capitalism has, on average, had a positive effect on humans. Actions can, on average, have a positive effect on consciousness, was what I meant when I said "a positive impact on consciousness as a whole".
"I would not support such a measure as it neglects the sadism of those who maintain such a program."
Why must the organizers be sadists? They can be operating from the idea that doing so will benefit humanity.
"I believe there are appropriate circumstances for animal testing and it should not be banned in all cases for all things. "
I'm asking why there should be any restrictions on animal testing if the results might help humans. There are extensive ethical guidelines for animal research at present and many studies are deemed unethical (despite offering benefits). Your moral code should, in my perspective, desire to lift all restrictions on animal testing that would provide any benefit to humanity.
"The first sentence is not sufficient if you want to make decisions on more than just emotion. Emotions feel just as strong even when not driven by reason."
It's not a decision based on emotion, it's based on an understanding of what it is like to suffer; the significant consequences. Does your reaction to a cat torturing a mouse really have nothing to do with your understanding of the mouse's suffering?
"Suffering is not an evil in all cases. Suffering and the potential to suffer is essential."
100% agreed, I believe that suffering is essential to reality itself and have written about that at length (can find and link it if interested). I also made the case for exceptions where suffering is actually a good thing in the debate where I initially wrote of this idea of morality. For example, the negative experience of being forced to study at school grants a greater quality of life in the long term. My view of morality is concerned with the long term, not merely the proximate effects, of our actions. An overview is available here, that you seemingly at least partially agreed with (Source 3).
"Empathy is one reason we can act strategically in warfare or push the right buttons in an interrogation. Empathy is a tool of saints and torturers alike."
I agree, but just because we can use our understanding of how someone else is feeling in a negative way does not mean that we should, or that it's why it developed. Most people explain their moral behavior in the way I am alluding to "I would not like it if it were done to me". While this does not by any means make me correct (in part because most people are only moral because they are forced to be), it gives credence to the idea that empathy is a major factor in why we treat others well. This is also why advertisements for charities show pictures of half-dead children or animals (charity-specific) to motivate altruistic action.
My issue is that I see not how you would describe the fact that an effect on consciousness has significant consequence.
How can it be significant if it doesn't affect consciousness? As far as I can see, things only can be significant if they have an effect on consciousness. How/why does a star's implosion have significance?
This is why I made the distinction between significant and important. A star’s implosion is significant insofar as it has great effect (a relative term). Once observed, we can discuss the significant effect the star had on the surrounding bodies without any knowledge of consciousness within those bodies. Thus, a physical event can have significance without affecting consciousness. A physical event that affects someone’s consciousness becomes important. Objectively important, even if only to said consciousness.
I have no reason not to kill you if it increases my chances of survival.
You strike me as the kind of person who would see no moral impropriety with killing a person posing a threat to your survival. In most cases, killing to increase the chances of one’s survival is (correctly) not opposed on moral grounds. It’s the reason that most laws distinguish murder from modes of taking a human life. Murder, on the other hand, cannot increase one’s chances of survival due to the social nature of human beings and the response the murder elicits from other humans.
How would you describe the fact that the suffering of conscious entities has significant consequence?
Using my distinction of terms, suffering not only has significant consequence, but it is important as well.
Our hands only hold second-order significance as a result of their relationship to our conscious experience.
My point is that your conscious experience, like your hand, holds importance to you, but not to everyone else. To restate your sentence using “hands”, it says “Hands themselves are significant, as we are aware because of our own hands. As such, any effect on hands would also be significant.” This is incorrect. Any effect on your hands is important to you. Just as any effect on your conscious experience is important to you. (Note that I am utilizing my distinction between significant and important. All important things are significant, not all significant things are important.)
There is something more fundamental than your conscious experience, your metabolism. All living things must have a metabolism. There would be no consciousness without it. Does this mean your conscious experience holds second-order significance?
answer would appear to be "yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive". This means that as long as what you do is best for you, it is moral (sounds very much like Randian objectivism). As such, as long as I can get away with it, it's perfectly moral for me to disarm the U.S. citizenry and install myself as dictator for life.
Yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive. You should do whatever is best for your survival, and since we are social animals, you should also do whatever will best help you thrive. Being social means we require other people in order to thrive. A hermit surviving very well all alone is likely suffering from a disorder and is not thriving the way he would be in a healthy family unit.
Now take your supposition, that “as long as I can get away with it” I should be a tyrant. People actually thought this for most of human history, and humanity did not survive and thrive the way we do today. That means that getting away with it isn’t sufficient to be moral. You can objectively know the value of a moral code by how well it allows people to survive and to thrive. Doing whatever you can get away with is very short term thinking, and it does not follow from what I have suggested.
Yet wouldn't such a choice be against your moral code?
No. If I have to kill my friend in order to live, then I will no longer be the person I was before I killed my friend. That person died with the killing. Nor would my existence be valuable to me knowing that my friend is not here because I am. Thus, it would be more reasonable to end my existence thriving in the knowledge that my friend can go on, rather than continuing my existence in misery as a person I no longer recognize.
I would have thought, under your definition, that whatever helped you most to survive and thrive would be most moral.
No. Morality evolved, not through unique one in a million situations, but through eons of daily life. Daily life consisting of concerns for personal, family, and community well-being. Moral dilemmas are simply situations where individual moral considerations are pitted against social moral considerations, and the answers are often not clear cut.
My moral code can make clear cut judgements if it has complete information (which of course we never have).
If complete information included historical and future information, my code could make these judgements as well.
Does your moral code consider all individual human consciousness’s to be equally valuable as any other individual moral consciousness’s? If so, then your moral code would demand you kill your kid to save two homeless strangers. An act my code would object to.
"Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely."
Why is that?
Because of the many numerous people who got through without actively hunting innocent people. Nonetheless, there is a moral virtue known as courage. It is essential to the species and is often associated with the social aspect of morality. If Soros’s individual survival meant hunting down innocent people, then he is a coward. Furthermore, he is the kind of person who seems unfazed by continuing his existence as this kind of person. So I would judge him harshly. Though, as I said, it is not clear that we can make clear cut moral judgments concerning unique and desperate situations.
Personally, I think that these are the most important moral situations. If people in Nazi Germany stood up for what was right, rather than doing what was expedient, things could have been very different.
A fair point. I will back peddle just a little here. While life boat scenarios are not common, war is. Most of human existence evolved with people at war with their neighbors. This is why a number of virtues are directly related to desperate situations, which were not unique. The reason you have notions of “right” vs “expedient” is because the long term survival of the social concern sometimes rests on the short run sacrifices of individual concerns. If it is your family/community and you care (or should care) about them, then failing to act on their behalf in the face of personal hazard is cowardly.
Perhaps if I said it was important to reality itself then we would agree?
No. I am not willing to speculate about what is important to reality itself. The universe brought about consciousness. But the universe also seemingly takes away each consciousness as well. Thus, I could just as easily argue that it is important to the reality itself that your experience be snuffed out.
Your conscious experience is objectively important to you and to those you affect. It is not objectively important to those you do not affect. Food is objectively important to people. Your food is not objectively important to me.
If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?
Yes. Am I allowing the consciousness of a murderer to continue as he kicks down my door? Or am I allowing random guy’s consciousness on the street to continue by not drinking and driving?
I assume you mean only objectively significant to humans?
No. I would agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant to a number of living and non-living things that humans have an impact on.
The objective truth of the matter would be that it's important for the person with cancer to have chemo and important that the person who doesn't need chemo doesn't have it. The reason for this importance is because of the effect it has on consciousness.
The reason for this importance varies with the consciousness in question.
Conscious experience has consequences that are of significance, as we know from our own experience. It's like how we assume other people are conscious because we are conscious, we can tell that suffering is of significant consequence because we have felt those consequences ourselves. This is the most important thing to understand and where I think we are talking past each other.
Conscious experience has consequences that are significant to the conscious being having the experience. We know from our own experience that our own conscious experience is important to ourselves. You must value your own conscious experience. You cannot possibly value the conscious experience of a being completely unknown and unaffecting you.
Why must the organizers be sadists? They can be operating from the idea that doing so will benefit humanity.
“The ends justify the means” is most often completely false and is often used by the more powerful of humanities villains to carry out the kinds of programs you suggest. But if our leaders are of the sort to carry out massive sadistic programs, and we allow it, what else might they attempt?
I'm asking why there should be any restrictions on animal testing if the results might help humans.
If it’s going to cure cancer, then that is the kind of aid to humans I am willing to accept. If it is going to help women look slightly prettier for slightly longer, than its not worth the poor animals suffering. Just like most things in life, there are degrees. (I further clarify in the next response below)
Your moral code should, in my perspective, desire to lift all restrictions on animal testing that would provide any benefit to humanity.
If animal cruelty is indicative of a type of person that is detrimental for humanity, then human benefit stemming from cruelty must be sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the detriment posed by a cruel type of person.
It's not a decision based on emotion, it's based on an understanding of what it is like to suffer; the significant consequences.
Why is suffering bad?
Does your reaction to a cat torturing a mouse really have nothing to do with your understanding of the mouse's suffering?
Of course it does. I’m empathetic. I understand that the mouse is suffering and I feel bad. This feeling is the result of an evolutionary process which occurred for the benefit of my own species. Empathy is an important evolutionary trait. How I feel will often guide my responses. But emotions are not sufficient for morality. Empathizing with the suffering of others is not a sufficient foundation for morality because empathy itself is only one aspect of morality and is derived from the same evolutionary process that created other aspects of morality.
just because we can use our understanding of how someone else is feeling in a negative way does not mean that we should, or that it's why it developed.
Traits develop for the advantage they provide, whether the advantage is pleasant or otherwise.
Most people explain their moral behavior in the way I am alluding to "I would not like it if it were done to me".
This is a perfectly reasonable guiding principle when we live in a social world where others will respond to how we act toward them. Acting in a manner that others approve of is of paramount importance to your long term survival and well-being. Just because it doesn’t feel self serving doesn’t mean it isn’t.
No. Morality evolved, not through unique one in a million situations, but through eons of daily life. Daily life consisting of concerns for personal, family, and community well-being
This is complete conjecture, now isn't it Ramshutu? This conceptualization ignores ascertaining of any kind.
If a human was kept in a cage, free from any human contact, then it was released into society, could it be moral? You have no idea. Show me your caged human data.
If a human was kept in a cage, free from any human contact, then it was released into society, could it be moral? You have no idea. Show me your caged human data.
If a human was kept in a cage, free from any human contact, then it wouldn't be in the conditions under which it evolved, namely social conditions. It wouldn't know how to speak either, though we have large portions of our brain that evolved for this function.
As for the first part, don't take your issues with others out on me.
You seem to take issue with what you quoted from me. So what is it about evolution that makes you think species adapt and evolve to rare, one-in-a-million situations?
To be clear, I'm going to first explain how I conceptualize significance, as it seems to be at the root of our disagreement regarding my moral philosophy. I acknowledge that this is my failure as I find this difficult to articulate. Things can be subjectively deemed significant, for example, you may regard the fact that a particular tarot card was revealed during a fortune reading as significant. The fact that a tarot card was revealed during the reading is not factually significant, however. The fact that the tarot card had such an effect on your consciousness is what holds significance.
"Once observed, we can discuss the significant effect the star had on the surrounding bodies without any knowledge of consciousness within those bodies."
In this context what's the difference between a significant effect and a regular effect? Why is the effect that the star had significant?
"You strike me as the kind of person who would see no moral impropriety with killing a person posing a threat to your survival."
Of course, in limited, direct cases (I wouldn't kill someone for polluting the air, for example). There is a major difference between someone posing a threat to my survival and killing someone to increase my chances of survival. For example, I could kill people in order to take their resources and hence give myself a better chance of survival (assuming I can get away with it).
