Intro To Philosophy 5: Ethics #2

[NativeNewMexican]

I have an argument that preferred behavior does not exist:

QWjii1•™@

[NativeNewMexican]

@NativeNewMexican

Oh damn, I used preferred symbols in a linguistic lexicon. Damn you and your logic Stefan!

[paullie6719]

Stefan, this is really too complicated. For example, you repeatedly said, "You can't just make stuff up". I think that's beyond the comprehension of the ordinary person. ;-)

[HairyHu]

You are an idiot! Why? because you said in the N. Korea and the Soviet Union only some people had property rights.

This is idiotic, because people in those countries owned clothes, houses, and had the right to buy and own a car, if they had enough money. Yes, they went to work and earned money.

How do I know this? I use to live there.

[dyne313]

Well I prefer that this preference is the only preference that really exists. lol

[Xeogt]

This is an amazingly good series of podcasts. They are really helping me elevate my understanding of the subject, and to better found some of the conclussions I've managed to vaguely justify accepting before.

[stefbot]

@Xeogt thanks!

[StrangleHoldTV]

preferred behavior exsits, but changes and morphs all the time......

[alalelalex]

I would say that the class of beings to which moral rules apply universally would be something like all responsible beings, where responsible would mean capable of moral reasoning to a certain degree. This would imply that people cannot fully apply the moral rule to beings with a lesser moral responsibility. For flies this mean you can smash them and for children this means you must guide or avoid them.

[touch182]

The fact that you have "preferences" is the point.

[tropicalmist999]

Stefbot, you've done it again! Supurb 5 star! Is there a part 3? :)

[stefbot]

Thanks, there certainly is!

[tropicalmist999]

is it a direct continuation of this?

[tropicalmist999]

never mind i see it on the right hand side! Ethics #3!

[newexperiment]

Part 2

to prove before you can use redictio ad abusrdum. But to prove this you can again use RAA by assuming that there is not a dichotomy. Overall not bad though.

[newexperiment]

Part 1

I'm not a philosopher by any stretch, nor am I a logician and as such I have enjoyed this serious and have found everything you've mentioned to be valuable and seemingly true. Now correct me if I'm wrong but... reductio ad absurdum is only used to eliminate one possibility. You've so far proven everything with this method and until this video I've had no problems with how you use it. You have the unstated major premise "ethical questions are inherently dichotomous" which you have

[InfectedDaemon]

I don't understand Stef. You say that when I state that Preferred Behavior does not exist, I'm not saying that I would 'Prefer' that you would not believe that Preferred Behavior exists. Its a statement, not preference or opinion. I don't see the contradiction. I think that at most, your previous example was better (That if Rules can be true, i.e. the scientific method is necessary to follow to further knowledge, so Standards do exist.

[AnarchoSolipsist]

You argued that if people don't have a "right" to property, it is immoral to use property. However, you have also argued in your podcasts that people don't have a "right" to healthcare. Obviously you don't mean by this that healthcare is immoral. So I'm not so sure about the equation "no right to X = immoral to do X".

[stefbot]

I'm not too sure about that either -- I do remember arguing that no one can propose a moral theory that denies property rights without exercising self ownership and using property -- that is a logical contradiction I do remember talking about...

[johnrcoben]

Communism does not mean some people own everything, that's ridiculous.

[stefbot]

In practice, that is how it always works...

[queenkyoko]

no

there are something wrong about your assertion

it's not a about theory and practice...

I cannot explain my thought in english very well since my first language is not english

but if you say "in practice that is how it always works" as the start point of your philosophy / world view.....

your theory is not serious thus not worth being taken seriously....

[stefbot]

I do have some free books on my web site, if you would like to listen to a few more words... :)

[queenkyoko]

yes agree!

philosophers like to talk about "universal"

but most of the time they are talking about specific things in specific time (weak politics? haha)

I feel sorry so many people have misunderstanding about Communism just as many people have misunderstanding about "Capitalism"...However it is kind unavoidable

[queenkyoko]

However, if you want to discuss ethics seriously, you should at least know how others view the idea of "communism"..

Plus, this misunderstanding about property right is really.... to primary to make...

[johnrcoben]

It is not unavoidable! All you have to do is wake up and pay attention to whats going on around you. No one questions anything, they just accept that communism is bad without even knowing anything about it just because they're told to. It's disgusting.

[queenkyoko]

hehe~maybe i m to pessimisitic while I doubt any one have been and would ever be able to "wake up and pay attention to whats going on around"

also...i emtionally wannan agree the "disgusting" part your said...