"Murder, on the other hand, cannot increase one’s chances of survival due to the social nature of human beings and the response the murder elicits from other humans."
Only if you get caught. Organized criminals have procedures to dispose of bodies and so on.
"Using my distinction of terms, suffering not only has significant consequence, but it is important as well."
I'm glad we appear to agree here.
"My point is that your conscious experience, like your hand, holds importance to you, but not to everyone else."
I agree when speaking of subjective importance. When we speak of factual significance, however, everything draws it's significance from an impact on consciousness.
"To restate your sentence using “hands”, it says “Hands themselves are significant, as we are aware because of our own hands. As such, any effect on hands would also be significant.” This is incorrect."
I agree, hands are not significant when consciousness is removed from the equation.
"There is something more fundamental than your conscious experience, your metabolism."
I'm not arguing that conscious experience is fundamental, I'm stating that if we remove consciousness from the equation nothing has significance; if nothing interacts with consciousness then nothing has significance.
"All living things must have a metabolism. There would be no consciousness without it. Does this mean your conscious experience holds second-order significance?"
Life doesn't take any part in the equation of creating significance. Assuming that life is necessary for consciousness, it merely provides the conditions necessary for consciousness to emerge. Life's significance is also second-order significance because it's significance derives entirely from it's relationship with consciousness. The source of the significance isn't life, because life without consciousness has no significance.
"People actually thought this for most of human history, and humanity did not survive and thrive the way we do today."
This is true for humanity as a whole (not the ruling classes), yet our evolved morality puts oneself first, then family, then tribe, etc. I can appreciate that one is at least somewhat programmed to balance how much they benefit themselves with how much they benefit others, though.
"You can objectively know the value of a moral code by how well it allows people to survive and to thrive."
Do you mean objectively valuable to humans?
"If I have to kill my friend in order to live, then I will no longer be the person I was before I killed my friend. That person died with the killing. Nor would my existence be valuable to me knowing that my friend is not here because I am. Thus, it would be more reasonable to end my existence thriving in the knowledge that my friend can go on, rather than continuing my existence in misery as a person I no longer recognize."
I completely agree, however you're still transgressing your moral code as death is the opposite of surviving and thriving. The only way it makes evolutionary sense is if your friend was your child or the mother of your child (some other complex exceptions exist).
"Moral dilemmas are simply situations where individual moral considerations are pitted against social moral considerations, and the answers are often not clear cut."
I think I understand better what you're saying; that one must weigh up individual's interests against those of the group. Does the group's interests matter only insomuch as they affect the individual's interests? In other words, is the consideration of group interests entirely selfishly motivated?
"Does your moral code consider all individual human consciousness’s to be equally valuable as any other individual moral consciousness’s?"
The consciousness itself? Yes, however when we take into account the quality of life that the consciousness will experience and the effect it will have on other consciousnesses, we could differentiate between them.
"If so, then your moral code would demand you kill your kid to save two homeless strangers. An act my code would object to."
I wouldn't say that my moral code demands anything, though what it would prescribe as the best course of action would depend on situational factors such as those given in my previous paragraph. Generally I would expect that a child raised in a good home would have a more positive life than a homeless person (in addition to a longer life expectancy). I also would expect that they would have a more positive impact on other consciousnesses than a homeless person (who presumably is a burden on others). As such, I would say that killing my child to save two homeless people would be the wrong course of action. Note also that while I hold that "the ends justify the means" my moral code makes it incredibly clear that it is incredibly difficult to make such calculations correctly. For one thing, people making these moral calculations never factor in the chances that their scheme may fail and make things worse.
"Because of the many numerous people who got through without actively hunting innocent people."
Everybody had their own unique situations in Nazi Germany. However, I do think that you covered this point with the fact that balancing the needs of the group and individual is part of our evolved morality.
"there is a moral virtue known as courage... he is the kind of person who seems unfazed by continuing his existence as this kind of person."
How do these concepts of courage and actions which sully your existence fit into your moral code?
"No. I am not willing to speculate about what is important to reality itself."
Important to the structure of reality itself was what I meant, if that doesn't make sense under your definition then "it's of significant consequence" that consciousness exists.
"The universe brought about consciousness. But the universe also seemingly takes away each consciousness as well. Thus, I could just as easily argue that it is important to the reality itself that your experience be snuffed out."
Funnily enough, I think this may be true. Life's temporary nature makes it better.
"Yes. Am I allowing the consciousness of a murderer to continue as he kicks down my door? Or am I allowing random guy’s consciousness on the street to continue by not drinking and driving?"
I'm talking about consciousness itself here, not an individual consciousness when I ask "If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?" Note also that I mean this particular reality.
"I would agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant to a number of living and non-living things that humans have an impact on."
How can it be significant to a non-living thing?
"The reason for this importance varies with the consciousness in question."
I don't think you understand the point I'm making here; that the effect on consciousness the chemo has is the reason for it's importance. Things only have significant consequence if they effect consciousness, and they are objectively important because they have significant consequence.
"Conscious experience has consequences that are significant to the conscious being having the experience."
Why are the consequences not merely significant? Is the fact that something is consciously experiencing not a significant event? You've said before that things can have a significant effect without the involvement of consciousness.
"We know from our own experience that our own conscious experience is important to ourselves."
I thought we were differentiating between importance and significance? I didn't mention importance in this paragraph.
"You must value your own conscious experience. You cannot possibly value the conscious experience of a being completely unknown and unaffecting you."
We're talking past each other here still. Things can be significant regardless of whether we acknowledge their significance, which you yourself seem to acknowledge as true.
"“The ends justify the means” is most often completely false and is often used by the more powerful of humanities villains to carry out the kinds of programs you suggest."
I mostly agree, as I was saying earlier. It is true, however, that the ends can justify the means, for example, in the case of taxation.
"But if our leaders are of the sort to carry out massive sadistic programs, and we allow it, what else might they attempt?"
I don't see the programs (sadists locked up torturing animals) as sadistic, the goal of sadism is willfully causing suffering for pleasure. The goal of such a program is a reduction in human suffering, albeit at a massive cost in animal suffering, as such it would be more apt to describe as "humanistic". Interestingly, it would probably actually work, too. I'd never condone it, though, because I believe that animal suffering is of significance.
"If it’s going to cure cancer, then that is the kind of aid to humans I am willing to accept."
As someone who has seen some of the horrors of animal experimentation, I'm completely unwilling to submit them to a living hell simply because I can imagine how terrible such an existence would be. This isn't to say that we shouldn't do experiments on animals, it's just that it must be done as humanely as possible while still producing useful data.
"If animal cruelty is indicative of a type of person that is detrimental for humanity, then human benefit stemming from cruelty must be sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the detriment posed by a cruel type of person."
Sure, I just think that the suffering of the animal should be a factor in the decision. Why wouldn't it be?
"Why is suffering bad?"
I acknowledge that suffering is at times necessary and/or beneficial. However, suffering is not always necessary and/or beneficial, and it is in these cases that suffering is bad. The experience of suffering is negative (as you are aware) and, when not providing any benefits, this is a bad thing. Why, in your view, is anything good or bad?
"Of course it does. I’m empathetic. I understand that the mouse is suffering and I feel bad."
Empathy is the ability to put yourself in another's position; it allows you to feel, through mirror neurons, what the mouse is feeling. Why does this make you feel bad? Is it solely because of the fact you are vicariously experiencing the mouse's suffering or because it allows you to understand that what is happening is having significant consequences?
"But emotions are not sufficient for morality. Empathizing with the suffering of others is not a sufficient foundation for morality because empathy itself is only one aspect of morality and is derived from the same evolutionary process that created other aspects of morality."
I don't believe that my moral philosophy is emotionally based, and I don't see how the use of empathy to collect data (a sense that, using mirror neurons, allows us to vicariously experience things) makes it so. Vicariously feeling what others are experiencing, as you earlier noted, can be used to harm others; it's simply a sense and not something that compels moral action (though the knowledge it provides may encourage it).
"Traits develop for the advantage they provide, whether the advantage is pleasant or otherwise."
Sure, all I'm saying is that some of the advantages provided may not be the reason the trait evolved. For example, empathy may have developed to help us to hurt others more effectively and helping us to cooperate may have been a coincidental secondary benefit (I'm not saying this is the case).
"This is a perfectly reasonable guiding principle when we live in a social world where others will respond to how we act toward them. Acting in a manner that others approve of is of paramount importance to your long term survival and well-being. Just because it doesn’t feel self serving doesn’t mean it isn’t."
Sure, treating others well does serve the self, and I'd even agree that most people are only good because they fear the consequences of being evil. However you seem to be putting forth the idea that the only reason to be good to others is in the interests of the self. I don't see how one can appreciate the significance of their own conscious experience while not appreciating the significance of the experience of others.
To be clear, I'm going to first explain how I conceptualize significance, as it seems to be at the root of our disagreement regarding my moral philosophy.
I have been using “important” where you use “significant”. In many ways they are synonyms. For the purposes of this discussion I made distinctions I may not make in common conversation. I think the primary issue is that I draw a distinction between subjective and relative. I recognize that things can be objectively important/significant to someone else, but not to me. I do not recognize any situation wherein a thing can be important or significant to no one at all. You haven’t articulated a circumstance wherein it is possible.
what's the difference between a significant effect and a regular effect?
What makes any effect significant is perspective. A molecular bond is significant from an atomic perspective, but insignificant from an astronomical perspective, and perhaps vice verse. All effects are significant from some perspective, though not all.
I could kill people in order to take their resources and hence give myself a better chance of survival (assuming I can get away with it).
This is a misunderstanding. Killing and stealing reduces your chances of long term survival because people go to great lengths to insure you cannot get away with it. They do this because people getting away with it has significantly reduced survivability in the past. Thus, killing to steal (and stealing itself) is completely out of step with my take on morality.
Only if you get caught. Organized criminals have procedures to dispose of bodies and so on.
Not only is it not a very big if, but not getting caught still reduces people’s ability to thrive. Do you think life is better in the presence of organized crime? Of course not. Life isn’t better for any involved, including the criminals.
I agree when speaking of subjective importance. When we speak of factual significance, however, everything draws it's significance from an impact on consciousness.
When I give examples of objective, relative importance, you seem to understand. But when the conversation continues past the example, you seem to forget what I mean. Your hand (like your consciousness) is factually, objectively important to you. It is not factually objectively important to unknown-person in unknown-place whose death you still have not grieved, illustrating my point.
Though everything draws importance from an impact on consciousness, not all things that impact a particular consciousness are important to all consciousness.
hands are not significant when consciousness is removed from the equation.
Neither is your consciousness significant to unknown-person. Your consciousness is removed from the equation of their consciousness.
I'm not arguing that conscious experience is fundamental, I'm stating that if we remove consciousness from the equation nothing has significance
Do you believe that sunlight is insignificant to a tree? Is it unimportant?
life without consciousness has no significance.
Things are significant to life. Things are important to life. Nothing is important to a rock. Some things are important to a plant. We are not speaking in precisely the same terms with regards to significance and importance, but I believe that even if we were we would not agree on this point.
This is true for humanity as a whole (not the ruling classes)
Yes the ruling classes. Everyone lives better today, including the ruling classes. Middle class people of today live better than the ruling classes of the middle ages. It is not in your best interest to get away with being a tyrant. It is not in the interests of people in general for people to attempt to get away with being tyrants.
I can appreciate that one is at least somewhat programmed to balance how much they benefit themselves with how much they benefit others
If the benefit to others is somehow better than a benefit to ones self, then what is the moral status of said others whom you seek to benefit?
Do you mean objectively valuable to humans?
How could I possibly mean anything else? That which is moral of humans is not the same as that which is moral for squirrels.
you're still transgressing your moral code as death is the opposite of surviving and thriving
If you re-read the post you responded to here, you will see there is no transgression. The death is inevitable. I either die by not breathing anymore, or I die by not being who I thought I was in a world that the new me made torturous to live in. It isn’t thriving, it is agony. It is why people who have committed an atrocious act in order to keep breathing often find suicide preferable, leaving no one better off. Dying is inevitable. Dying well is sometimes the epitome of thriving, particularly when the alternative is dying torturously with the same outcome slightly delayed.
The only way it makes evolutionary sense is if your friend was your child or the mother of your child
The selfish gene theory you’re utilizing here fails to recognize that, given we are social animals, your genetic line is best served when protected by the social circle whose good will you have engendered with your courageous act.
In other words, is the consideration of group interests entirely selfishly motivated?
Yes. But consider that we have evolved to feel good when we do things for others (though not all others). Others feel good when they return the favor. You have evolved to have overwhelming interest in the well-being of your loved ones, making actions on their behalf, even sacrifices for them, commensurate with your own selfish interests. It is not in your long term interests to live in misery and ultimately commit suicide because you have done something awful that appeared to be in your short term interests. It is rather more in your interests to live happy right up to the end where you die well.
I asked if you consider all individual human consciousness’s to be equally valuable. You responded Yes, however when we take into account the quality of life that the consciousness will experience and the effect it will have on other consciousnesses.
This is impossible. You cannot know the quality of any consciousness but your own. You cannot know the nature of another’s experience. I asked you to weigh the life of your child against that of 2 homeless people. You responded Generally I would expect that a child raised in a good home would have a more positive life than a homeless person (in addition to a longer life expectancy). I also would expect that they would have a more positive impact on other consciousnesses than a homeless person (who presumably is a burden on others). As such, I would say that killing my child to save two homeless people would be the wrong course of action.
I find this reprehensible. Nonetheless, I would like to restate my hypothetical. If you were asked to kill your child to save the lives of 2 wealthy, kind hearted philanthropists who are unknown to you, would you do it?
How do these concepts of courage and actions which sully your existence fit into your moral code?
Virtues enabled a person to live well. Living well is in one’s interest. Some virtues are self-oriented and some virtues are social. Because of how humans have evolved, some virtues call for one’s death in certain circumstances. In such circumstances it is one’s interests to die. Since our evolution takes place in a social environment, such final virtues aid one’s valued group in their effort to survive and thrive.
I don't see how it wouldn't be important that consciousness exists.
It is important to the given consciousness in existence.
I'm talking about consciousness itself here, not an individual consciousness
There is no such thing as a consciousness that does not belong to an entity. This is another of our disagreements. When you say “consciousness itself” and you do not mean any individuals consciousness, I read “nobody’s consciousness”.
If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?
Yes it depends on context. This choice is being made by a conscious entity. As such, choosing to remove consciousness from reality means choosing to remove ones own consciousness and that of other individual consciousness’s. It matters. It objectively matters to every single conscious being that exists at the time. Without conscious beings, there is no consciousness itself.
How can it be significant to a non-living thing?
I explained this when I made the distinction between “significant” and “important” for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't think you understand the point I'm making here; that the effect on consciousness the chemo has is the reason for it's importance. Things only have significant consequence if they effect consciousness, and they are objectively important because they have significant consequence.
The point I am making is that things only have significant consequence if they effect the consciousness of someone, and they are objectively important because of the significance to that someone. There is no consciousness as such that belongs to no one in particular. Individuals have consciousness. You cannot disentangle the two.
Why are the consequences not merely significant? Is the fact that something is consciously experiencing not a significant event?
Yes. Significant to the conscious experiencer. Not significant to the nobody of consciousness itself.
You've said before that things can have a significant effect without the involvement of consciousness.
Yes, but this was when I was attempting to parse the difference between “significant” and “important” for the purposes of this discussion. You didn’t take to my distinctions. You use “significant” where I would have used “important”. Now the distinction is moot and we can continue to speak somewhat past each other.
We're talking past each other here still. Things can be significant regardless of whether we acknowledge their significance
When I say you cannot value the conscious experience of a being completely unknown to and unaffecting you, I mean it is unimportant to you. There is no significant consequence to you. The last remaining sprill just dropped dead on a distant planet and it is not important to you. It did not affect you in any way, thus it is insignificant to you. Whatever significance the death had locally, it had no significance to you. Consciousness itself did not weep for the dead little sprill.
I mostly agree, as I was saying earlier. It is true, however, that the ends can justify the means, for example, in the case of taxation.
Most of the ends of taxation cannot justify taxation itself. Furthermore, if taxation is wrong, then we are doing it wrong (I expect we are). If everyone assumed that means justify ends, then the only evils we would encounter would be those of honest error. How we get to where we are going is almost always more important than the destination itself (which we can often not actually predict).
I don't see the programs (sadists locked up torturing animals) as sadistic, the goal of sadism is willfully causing suffering for pleasure. The goal of such a program is a reduction in human suffering, albeit at a massive cost in animal suffering, as such it would be more apt to describe as "humanistic". Interestingly, it would probably actually work, too. I'd never condone it, though, because I believe that animal suffering is of significance.
In order for it to work, everyone would have to have significantly reduced empathetic tendencies, which would result in a very non-humanistic outcome. Like yourself, many people feel strongly that animal suffering is of significance. It is important to human well-being that humans have such empathetic emotional convictions. Your project would only work if humans were not quite the way they are.
I said that if animal cruelty is indicative of a type of person that is detrimental for humanity, then human benefit stemming from cruelty must be sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the detriment posed by a cruel type of person. You responded Sure, I just think that the suffering of the animal should be a factor in the decision. Why wouldn't it be?. It’s not that animal suffering shouldn’t be a factor, it’s that it is a factor only because we evolved to feel this way, which is beneficial to us. Feeling this way is beneficial to humanity.
I acknowledge that suffering is at times necessary and/or beneficial. However, suffering is not always necessary and/or beneficial, and it is in these cases that suffering is bad. The experience of suffering is negative (as you are aware) and, when not providing any benefits, this is a bad thing. Why, in your view, is anything good or bad?
I think we can mostly agree here. Though suffering is not always necessary, the threat of suffering is. In everything we do the hazard of doing it wrong must be persistent. If it wasn’t, we could not learn to do things right, and would never learn to thrive. A person who grows up spoiled is a miserable sort.
Empathy is the ability to put yourself in another's position; it allows you to feel, through mirror neurons, what the mouse is feeling. Why does this make you feel bad? Is it solely because of the fact you are vicariously experiencing the mouse's suffering or because it allows you to understand that what is happening is having significant consequences?
I feel bad solely because of the fact that I am vicariously experiencing the mouse’s suffering. To demonstrate the truth of this, consider that the suffering of creatures that you are less able to empathize with elicits less of an emotional response, even though their suffering is still of significant consequence to them.
I don't believe that my moral philosophy is emotionally based, and I don't see how the use of empathy to collect data (a sense that, using mirror neurons, allows us to vicariously experience things) makes it so. Vicariously feeling what others are experiencing, as you earlier noted, can be used to harm others; it's simply a sense and not something that compels moral action (though the knowledge it provides may encourage it).
Empathy may not compel moral action, but how you feel about the condition of another does compel. Even so, there are more situations demanding moral consideration than those wherein empathy is relevant (Morality being a code of conduct, implicit or explicit). Neither empathy, nor how we feel about information collected through empathy, is a sufficient foundation for morality. Empathy informs how we conduct ourselves in certain situations, it is not the foundation.
Sure, all I'm saying is that some of the advantages provided may not be the reason the trait evolved.
The reason traits persist in an evolutionary process is because of the advantage they provide, whatever those advantages may be.
you seem to be putting forth the idea that the only reason to be good to others is in the interests of the self.
Not the only reason, but the fundamental reason. If treat others well because it makes you feel good, you are acting out of self-interest. If you treat others well because you are afraid of repercussions, you are acting out of self-interest. If you feel nothing for others, nor are concerned with repercussions, you will not act on the behalf of others, neither to their benefit nor detriment. It is not simply that self-interest, properly understood, is good, it is that self-interest is a fact.
I don't see how one can appreciate the significance of their own conscious experience while not appreciating the significance of the experience of others.
Children do it all the time before they develop a sufficient theory of mind.
But this is not the position I am putting forth. I understand that your consciousness is an entire universe in and of itself. I understand that what happens to you is actually important to you. There is a whole universe of importance. Being a social being, I act with regard to the conscious experience of others. I value the existence of other conscious beings. But those others exist relative to my consciousness, which is my entire universe. I cannot regard the universe of your experience with the same value as the universe I inhabit, which is my ultimate value. When people successfully deny the human self-interested nature, they can neither act to properly benefit their own experience nor that of others.
I'll use your format as I appreciate that it must be hard to read mine when the messages get so long. Apologies for the week delay, I have no free time presently (and it might get worse...).
I think the primary issue is that I draw a distinction between subjective and relative.
While subjective would fit too (relative to a subject), I appreciate that it does make sense to distinguish between relative to a subject and "made up" by a subject.
I recognize that things can be objectively important/significant to someone else, but not to me.
I do too. Does the fact that something objectively matters relative to someone matter? How would you describe something which has consequences that are significant? You seem to lack a word to describe this.
I do not recognize any situation wherein a thing can be important or significant to no one at all. You haven’t articulated a circumstance wherein it is possible.
I appreciate that an interaction with consciousness is necessary for things to have significant consequences, as I've said before. You would appear to be saying that "it doesn't matter that it matters to someone else". I believe this is is because you don't have a way of describing the fact that things can have significant consequences.
What makes any effect significant is perspective. A molecular bond is significant from an atomic perspective, but insignificant from an astronomical perspective, and perhaps vice verse. All effects are significant from some perspective, though not all
You began explaining "A star implosion can be a significant event in the lifeless cosmos around it." To which I asked "what's the difference between a significant effect and a regular effect?" I don't understand your explanation here. How is a molecular bond significant from an atomic perspective? What is the definition of significance that you're using here?
Killing and stealing reduces your chances of long term survival because people go to great lengths to insure you cannot get away with it.
I disagree, if you are in the ruling class (particularly historically), you can get away with a good amount of evil before the backlash you receive threatens you. I'm not denying that there are two sides to such behavior, however the reward can certainly outweigh the risk. For example, if you had a relatively small (compared to citizens) number of slaves in a country the risk of repercussions would be minuscule and would be outweighed by the reward. Ancient China, Rome, Egypt etc. are good examples of this. We could also say the same for invading small states as a larger state.
Do you think life is better in the presence of organized crime? Of course not.
Agreed for the non-criminals.
Do you think life is better in the presence of organized crime? Of course not. Life isn’t better for any involved, including the criminals.
How so? Often criminals are poor and unskilled and only able to thrive through their activities, in many cases they rely on crime for survival too.
Your hand (like your consciousness) is factually, objectively important to you.
Only because of it's impact on your consciousness, if you weren't conscious, or if it didn't impact your consciousness at all, it would hold no importance. If the person was not conscious but still had a brain, they would think "this hand is important to me" but it wouldn't actually be important because it would not impact a consciousness.
It is not factually objectively important to unknown-person in unknown-place whose death you still have not grieved, illustrating my point. Though everything draws importance from an impact on consciousness, not all things that impact a particular consciousness are important to all consciousness... Neither is your consciousness significant to unknown-person. Your consciousness is removed from the equation of their consciousness...Not significant to the nobody of consciousness itself...When I say you cannot value the conscious experience of a being completely unknown to and unaffecting you, I mean it is unimportant to you....
You keep making this point, but I never disputed it. I 100% agree. Once again I would say that you don't seem to have a way to describe the fact that things can have significant consequences. This would imply that ultimately nothing matters.
Do you believe that sunlight is insignificant to a tree? Is it unimportant?
Important for the tree's survival, sure. How would it be significant to the tree though? If the tree isn't conscious why would it matter that the tree survives?
Things are significant to life. Things are important to life.
How so? I believe that it is consciousness, not life, that makes things significant. I can appreciate that things can be important to life's survival, but life's survival doesn't matter unless it's conscious, or ultimately has some impact on consciousness.
Nothing is important to a rock.
Things can be important to the existence of a rock as a rock though, for instance it's important, for the rock to continue to be a rock, that you do not grind it into sand.
Yes the ruling classes. Everyone lives better today, including the ruling classes. Middle class people of today live better than the ruling classes of the middle ages.
Because of technological advancement. While I believe that technological advancement has been in part because of liberalism, it's also been due to the removal of religious barriers to scientific progress, the scientific method etc. Moreover, accretion of money, knowledge, power etc. accelerates as one gains more of it. This is because the existing money/knowledge/power etc. can be used to accumulate even more money/knowledge/power etc. I can explain this in more detail but I believe you are already aware of this fact.
It is not in your best interest to get away with being a tyrant.
Since granting greater freedoms to citizens appears to drive progress, I can actually agree with this. The reason I bring up tyranny is because it's something I would consider immoral, but you're right, when looking at things in the very long term it's better to be libertarian. I don't see why you couldn't make a segment of the population slaves and retain the benefits of liberal democracy while gaining the benefits of slavery, though (like the early USA). Alternatively, you could kill all the mentally ill people that can't contribute to society.
I either die by not breathing anymore, or I die by not being who I thought I was in a world that the new me made torturous to live in... Dying well is sometimes the epitome of thriving
Evolutionarily speaking, this isn't the case, isn't your morality evolutionarily based? Naturally you are driven to preserve yourself and family at all costs, which is why it's so difficult to commit suicide.
particularly when the alternative is dying torturously with the same outcome slightly delayed.
If that's actually the case then sure, but how do you know if it's the case? I'm not so sure that people are that likely to commit suicide as a result of committing evil acts. For one thing it's incredibly evolutionarily maladaptive.
given we are social animals, your genetic line is best served when protected by the social circle whose good will you have engendered with your courageous act.
If you're certain that this is the case then sure, however many good deeds and noble sacrifices see no reward. Sometimes, in fact, they garner punishment. Malevolent societies may view your sacrifice for your friend as negative, for instance if the friend was a Kulak in communist Russia. In this case, sacrificing yourself for your friend would negatively effect your family.
It is not in your long term interests to live in misery and ultimately commit suicide because you have done something awful that appeared to be in your short term interests.
Generally speaking, it is in your long term evolutionary interests not to die, at almost any cost. There needs to be substantial benefit to your family for it to make evolutionary sense (in no small part because you can provide them benefits yourself when alive). As for in your interests relative to your conscious experience I'd certainly agree.
It is rather more in your interests to live happy right up to the end where you die well.
Not evolutionarily speaking.
You cannot know the quality of any consciousness but your own.
Not with 100�curacy, however we could with complete information. To be clear, I'm defining what the most moral result (preferable state) is here, rather than the ethic (how to act to achieve the result).
You cannot know the nature of another’s experience.
You can to a good degree of accuracy with empathy. The same as our other senses, we never get a 100�curate representation of what we are sensing but it is good enough. Further, we can simply ask them, as they know it.
If you were asked to kill your child to save the lives of 2 wealthy, kind hearted philanthropists who are unknown to you, would you do it?
No, because I don't know how things play out in the case that I kill my child or let the two philanthropists live. Since I have no clue what effect my actions would have and have no way to compare the potential results, I do not commit a proximate evil in service of an ultimate good, because I don't even know that there will be an ultimate good. As I said before, committing proximately evil acts in service of an ultimate good is something that must be done with great care (if at all!), because for all you know you may not even achieve the ultimate good you were striving for, making things worse in the process. If I knew for certain (impossible) that killing my child would make the universe a vastly better place for the rest of time then yes, I'd do it. Of course, I'd never be able to attain anything close to such certainty, however. For the most part, people who commit proximately evil acts in service of an ultimate good are narcissistically vastly overestimating their ability to model the infinitely complex reality that we live in.
some virtues call for one’s death in certain circumstances. In such circumstances it is one’s interests to die.
I'm not sure that this entirely explains courage, in part because courage is more often used to risk death for reward, rather than to outright sacrifice oneself. I appreciate that it makes evolutionary sense to sacrifice oneself in some situations though.
It is important to the given consciousness in existence.
Yet without consciousness nothing has significant consequences; if consciousness ceased to exist everything else may as well cease to exist too.
There is no such thing as a consciousness that does not belong to an entity. This is another of our disagreements. When you say “consciousness itself” and you do not mean any individuals consciousness, I read “nobody’s consciousness”...There is no consciousness as such that belongs to no one in particular.
If I speak of gravity as a phenomenon, I do not need to be speaking of a particular gravitational field. If I speak of consciousness as a phenomenon, I also do not need to be speaking of a particular consciousness.
This choice is being made by a conscious entity.
When I ask "If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?". I'm not trying to bring your consciousness into the equation, I'm simply trying to show you that a reality where consciousness exists is categorically better than a reality where consciousness doesn't exist. A universe without consciousness (or potential for future consciousness) may as well not exist.
The point I am making is that things only have significant consequence if they effect th consciousness of someone, and they are objectively important because of the significance to that someone.
So does it not matter that your suffering matters to you? Also, when you say "objectively important" you are speaking relative to the individual (or so I believe), whereas I am not. I believe that my previous paragraph shows why it is important that consciousness exists, without being relative to any individual.
Most of the ends of taxation cannot justify taxation itself.
If we didn't have taxation, we wouldn't have a professional police force or army. Are you arguing that having a police force and army is not a moral good?
Furthermore, if taxation is wrong, then we are doing it wrong (I expect we are).
Surely taking something by force from somebody else (that wasn't originally stolen) is a proximate evil?
If everyone assumed that means justify ends, then the only evils we would encounter would be those of honest error.
Well, there are the evils in-built into reality (e.g. natural disasters, predators, disease), and human selfishness and malevolence, which should not be underestimated. I do appreciate that people holding such beliefs often add to the suffering in the world though, as discussed before.
In order for it to work, everyone would have to have significantly reduced empathetic tendencies, which would result in a very non-humanistic outcome.
It would work regardless, people would simply object because they are empathetic, it wouldn't be less effective in removing sadists from society at large.
It’s not that animal suffering shouldn’t be a factor, it’s that it is a factor only because we evolved to feel this way, which is beneficial to us. Feeling this way is beneficial to humanity.
What evolutionary benefit is there to regarding animal suffering as significant?
I feel bad solely because of the fact that I am vicariously experiencing the mouse’s suffering.
Interesting, so the consequences for the mouse don't hold significance to you?
To demonstrate the truth of this, consider that the suffering of creatures that you are less able to empathize with elicits less of an emotional response, even though their suffering is still of significant consequence to them.
I'm aware of this but this is why I distinguish between how I feel and what I can rationally understand. I may have less of an emotional response, however I still anticipate that their suffering has similar consequences to mine.
Morality being a code of conduct, implicit or explicit
I'd say ethics are the codes of conduct for attaining moral result. What I've spoken of here I'd define as moral result (what ethics should strive to attain), not an ethic itself. Of course, we can use this information to inform our ethic, though.
Neither empathy, nor how we feel about information collected through empathy, is a sufficient foundation for morality.
It's not about how we feel about the data, it's the data itself. If humanity wasn't conscious and incapable of attaining consciousness, what purpose would there be to our survival? What would be the point?
The reason traits persist in an evolutionary process is because of the advantage they provide, whatever those advantages may be.
Not "the" advantage, but rather "an" advantage. Just like how adaptive traits, like depression, have disadvantages that are not the reason for their evolution, traits can also have advantages that are not the reason that they evolved.
Not the only reason, but the fundamental reason.
Other than in the interests if the self, what's the other reason to be good to others?
...It is not simply that self-interest, properly understood, is good, it is that self-interest is a fact.
I agree with this, however I am an altruist rather than an egoist for reasons I am sure you are by now all too familiar with.
But those others exist relative to my consciousness, which is my entire universe. I cannot regard the universe of your experience with the same value as the universe I inhabit, which is my ultimate value.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. However, one can detach themselves to an extent from their subjective (relative to the self) view of the world and see that, objectively speaking, your conscious experience is equally important to mine.
When people successfully deny the human self-interested nature, they can neither act to properly benefit their own experience nor that of others.
I agree if you mean in terms of acknowledging it and acting accordingly. I disagree if you mean by solely acting in one's self-interest. In ancient China, for example, often those who did the right thing (e.g. opposing a tyrant) had their entire family slaughtered. There is no way that such actions served their self-interest, understood from an evolutionary perspective.
While subjective would fit too (relative to a subject), I appreciate that it does make sense to distinguish between relative to a subject and "made up" by a subject.
I recognize that things can be objectively important/significant to someone else, but not to me.
When you experience the color red, you don’t make it up, but it is subjective. My distinction from “relative” is that subjective is experiential.
Does the fact that something objectively matters relative to someone matter?
It matters to them. That’s a truism. If a thing matters to no one in particular, then it doesn’t matter. This seems to be a major disconnect.
How would you describe something which has consequences that are significant?
All real consequences are significant relative to something. But then, we may not be using significant the same way.
You seem to lack a word to describe this.
You wish to describe things that are significant in general or that matter in general. But if the “general” includes no particular, then the thing doesn’t matter. It is insignificant.
You would appear to be saying that "it doesn't matter that it matters to someone else".
It is tautological that if it matters to someone else, then it matters (to someone else). But this does not necessitate that it matters to me or to you. This is illustrated by your lack of concern for the death of unknown-person in unknown-place.
I believe this is is because you don't have a way of describing the fact that things can have significant consequences.
The word I use for things that have significant consequences to me is “important”. If a thing is important to someone else, then it is important to them but not necessarily to me. If a creature dies and it is not important to anyone at all, then it is not important. A thing cannot be important to specifically no one in general.
what's the difference between a significant effect and a regular effect?
All effects are significant from some perspective, but not all perspectives. A regular effect on a molecule may not be significant to the cosmos, but it is to the molecule. The difference is perspective. When I say a molecular bond is significant from the perspective of an atom, I mean that when we study that perspective, we can observe effects and consider it noteworthy. When we study physics on a macro level, it’s hard to say that a single molecular bond is significant. From that perspective, we would never note it.
I disagree, if you are in the ruling class (particularly historically), you can get away with a good amount of evil before the backlash you receive threatens you.
I don’t know what you consider a good amount, but the ruling class has never been monolithic. People have always competed for power. The virtues of magnanimity or mercy likely evolved prior to more complex human hierarchies. If a strong tribal leader is too lacking in these virtues, is does not take long for the tribe to grow ready for new leadership.
As for more modern circumstances, consider the quality of life for the likes of Stalin or Kim Jong Un. They live in a constant state of vigilance and fear, due to the great lengths to which people will go against misdeeds. They are constantly on guard against the assassination that is assured but for their self imposed prison of security. Under tyranny, all well-being is lessened. Can you really argue that Mao or Hitler was better off than Thatcher?
Oppressive ruling classes have historically stifled progress. including that which would benefit them.
I'm not denying that there are two sides to such behavior, however the reward can certainly outweigh the risk. For example, if you had a relatively small (compared to citizens) number of slaves in a country the risk of repercussions would be minuscule and would be outweighed by the reward.
The institution of slavery, even on a small scale, undermines principles that, when adopted, create a better society for all. Those who impose slavery do not account for the long run opportunity cost.
Ancient China, Rome, Egypt etc. are good examples of this.
And we are better off now due to the adoption of principles and norms that do not allow for slavery.
We could also say the same for invading small states as a larger state.
We could. The short run benefits that appear to make this behavior beneficial fails to account for the greater benefit enjoyed by secure, peaceful societies.
Agreed for the non-criminals.
You think life as a mob boss or thug is better than life as an honest family-man in a low crime environment?
Often criminals are poor and unskilled and only able to thrive through their activities
Poor, unskilled people do not thrive through criminal activities. On the contrary, they hinder their own progress. While most criminals are poor, most poor people are not criminals.
in many cases they rely on crime for survival too.
Not many cases. Almost no cases. It is almost never the case that criminal activity a necessity for survival in modern society where corruption is low and rule of law is high.
Beyond survival, which basically never requires crime, thriving is only hindered by crime.
You keep making this point, but I never disputed it. I 100% agree. Once again I would say that you don't seem to have a way to describe the fact that things can have significant consequences. This would imply that ultimately nothing matters.
The requirement of a subject for which things are important does not imply that nothing matters. While you haven’t disputed my point about unknown-person, you continue to talk as though things can matter generally even though not to anyone at all. Things cannot matter if it is to no one at all. A thing mattering to you, including consciousness, cannot necessitate it mattering to me. Things that matter to all, matter to each.
Of the importance of sunlight to a tree, Important for the tree's survival, sure.
Only living things need to survive. Only living things find importance. Only living things do things in order to survive.
How would it be significant to the tree though?
The question tells me that we are not operating on the definitions I presented. A thing can be significant to non-living material things. Things are only important to the living. This is demonstrated by living things acting to maintain their life. You use significance as a way to emphasize greater value in the experiential nature of consciousness. Consciousness is our mechanism of sensory response. You feel that consciousness is a more valuable form of sensory response because it is your form of sensory response. This feeling isn’t wrong, it’s a self-interested product of evolution.
If the tree isn't conscious why would it matter that the tree survives?
If it didn’t matter, the tree wouldn’t grow toward water and sunlight. Living things must do something in order to stay living. Actions always tell you what matters to another, whether human or not. Whether conscious or not.
How so? I believe that it is consciousness, not life, that makes things significant
That’s because you identify more with conscious life than with other forms. But all forms of life act to maintain life. The living act to maintain life.
I can appreciate that things can be important to life's survival but life's survival doesn't matter unless it's conscious
This is a rather conscious-centric outlook. What makes you think consciousness is more valuable than other forms of sensory response? What makes you think it is valuable at all?
Things can be important to the existence of a rock as a rock
No. Qualifiers are necessary for a rock to be a rock, but it is not important to a rock. Nothing is. The existence of the rock is only important to things that act with regards to the rock. Only life acts.
Because of technological advancement. While I believe that technological advancement has been in part because of liberalism, it's also been due to the removal of religious barriers to scientific progress, the scientific method etc.
Technological advancement is stifled under immoral societal conditions. Those advancements that exist often fall away as a society becomes immoral. The USSR could not starve people of resources or steal enough tech to keep up with the freer nations of the West. Though it took the long run to collapse, the people were made destitute in very short order.
Moreover, accretion of money, knowledge, power etc. accelerates as one gains more of it.
Money is not the same as knowledge. Neither are the same as power (which may mean different things). While modern conditions exist in no small part due to wealth, wealth can be destroyed. It always is in immoral societies. The idea that wealth is fixed gives tyrants the idea that they can cease it and it will remain. But wealth is lost in the ceasing. Kim Jong Un would be a wealthier (and safer and happier) man if he lead a prosperous/free people.
I don't see why you couldn't make a segment of the population slaves and retain the benefits of liberal democracy while gaining the benefits of slavery, though (like the early USA).
A free country with the kind of societal contradictions you suggest will ultimately find a way to resolve the (like the early USA). Had this contradiction been eliminated early and peacefully, the US could have avoided the worst war of its history.
Furthermore, It matters which way the contradiction is resolved. The north was economically outpacing the south leading up to the civil war. If the slave issue had been resolved properly at the start, we may all well be further advanced than we are right now. Alternatively, you could kill all the mentally ill people that can't contribute to society
You could, but then you would have a society filled with the kind of people that view people as a means to other people’s ends. People who are not very conducive to general flourishing, as history has shown.
Evolutionarily speaking, this isn't the case
Evolutionarily speaking, it must be the case. The virtues that lead one to desire to die well are evolved, and have aided humanity.
isn't your morality evolutionarily based?
Morality is evolved. My interpretation of morality recognized this fact.
If that's actually the case then sure, but how do you know if it's the case? I'm not so sure that people are that likely to commit suicide as a result of committing evil acts.
The person who does not commit suicide only prolongs their suffering. There is an emotional disincentive to living a little longer in a tortured existence knowing that I let my family die when my own death may have stopped it. A person feeling this in said circumstances does not seem irregular at all. I think it is the person who can go about their merry way that would be rare.
When I say that it is in my interest to live happy right up to the end where you die well, I mean personally and as a result of evolution. If you disagree, explain how our species could evolve selecting for cowards. Consider why courage is admired and considered virtuous. It is an evolutionary advantage for people to want to die in order to save their family, which created a personal disadvantage in failing to do so.
If you're certain that this is the case then sure, however many good deeds and noble sacrifices see no reward.
Everyone in your little tribe has made sure you are certain of it for millennia.
Sometimes, in fact, they garner punishment. Malevolent societies may view your sacrifice for your friend as negative, for instance if the friend was a Kulak in communist Russia
Communist Russia isn’t exactly a good example of evolutionary advantage. They’re extinct.
In this case, sacrificing yourself for your friend would negatively effect your family.
Communism is a failure for a reason.
Generally speaking, it is in your long term evolutionary interests not to die, at almost any cost.
That’s not true. All long term evolutionary concerns involve you dying. As a social creature there are ways of dying that are evolutionarily better than others. Dying so that your family may live is one example. Being a social creature accounts for a number of situations that are evolutionarily advantageous which may not seem so at a glance, such as living beyond our fertile years, which provides more potential parent figures for the young, which take quite a bit to raise.
There needs to be substantial benefit to your family for it to make evolutionary sense (in no small part because you can provide them benefits yourself when alive).
Primarily the benefit is and has been survival. Consider that we’ve evolved primarily in far harsher times where dying so that others can live would be much more common.
It is rather more in your interests to live happy right up to the end where you die well....Evolutionarily speaking. For reasons I believe I have now articulated.
No, because I don't know how things play out in the case that I kill my child or let the two philanthropists live
I take this to mean the issue is for you is one of information. You would kill your child if you could be certain of two better strangers living on.
If I knew for certain (impossible) that killing my child would make the universe a vastly better place for the rest of time then yes, I'd do it.
Your position doesn’t seem to require “vast improvement”, but any improvement. This is why I choose an example of minor improvement. Remove doubt and you have Two really good people who are guaranteed to live on and do really good if you kill your kid who is guaranteed to not be as beneficial as them. The fact that you require vast improvement (more than a little) illustrates my point, that the existence of a particular consciousness (your child) matters to you more than consciousness as such. If it wasn’t the case, then any improvement would justify the killing. The single unknown stranger matters not at all, even if they would bring more good than your child.
courage is more often used to risk death for reward, rather than to outright sacrifice oneself.
Courage (in the sense we are discussing) does not require a death wish, but it does require that death be an acceptable outcome compared to the alternative.
If I speak of gravity as a phenomenon, I do not need to be speaking of a particular gravitational field. If I speak of consciousness as a phenomenon, I also do not need to be speaking of a particular consciousness.
No, you don’t have to speak of an individual field. But neither can you divorce gravity from the matter that creates it. Just as there is no gravity absent matter, there is no disembodied consciousness to worry about.
Consciousness is objectively important to the conscious subject. Not all conscious subjects are important to me (or anyone). It would be impossible. If all consciousness went out of existence, it would matter to me, because I am conscious and it would mean I go out of existence. It would not matter to the nobody who is left afterward.
When I ask "If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?"
The context is within the question that supposed the existence of current conscious beings existing. If consciousness never existed, it wouldn’t matter that it never comes about. There would be no one for it to matter too. To keep with your analogy, nothing would pull matter if gravity didn’t exist, because there would be no matter to pull.
I'm simply trying to show you that a reality where consciousness exists is categorically better than a reality where consciousness doesn't exist.
“Better” is a conscious term. You’re presupposing the context. A reality that includes consciousness can only be considered better from the perspective of consciousness. If consciousness never existed, it wouldn’t matter. No one would care. Since it does exist, there are entities that exist to care.
The point I am making is that things only have significant consequence if they effect th consciousness of someone, and they are objectively important because of the significance to that someone.
This is basically what I have been saying. The other side of this is that a thing has no significant consequence (to use your word) that does not affect me in any way. So I wouldn’t care about a vast improvement to a whole galaxy of conscious strangers, I’m not killing my kid for them.
when you say "objectively important" you are speaking relative to the individual (or so I believe), whereas I am not.
Which is where I get the impression that you are referring to disembodied consciousness. The pull of gravity is always relative to the matter from which the gravity emanates.
I believe that my previous paragraph shows why it is important that consciousness exists, without being relative to any individual.
Your previous paragraph shows that it is important that consciousness continue to exist, which presupposes the existence of individuals to whom consciousness is relative. The existence of consciousness would not matter if there weren’t already people for it to matter to, just as it does not matter to those people who don’t exist.
If we didn't have taxation, we wouldn't have a professional police force or army. Are you arguing that having a police force and army is not a moral good?
I will re-word what I said. There is far more taxation than that which can be justified. When I say most of the ends of taxation can not justify the taxation, I mean that tax money goes to more illegitimate ends than legitimate ones. Citing legitimate ends doesn’t change this.
Surely taking something by force from somebody else (that wasn't originally stolen) is a proximate evil?
I said that if taxation is wrong, then we are doing it wrong. I suspect we are doing it wrong, but I also suspect it can be done differently. For example, if all taxes were sales tax, they would not simply be a seizure of wealth. They would be a cost incurred by a voluntary transaction which could not easily be undertaken without the benefits of services provided by that cost (tax).
Well, there are the evils in-built into reality (e.g. natural disasters, predators, disease), and human selfishness and malevolence, which should not be underestimated. I do appreciate that people holding such beliefs often add to the suffering in the world though, as discussed before.
I don’t include tragic circumstances when I refer to evil. What evil ends could be carried out if selfish and malevolent people only utilized justifiable means?
It would work regardless, people would simply object because they are empathetic, it wouldn't be less effective in removing sadists from society at large.
The reason it doesn’t work now is because people object. People object because we’re human. Hence, for it to work, the outcomes would necessarily be non-humanistic. Humans as we know them would not be the ones doing it.
What evolutionary benefit is there to regarding animal suffering as significant?
I have covered this. The thread is getting so long that points are forgotten. The byproduct of evolved empathy is empathizing with like creatures. It’s why you care about puppies more than frogs and frogs more than bacteria. In fact, it’s the reason you care about conscious entities more than non-conscious ones. Having people with empathy toward like creatures is beneficial to our species, because they are the kind of people who have empathy as such.
Interesting, so the consequences for the mouse don't hold significance to you?
The consequences are his suffering, which I am vicariously experiencing. This empathetic response is why I care.
It's not about how we feel about the data, it's the data itself. If humanity wasn't conscious and incapable of attaining consciousness, what purpose would there be to our survival? What would be the point?
You find the data important because of how you feel about it. But if people were not conscious the purpose for our survival may be something more similar to that of a tree. Living things began acting for survival long before there was animal consciousness.
Other than in the interests if the self, what's the other reason to be good to others?
The fundamentally self-interested nature of humans creates in us an interest in the well-being of others. Most of us don’t like seeing people die (such as a drowning stranger). For some of us, this is enough personal incentive to attempt to stop people from dying. For others of us, the self-interested fear of death is too great, and so they allow death in their presence without acting. Consider how miserable people personally feel when they fail to act on behalf of others compared to how the successful hero feels. Acting strictly in short term, irrational self-interest is not conducive to overall survival of a social species. So we have evolved mechanisms that cause rational long term self-interest to align with short term self-interest via emotions.
It feels good to help others. If there was no personal gain in helping others, no one would. You included.
I am an altruist rather than an egoist
If you feel that the benefit of another is more important than your own, it is you who feels that way. If you seek to act on behalf of others with no sense of personal satisfaction, you will attain the personal misery you seek.
one can detach themselves to an extent from their subjective (relative to the self) view of the world and see that, objectively speaking, your conscious experience is equally important to mine.
First, true objectivity is impossible. Second, the only way in which your experience is equally important is with regards to you. Which is to say, you value your life as much as I value mine. However, your life is not equally valuable to mine to no one in particular. It is not true to say that looking at consciousness from the outside, all consciousness is equally important. The reason is that cons
I agree if you mean in terms of acknowledging it and acting accordingly. I disagree if you mean by solely acting in one's self-interest. In ancient China, for example, often those who did the right thing (e.g. opposing a tyrant) had their entire family slaughtered. There is no way that such actions served their self-interest, understood from an evolutionary perspective.
Your right. Slaughtering entire families of political opposition is not in the self-interest of the tyrants that did it. Humans are often irrational and evolution is an ongoing process. But if you can’t see how risking everything for a better tomorrow is not evolutionarily beneficial, then we need to have a whole different discussion.
I think the root of our disagreement here is the concept of "transcendental mattering" and so I'll try to explain what I mean. There are better and worse states. Since there are better and worse states we can say that some things transcendentally matter because they can create better or worse states. This is the point that I tried to make with consciousness not existing; if consciousness didn't exist then reality is in a worse state. If nothing is important to anything then everything may as well not exist or act.
I think the root of our disagreement here is the concept of "transcendental mattering" and so I'll try to explain what I mean. There are better and worse states.
I remember now. Yes, this is the root of our disagreement. I believe I understand your position, so I will try to explain why I disagree. If my disagreement betrays a lack of understanding, I am sure you will catch it and clarify.
The statement that “there are better and worse states” is a general statement that values exist. It is my contention that values are necessarily valuable to a given entity. Saying that there are better and worse states is contingent upon the existence of valuing entities.
This is the point that I tried to make with consciousness not existing; if consciousness didn't exist then reality is in a worse state.
By my view, reality is only in a better or worse state from a given perspective. If there is nothing that exists to have a perspective, then the possibility of “better or worse” is itself eliminated. Nonexistence is only a worse condition from the perspective of existence. Valuation is a quality of existing entities. Value cannot float in a vacuum, disconnected from a valuer.
The only way around this is if the universe itself is an entity capable of valuation. While that is certainly a belief that can be held, it cannot be verified in the slightest.
By my view, reality is only in a better or worse state from a given perspective... Nonexistence is only a worse condition from the perspective of existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you didn't exist tomorrow that wouldn't be a worse state for you because you wouldn't exist to be able to perceive that things were worse?
..correct me if I'm wrong, if you didn't exist tomorrow that wouldn't be a worse state for you because you wouldn't exist to be able to perceive that things were worse?
Hello W:
In other words, being dead can't be too bad, or somebody would have complained about it by now.
From my current perspective of existing, yeah that’s worse. But had I never existed, I can’t say I would care.
Values necessitate existence. Non-existence is outside the realm of valuation, either positive or negative. On a macro scale, if nothing ever perceived this universe because perceiving entities never existed, it wouldn’t matter. Only with perceiving entities does mattering become possible.
From my current perspective of existing, yeah that’s worse. But had I never existed, I can’t say I would care.
Existing is better than not existing regardless of whether you are capable of caring about it though. So does this not show that there's something missed in your conceptualization of better and worse states?
On a macro scale, if nothing ever perceived this universe because perceiving entities never existed, it wouldn’t matter.
Nothing at all would matter, and surely a reality where things can matter is better than one where things cannot?
Would you believe my response was downvoted within seconds of me posting it? At least the trolls know what where they stand, and that’s in opposition to whatever it is I happen to say.
I believe that , it happens me all the time on certain posts one only finishes posting and downvotes follow in seconds , it’s our residents cowards only way of interacting
I don't doubt that you get downvoted because of the astonishing low quality of your posts.
But you detest everyone on C D you’re the only one who is childish enough to downvote and accuse everyone of being a Nazi all because you get whipped by everyone on site ......how that time machine doing buddy 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👌👋👋👋
Existing is better than not existing regardless of whether you are capable of caring about it though. So does this not show that there's something missed in your conceptualization of better and worse states?
It is apparently the case that plants do not care about their existence, nor do they care about the sunlight that they need in order to persist. Sunlight matters to them whether they care about it or not. But not existing is more than an inability to care, it’s a lack of the existence of valuation. The plant values sunlight, whether it is aware or not. But the plant that doesn’t exist is not worse off, it’s not anything at all.
Nothing at all would matter, and surely a reality where things can matter is better than one where things cannot?
Only from the position of existence. A reality where things matter is what we have. The reality in which nothing matters doesn’t exist, but that’s not a worse off realitybecause it simply isn’t in existence.
I seem to recall that the origin of this conversation started with us both agreeing that experience (consciousness) is fundamental to the universe. We both believe that. Since it is fundamental, it necessarily is the case. Given existence is the case, it is preferable to non-existence. My position is that this is only the case because existence is the case. The hypothetical universe wherein there is nothing, doesn’t actually exist. And that doesn’t actually matter to that hypothetical universe. It’s not worse off because it’s not anything at all.
It is apparently the case that plants do not care about their existence, nor do they care about the sunlight that they need in order to persist.
No it isn't. Your "apparently the case" is something you have simply made up on the solitary grounds that plants are unable to contradict you. If plants do not "care about the sunlight that they need in order to persist" then why do they always grow towards the direction light comes from?
You are literally a goddamned idiot. I wish you would shut your stupid narcissistic mouth because everything you write is stupid.
the plant that doesn’t exist is not worse off, it’s not anything at all.
Does this not mean that you can't say that being alive is better than being dead?
Only from the position of existence. A reality where things matter is what we have. The reality in which nothing matters doesn’t exist, but that’s not a worse off realitybecause it simply isn’t in existence.(...) My position is that this is only the case because existence is the case. The hypothetical universe wherein there is nothing, doesn’t actually exist.
So can we not compare hypothetical states?
Since it is fundamental, it necessarily is the case.
The reason I believe consciousness to be fundamental to the universe is because a place where nothing has any significance may as well not exist. This is why I think the ability to make significance is transcendentally significant.
Given existence is the case, it is preferable to non-existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are better and worse states? Moreover, existence is better than non-existence?
Does this not mean that you can't say that being alive is better than being dead?
No. I exist, so I have preferences. If I never existed, I wouldn’t have a preference. Hypothetical people aren’t concerned with their hypothetical nature.
So can we not compare hypothetical states?
We can. Hypothetical states can’t.
The reason I believe consciousness to be fundamental to the universe is because a place where nothing has any significance may as well not exist. This is why I think the ability to make significance is transcendentally significant.
This appears to be founded on preference rather than reason.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are better and worse states? Moreover, existence is better than non-existence?
Better and worse are necessarily relative terms. States are better and worse for someone/something. Existence is better than non-existence relative to existing things. If there were no things in existence for which anything mattered, it wouldn’t matter. Existence takes primacy over value. First exist, then value. Non-existence can’t value.
No. I exist, so I have preferences. If I never existed, I wouldn’t have a preference. Hypothetical people aren’t concerned with their hypothetical nature.
So can we not say that a hypothetical person is better off existing than not existing? Hypothetical suns do not have mass, however we can state that a hypothetical sun would have more mass if we added more material to it. I don't believe you would object and say "if the sun is hypothetical then it has no mass". Why then can we not compare hypothetical consciousnesses?
We can. Hypothetical states can’t.
So we can state that a universe with consciousness is better than one without it? To me it feels like you're making a case analogous to "we can't ever achieve objectivity so everything is subjective" but in regards to preferable states. Just because we are subjective beings does not mean that objectively better states don't exist. Moreover, I believe my idea of a hypothetical universe without consciousness demonstrates this.
This appears to be founded on preference rather than reason.
If something may as well not exist what is the practical difference between that and not existing?
States are better and worse for someone/something.
I appreciate that things (other than consciousness) only matter through interaction with consciousness which seems to be the point you keep making (that I don't disagree with). However, when you define "better and worse" this way you lose the fact that a universe that lacks consciousness is worse than one that has it. We don't need to point to someone to make this claim and, in fact, there is no one in the case of the former.
If there were no things in existence for which anything mattered, it wouldn’t matter.
Nothing would matter, which I would argue is a worse state.
Existence takes primacy over value. First exist, then value. Non-existence can’t value.
Yet surely you can see that it's better to exist than not to exist? Is something or nothing better?
So can we not say that a hypothetical person is better off existing than not existing
No. They can be hypothetically better or worse off I suppose. But hypothetical Jane losses nothing by the fact that I made her up. If she were to spring into existence, however, she would presumably be better off not blinking back out of existence. At least she would likely think so.
Hypothetical suns do not have mass, however we can state that a hypothetical sun would have more mass if we added more material to it. I don't believe you would object and say "if the sun is hypothetical then it has no mass". Why then can we not compare hypothetical consciousnesses?
I would object actually. Once the sun has mass, it is not hypothetical anymore.
We can compare hypothetical consciousnesses. But we cannot compare the value of a non-existent condition to an existent one. Not in that direction I mean. As existing things, we can compare our value of our existence to a condition wherein we cannot value (non-existence). We presume non-existence is a lesser state.
We value our ability to value. But if we did not have that ability, we could not wish we did, as that would presuppose the ability to value.
To me it feels like you're making a case analogous to "we can't ever achieve objectivity so everything is subjective" but in regards to preferable states.
I’m not. I am making a case for the relative nature of value. I’ll explain the difference in what I mean by “subjective” as opposed to “relative”. The subjective is the experiential. This is why it is sometimes conflated with opinion. The relative is the contextual. No opinion or experience is required. The relative is an objective concept and can apply to non-experiencing bodies (Things move faster and slower relative to other things). Value is a relative term (and sometimes subjective). Things can be of value to you, without you subjectively knowing it. A plant can need sunlight without a subjective experience of desire for sunlight.
When you say a thing is valuable, I will ask “to whom?”. This is because value is relative. If you say a thing is valuable to no one, then it is not valuable. Existence is valuable only to existing things. Non-existing things cannot value.
Just because we are subjective beings does not mean that objectively better states don't exist.
I agree that there are objectively better and worse states for subjective beings. I hope my above explanation clarifies why.
Moreover, I believe my idea of a hypothetical universe without consciousness demonstrates this.
I’m noticing a slight shift in the language of our argument which may be relevant to this disagreement. Value is a relative term that does not require the subjective experience of the valuer. In that case living, non-conscious, things could exist in a universe without consciousness. They could arguably value things without being conscious of anything, according to my definitions. In that case, whether or it is better to be conscious would depend on whether or not the living non-conscious things would actually do better with consciousness. I am not sure a conclusion to that scenario is possible.
If something may as well not exist what is the practical difference between that and not existing?
Saying that something “may well not exist” it’s a value statement. It’s like saying “If they don’t case X actor, they may as well not make the movie”. You would prefer the movie include X actor.
However, when you define "better and worse" this way you lose the fact that a universe that lacks consciousness is worse than one that has it.
I don’t lose that fact. It is the point of our contention whether it actually is a fact.
We don't need to point to someone to make this claim and, in fact, there is no one in the case of the former.
If value is a relative term, then we do need to point to someone if we are to make a value claim. To say that a thing is of value to literally no one, is to say that a thing is not valuable. This is the crux of our impasse.
Nothing would matter, which I would argue is a worse state.
Yes, for you. But only because you exist and can value such states.
Yet surely you can see that it's better to exist than not to exist? Is something or nothing better?
It is better for the existing thing to exist. It doesn’t matter to unicorns that they don’t exist.
If she were to spring into existence, however, she would presumably be better off not blinking back out of existence.
So we agree that existence is better than non-existence. When the thing no longer exists it cannot value it's existence, yet regardless we can see that one state is better than the other.
I would object actually. Once the sun has mass, it is not hypothetical anymore.
Obviously I mean adding hypothetical mass...
But we cannot compare the value of a non-existent condition to an existent one. Not in that direction I mean.
Why not? If there was a hypothetical reality where nothing existed surely we could say that if things exited (and the potential for consciousness existed) it would be better?
I’ll explain the difference in what I mean by “subjective” as opposed to “relative”
I already get this point, truly. My point is that a universe without consciousness is categorically worse than one with it. If nothing has any significance (or the potential for future significance) then reality may as well not exist.
I agree that there are objectively better and worse states for subjective beings.
What about the case of consciousness existing or not?
In that case, whether or it is better to be conscious would depend on whether or not the living non-conscious things would actually do better with consciousness.
Yet everything may as well not exist without consciousness. If I wasn't conscious I could live a perfect life and none of it would matter.
Saying that something “may well not exist” it’s a value statement. It’s like saying “If they don’t case X actor, they may as well not make the movie”. You would prefer the movie include X actor.
That's not at all the case. Only when consciousness is involved can there be meaning, significance, purpose, only with consciousness can events matter. If everything that exists is utterly insignificant, devoid of meaning and mattering then it genuinely may as well not exist. Particles move toward and away from each other and at times collide but none of it matters. If you were creating a universe which would you choose? A universe where nothing had any relevance, meaning or significance, or a universe where there were entities that had a quality that gave your universe significance, meaning and relevance?
I don’t lose that fact. It is the point of our contention whether it actually is a fact.
I think I've outlined quite clearly why a universe with consciousness is better than one without it.
When you say a thing is valuable, I will ask “to whom?”....To say that a thing is of value to literally no one, is to say that a thing is not valuable. This is the crux of our impasse.
Yet if we were to create the universe without consciousness we could surely say that it was inferior to the universe with consciousness? As far as I see we don't need to say it's worse relative to any entity, it's simply worse. Things can also be better or worse relative to a purpose, for example a bucket with holes is worse for the purpose of holding water than one without holes.
Yes, for you. But only because you exist and can value such states.
I don't really see how nothing existing could be successfully argued to be a better state.
I don't really think women should be in the army at all. Men are naturally stronger than women and women are naturally better at nurturing and care in general.
Right, but individuals aren't the cause of laws. It's the majority. And the majority of women are better at caring for children then men. On top of that, women can reproduce. Men can't.
"Right, but individuals aren't the cause of laws. It's the majority."
Actually, what makes western liberal democracies great is the fact that they deal with people as individuals, rather than as exemplars of an identity group.
"the majority of women are better at caring for children then men."
Sure, yet some men are better at caring for children than some women.
Actually, what makes western liberal democracies great is the fact that they deal with people as individuals, rather than as exemplars of an identity group
First, America is a republic, not a democracy. Second, how do laws get passed? Right, a majority of votes goes to one side or another.
yet some men are better at caring for children than some women.
You're missing my point, I think. I said the majority creates and votes for the law. If that's not true, tell me why as well as how laws get passed. Yes, a few men may be better than a few women at caring for a child. However, this is a minority.
A democratic republic is still a democracy. The fact that a majority (sort of because it's a representative democracy) decide the laws doesn't mean that we should stop treating people as individuals rather than exemplars of an identity group.
doesn't mean that we should stop treating people as individuals rather than exemplars of an identity
I'm confused, are you saying we should assume that no one is the same and that categorizations can't work? We have to use what statistics and facts we can as well as what categorizations are available, otherwise we couldn't create laws.
Look at it this way, it's agreeable to say that for the most part, the United States is split up into Republicans and Democrats. It's also agreeable to say that for the most part, women are better at caring for children than men. Both provide space for exceptions, while addressing the majority.
While individuals aren’t the cause of laws, laws are created with respect to the individual. As such, laws can be created to admit people based on qualifications rather than broad identity categories.
Furthermore, even when women were not allowed in combat roles, there were plenty non-combat roles open to women and no reason to think they would tend to be less able.
Some laws, yes. Most, no. And, it's debatable whether certain laws, which are claimed to be for the individual, are also for the profit of the majority. And, couldn't the individual be the majority as well? For example, the individual may be a woman who happens to be good with children, which fits the majority.
can be created to admit people based on qualifications rather than broad identity categories
Of course they can. And, most of the time, qualifications for say, the army, fit men better than women. This doesn't make the US Armed Forces or any of its branches discriminatory, it just means that the qualifications fit a majority.
no reason to think they would tend to be less able
"Non-combat role" is quite a broad term, though. Do you mean a non-combat role as in a nurse, or a truck driver? A truck driver isn't fighting, but they're involved in a "combat situation", for lack of a better phrase.
That’s not correct. Essentially all criminal laws are created with respect to the individual. Civil matters and tort law operates with respect to individual legal entities. Even class actions require an individual to have been personally affected.
And, it's debatable whether certain laws, which are claimed to be for the individual, are also for the profit of the majority
It’s not even a debate. The laws that punish individuals for criminal acts against other individuals are a benefit to everyone. So yes, laws for individuals profit the whole. But that’s very much beside the point.
For example, the individual may be a woman who happens to be good with children, which fits the majority.
If laws were based on stereotypes, you wouldn’t like the outcome.
And, most of the time, qualifications for say, the army, fit men better than women. This doesn't make the US Armed Forces or any of its branches discriminatory
I’m not arguing that the military is unjustly discriminatory by having individual fitness standards, I’m arguing that you are unjustly discriminatory when you say “I don't really think women should be in the army at all.”
"Non-combat role" is quite a broad term, though
There's a broad range of non-combat military situations for which even women of your stereotype would qualify perfectly. But then, it’s never been a stereotypical woman who joins the military.
Civil and tort laws were created for the benefit of the majority. That's why they're called civil laws.
Even class actions require an individual to have been personally affected.
Class action lawsuits are for the benefit of the population, no?
"A 'class action' lawsuit is one in which a group of people with the same or similar injuries caused by the same product or action sue the defendant as a group" - FindLaw.
It's not even a debate.
Yes it is. A debate is an argument, and you can argue your point on anything.
The laws that punish individuals for criminal acts against other individuals are a benefit to everyone.
Right.
But that's very much beside the point.
And what, if I might ask, is the point?
If laws were based on stereotypes, you wouldn't like the outcome.
What about stereotypes with factual evidence and backing? I would like the outcome there.
I'm arguing that you are unjustly discriminatory when you say "I don't really think women should be in the army at all."
How exactly is it immoral to say women shouldn't serve in the military? How exactly is it immoral to say "I want women to stay alive so more men can die for them."?
Class action lawsuits are for the benefit of the population, no?
No. Most of the population doesn’t benefit from a class action lawsuit. The benefit is only for those individuals affected.
What about stereotypes with factual evidence and backing? I would like the outcome there.
Not when the law affects you because you’re in a category that is statistically proven to incline toward a given stereotype that doesn’t apply to you.
How exactly is it immoral to say women shouldn't serve in the military? How exactly is it immoral to say "I want women to stay alive so more men can die for them."?
What I said is that you are unjustly discriminatory. Your discrimination against women in the military is unjustified because there are many various roles that are appropriate for women, even those that cannot qualify for combat roles. The notion that you want more men to die than women is no more justified than the opposite position.
Most of the population doesn't benefit from a class action lawsuit. The benefit is only for those individuals affected.
I would argue that the population does benefit from class-action lawsuits. This is because while individuals do get immediate gratification through winning the lawsuit, the population benefits when the company changes their standards because they don't want to get sued again and lose more money.
Not when the law affects you because you're in a category that is statistically proven to incline toward a given stereotype that doesn't apply to you.
Right. Statistically proven. How can you argue against facts? By saying that the facts are factually incorrect?
What I said is that you are unjustly discriminatory.
Unjust is defined as "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair", so I'll state my question again:
How exactly is it immoral to say women shouldn't serve in the military? How exactly is it immoral to say "I want women to stay alive so more men can die for them."?
even those that cannot qualify for combat roles
Such as? Many non-combat roles in the armed forces are extremely dangerous.
The notion that you want more men to die than women is no more justified than the opposite position.
Where did you get that I want more men to die than women? I said I want women to stay alive, so they can improve the population of the country. In a specific set of circumstances, the U.S. would need a second baby boom. Would you rather throw everyone out the door to fight or only specific individuals?
How exactly is it immoral to say women shouldn't serve in the military? How exactly is it immoral to say "I want women to stay alive so more men can die for them."?
I already answered this.
Torts benefit populations in the same way that other laws created with respect to individuals benefit populations. Populations are made of individuals.
Statistical facts don’t tell you individual facts. When a woman beats your ass, the statistical fact that this is unlikely won’t win you the fight.
By creating laws (or military standards) that require individuals to meet criteria, you get only people who qualify while barring all those who don’t, whether male or female. You will keep out the week men and allow the strong women. None will be physically unqualified. If being a man is the standard, people will be unqualified.
I’m fairly certain you know all of what I’m saying. If so, I’m done feeding trolls. If not...
Torts benefit populations in the same way that other laws created with respect to individuals benefit populations. Populations are made of individuals.
Why did you change your wording? At first, you were saying the individual, and now you're saying individuals. What's the point? None the less, yes, populations are made of individuals. But they're different. Individuals are not a single person, they are multiple people. And because we can't and make laws for literally every variation of human, we make laws based on the general consensus.
When a woman beats your ass, the statistical fact that this is unlikely won't win you fight.
It's not just unlikely, it's extremely unlikely. This is because, like I've said, women are generally the weaker sex. Also, how likely is it for a normal woman to start a fight with a normal man despite any provocation?
By creating laws (or military standards) that require individuals to meet criteria, you get only people who qualify, while barring all those who don't, whether male or female.
Because they are the military. How do you not get this? We can't let Mr. Big Mac or Ms. Piggy into the Armed Forces because they are not qualified to fight terrorists.
You will keep out the week men
Week?
and allow the strong women
And how many of these militarily-qualified "strong" women exist, exactly?
None will be physically unqualified.
What do you mean by that?
If being a man is the standard, people will be unqualified.
Since when is "being a man" the military's standard? The military standard has nothing to do with sex, as far as the actual written standard goes.
I'm fairly certain you know all of what I'm saying.
Almost none of what you said was what I'd call correct.
Your discrimination against women in the military is unjustified because there are many various roles that are appropriate for women, even those that cannot qualify for combat roles. In response to your question How exactly is it immoral to say "I want women to stay alive so more men can die for them."? I said the notion that you want more men to die than women is no more justified than the opposite position. If I said I want men to stay alive so that more women can die for them, it would be no more justified than your comment. Next time your having trouble remembering, scroll up.
because we can't and make laws for literally every variation of human, we make laws based on the general consensus.
Your missing the point. We make laws that apply to everyone. Each person. Not each black person or each woman. Each individual person. The purpose is to protect other individual people. There are and have been laws that apply to categories, but they are never good laws.
It’s not just unlikely, it's extremely unlikely. This is because, like I've said, women are generally the weaker sex. Also, how likely is it for a normal woman to start a fight with a normal man despite any provocation?
The likelihood of it happening still won’t save you in a fight when it happens. Statistics don’t apply to individuals. It wouldn’t be a normal person who picks a fight, but people still fight all the time. Men and women. And a few of those women can kick your ass.
Do you know how unlikely it is that you will be mugged? Nonetheless, if you’re mugged, the unlikelyhood of it will not save you.
And how many of these militarily-qualified "strong" women exist, exactly?
Exactly? Idk. You can look up the female population in the military. But there are tons of non-combat roles that any basically trained military woman is qualified to do. Last time I said this, you countered that they are still highly dangerous. The danger doesn’t matter, the ability does.
Dispite your wishes, women are allowed in the military. I don’t know how many there are, but rather than barring them for being women, they admit them if they can physically qualify. THAT MAKES THESE “STRONG” WOMEN MILITARILY-QUALIFIED
The military standard has nothing to do with sex, as far as the actual written standard goes.
Correct. Those who can actually affect military standards are smarter than you, Which is why they disagree with you.
there are many various roles that are appropriate for women
Okay? And? I'm arguing that women should generally not be allowed combat roles as they are objectively more important for the survival of the human race.
Next time your having trouble remembering, scroll up.
Next time you try to make a smartass remark, ask a human for help.
Each individual person.
No, laws apply to the population.
The purpose is to protect other individual people.
No, the purpose of the law is to protect the population, a.k.a. the majority.
The likelihood of it happening won't save you in a fight when it happens.
If it's extremely unlikely, chances are it's not going to happen. I've said this a few times, so I don't understand what you aren't getting here.
Statistics don't apply to individuals.
Yes, they do, that's what they're supposed to do. Statistics apply to a great many "individuals", to speak in your terms. Are you saying the population and the individual are completely different in every way?
And a few of those women can kick your ass.
Even if this did happen, which it wouldn't, I could literally just press charges and get them arrested for assault. But, it is very statistically unlikely and whether you like it or not, statistics apply to the population.
Do you know how unlikely it is that you will be mugged?
Yes, high enough to prove my point that it wouldn't happen and thus, disproving your point.
You can look up the female population in the military.
Wonderful, so you can't even back up your claims!
But there are tons of non-combat roles that any basically trained military woman is qualified to do.
How could you receive military training from the military if you weren't accepted into the military? Again, you're forgetting to second-guess yourself.
The danger doesn't matter
Yes, it does, actually. Combat is defined as "fighting between armed forces". So really, any dangerous role in the military should be considered a combat role, providing the job puts you in the action or puts you near the action.
the ability does.
Which is why most women won't join the military; because they can't receive even basic military training and therefore can't enter the Armed Forces.
Dispite your wishes
Dispite?
women are allowed in the military.
Yes, women who fit the requirements.
I don't know how many there are
Once again providing no evidence to your possibly bullshit claim. Bravo!
but rather than barring them for being women
I'm arguing that they should be barred from the military because of their reproductive abilities. So, yes, because they are women, essentially.
THAT MAKES THESE "STRONG" WOMEN MILITARILY-QUALIFIED
Actually no, they can't say if they are militarily qualified. You act as if it's some sort of a walk-in doctor appointment.
Okay? And? I'm arguing that women should generally not be allowed combat roles
Now that you’ve learned how to scroll up, lets practice some reading. I’ll start with something you already wrote, “I don't really think women should be in the army at all”. Now try to remember your position moving forward. If you don’t remember your position, you can always scroll up like we practiced.
they are objectively more important for the survival of the human race.
If there is ever a war that threatens the whole human race, women will be fighting in it.
No, laws apply to the population.
For the most part, no. They don’t. I’ve covered this thoroughly enough to call that case closed. You may need to scroll up and remember reading though. Good luck.
If it's extremely unlikely, chances are it's not going to happen.
In your life, there will be quite a few things that happen that will have been unlikely.
When I said that statistics don’t apply to individuals, you said ”Yes, they do, that's what they're supposed to do.”. From there you could practice scrolling down (it’s the opposite of up) and find that you later said ”statistics apply to the population”. Now I’ll explain why your contradicting sentence is correct. The crime rate among black men is elevated, but this statistical fact doesn’t tell me anything about the next individual black man I meet. The vast vast majority of criminals are men. But if you put an innocent man next to a female criminal, the statistics don’t matter. The statistics don not apply to individuals.
Even if this did happen, which it wouldn't
Probably wouldn’t.
I could literally just press charges and get them arrested for assault
Very Good! Laws against assault provide recourse for individual little ol you. We wouldn’t have to have the population of men press charges against the population of women because you got your ass kicked by Ronda Rousey, since laws against assault regard individuals, not populations.
Wonderful, so you can't even back up your claims!
Since I am arguing for women in the military, and against your position that they shouldn’t be there, I don’t need to know how many there are. The fact that they are there at all is sufficient to make my point.
How could you receive military training from the military if you weren't accepted into the military?
Wow, yeah. Really good point… I guess if there were no women in the military then none of them would be militarily trained…Wait a tick! There are women in the military! And to get there they have to physically qualify! Which makes them “STRONG” WOMEN WHO ARE MILITARILY-QUALIFIED.
You would have seen that this base was covered at the start of that paragraph. Just a little scroll up and only a tiny bit of reading.
The danger of the job doesn’t matter. You said that it does, but it doesn’t. The ability to do the job matters. You said that’s why most women won't join the military and you’re right. Most men won’t join the military either.
I'm arguing that they should be barred from the military because of their reproductive abilities
Ok, this is not a secret. Women do not reproduce asexually. That’s as far as I am willing to tutor you on the matter.
More importantly though, I will remind you of what you are arguing. ” I don't really think women should be in the army at all. Men are naturally stronger than women and women are naturally better at nurturing and care in general.”
Actually no, they can't say if they are militarily qualified.
Perhaps your cannot say if militarily qualified women are militarily qualified, but almost all other adults can. Look at that, it is very statistically unlikely that you would not understand this. And yet here we are.
Now that you've learned how to scroll up, lets practice some reading.
With you being as much of a smartass as you're being right now, I expect you to at least know how to type contractions correctly.
If there is ever a war that threatens the whole human race, women will be fighting in it.
All of them?
For the most part, no. They don't.
Yes, they do! How could laws not apply to the population? Does that mean that 40-year-old men can kill kids but 20-year-old women can? Does that mean rape is okay as long as it's a woman doing it?
I've covered this thoroughly enough to call that case closed.
The only case we can currently close is yours, so far. We're only at your third point and I've found that you don't know how to type the contraction "let's" and as well that you don't think that all laws apply to the entire population of a country.
In your life, there will be quite a few things that happen that will have been unlikely.
Okay? And? I'm not saying they won't happen, but I am saying that because they most likely won't happen, it's unreasonable to spend a more-than-reasonable amount of time talking about the outcomes.
When I said that statistics don’t apply to individuals, you said ”Yes, they do, that's what they're supposed to do.”. From there you could practice scrolling down (it’s the opposite of up) and find that you later said ”statistics apply to the population”. Now I’ll explain why your contradicting sentence is correct."
I didn't contradict myself with either of the quotes you decided to mention. They're stating the same thing; statistics apply to the population.
but this statistical fact doesn't tell me anything about the next individual black man I meet.
Yes, it does. It tells you a couple of things about the next black man you interact with. It tells you that: 1) The man may be a criminal, 2) The man may have a criminal past, and 3) The man may be dangerous.
if you put an innocent man next to a female criminal, the statistics don't matter.
How can they not matter? If you don't know which is which, the statistics will matter because in the case that the man is the criminal, you have to be prepared.
statistics don not apply to individuals
Another example of you first telling me how to scroll up, while you have not the slightest notion of how to correctly type sentences. And again, yes they do. Like you said, the population is made up of individuals. And, statistics apply to the population. So, statistics apply to individuals.
Laws against assault provide recourse for individual little ol you. We wouldn't have to have the population of men press charges against the population of women because you got your ass kicked by Ronda Rousey, since laws against assault regard individuals, not populations.
Who's Ronda Rousey?
Also, yes, it provides immediate recourse for me. However, it prevents, for at least 6 months, the "ass-kicking", for lack of a better term, of multiple other men. So, it also affects the male population, not just me.
Since I am arguing for women in the military, and against your position that they shouldn’t be there, I don’t need to know how many there are. The fact that they are there at all is sufficient to make my point.
I didn't say you needed to know the numbers. I simply exposed the lack of quality your points exhibit.
Wow, yeah. Really good point… I guess if there were no women in the military then none of them would be militarily trained…Wait a tick! There are women in the military! And to get there they have to physically qualify! Which makes them “STRONG” WOMEN WHO ARE MILITARILY-QUALIFIED.
You said basically-trained military woman. I said how could you be militarily trained if you were never accepted into the military. You then continued to talk about women already in the military. I was talking about women who weren't in the military at all.
Just a little scroll up and only a tiny bit of reading.
Says the feminist who cannot figure out how to type in English, or, as I like to say, "how to spoken Engrish".
The danger of the job doesn't matter. You said it does, but it doesn't.
Again, yes it does. What is the point of putting women into non-combative roles in the military if they will still possibly need to fight to survive?
The ability to do the job matters.
Right, and if you aren't able to qualify for the military, you should not be allowed into the military. Simple as.
Ok, this is not a secret. Women do not reproduce asexually.
Correct. What is your point? Not all men join the military. Obviously, if our population centers are being bombed to shit, we'll need more people to "cover the cost", so to say.
Perhaps your cannot say if militarily qualified women are militarily qualified, but almost all other adults can. Look at that, it is very statistically unlikely that you would not understand this. And yet here we are.
"Perhaps your cannot say"?
At any rate, who said I'm an adult? And, it isn't that difficult to be able to tell who can and who can't qualify for the military. They have lists of requirements online, in case you didn't know.
If they are willing and able, then they should preform the same roles, but it should not be automatically assumed that they can. Gender aside, if a person is unable to preform the roles required of them then they should be reassigned to an area where they can.
Women have the ability to do the things men can do, but most don't qualify for certain positions in the military. If a women wanted to be in the special forces in the military and they won't let her because she fail the strength test and she said it wasn't fair so they changed the rule and let her in then let's say someone gets shot and isn't able to walk and they are in a war zone... It's the girls responsibly to care for the wonder person. The nets say that she can't carry him. What then? There are certain things girls are able to do, but men are better for the job.
I want to VOTE NO But say that women should be able to perform to the best of their ability and not be eXpected to waste their time and others time and money pretending that they are able to perform the duty of another.
I think that woman can bring the Military greatness.
Those females who cannot meet the same standards of fitness, brute strength and endurance as their male comrades should not be accepted as recruits for front line service.
A weak link(s) in the battlefield could, and probably would cost lives and enfeeble the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces.
Any other approach to this issue would be total P.C, bullshit.