I also think making such a judgement is "disgusting" to someone eles...

:) (sorry about my English)

[Filmprojektet]

(see previous comment)

If this case would be an example of a bad and contradictious theory, wouldn't that make, let's say, law enforcement contradictious?

In Sweden, as an example, the police are allowed to carry guns. Ordinary citizents are not allowed to carry guns. Would this also be a contradiction?

[Filmprojektet]

About the communism example...

You claimed communism to be contradictious by pointing out that some individuals would have the rights of ownership, while some individuals wouldn't. In reality, in a communistic state, no individual would have the right to ownership - however, the community as a whole would have a right to ownership, and the leaders of that community would be the ones in charge of the collective property.

(more coming)

[robby1232007]

stef : one can not argue 'thou shall steal' means people will continue to steal at all times , the arguments wouldnt hold if it was 'stealing is ok'.

i am a novice, so would appreciate a response.

[stefbot]

Sure - stealing cannot logically be ok, since it it both an affirmation and a denial of property rights (i.e. I wish to retain ownership over what I have stolen). Great question though! :)

[tguns001]

If you manipulate someone's goals in one form or another, their behavior will be manipulated. Same goes for if they manipulate their own goals. Beliefs, goals, motivation and desire are very powerful things in the human mind. Human beings can be very dangerous creatures or they can create great things.

[tguns001]

People should keep eachother in check, not band together to have one point of view. That could lead to really bad things.

Is it about anarchy where everyone works in their own self-interest? or is it about being a one world community with a universally preferred behavior? To have both seems like a square circle to me.

[tguns001]

For universally prefered behavior to exist is not in my best interest. Just because I prefer it to exist doesn't mean I want everyone to prefer it. For something like that to exist, and for false propositioning and secrets of any kind not to exist, there would have to be some form of openbook telepathy and that would probably involve putting computer equipment in the heads of little babies and I'm not really into that.

[tguns001]

If one person has the goal of improving the human species in thousands of years by working as a team with others and another person can only see 2 seconds in front of his face, how is anything about these two people going to be universal?

[tguns001]

False propositions exist whether we want them to or not because it is a way for someone to accomplish their goals. If we acknowledge the fact that everyone works in their own self interest(pain and pleasure wise) then we can see that it's not abnormal at all for immature human beings to act this way. Just because we prefer them to be smarter won't make them so. Everyone wants a different outcome.

[tguns001]

The only thing that seems universal between people is regional language and communication.

property - 1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: 2. ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, esp. of something tangible

possession - 1. the act or fact of possessing. 2. Law. actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.

That is why language is so important.

[tguns001]

Preferred behavior exists when it comes to pain and pleasure, but it does not exist in actions because everyone has different goals. When people have the same goals, then they have a universally preferred behavior.

If by behavior you mean actions outside of your mind, then no, preferred behavior does not exist in the human species as of now. If everyone had the same goals, then it would exist. That is how my little brain calculates it.

Universally prefered behavior is non-existent.

[stefbot]

Ah, so if I understand you correctly, it is universally preferable not to believe in false propositions?

[tguns001]

No. I don't see how it can be universally preferable because if I have impotent goals, a false proposition could be in my best interest. If my goal is to be your servent because you are rich or I think you are a god then why would I care? If all I want is money, who cares what was false, I made a million bucks. See? Goals are not universal, so behavior cannot be either.

[pianistafj]

I apologize for being blunt, but preferred behavior is nothing more than a rhetorical concept. The more people believe in it, the more valid it is. Plus, using the word "preferred" a million times, does not make it any more real or universal. I see no appeal to this proposition.

[stefbot]

Bluntness is fine - so you're saying that you "prefer" that I not used the term "prefer" - do you see the contradiction?

[pianistafj]

I have a larger problem with the term behavior, not preferred. However eloquently presented, which your video is, I would 'prefer' that you recognize substantive ideas and notions for what they are, not subjective preferences. To denigrate everything to preferences is pedantic and a slippery slope shall it ever be embraced. What would you prescribe for a universally preferred bad behavior? :)

[RLore18]

Yes, I'll join in thanks. I'm learning a lot just from your youtube videos.

[hweiglein]

Rights? They evaporate just when you need them. Power has privilege.

[drew335533]

@hweiglein

No kidding.

[hweiglein]

Universally preferred behaviour, competition and cooperation for example, conflict, generating moral dilemmas.

[bobbincygna]

sorry about all of this.

I made a big post that I couldn't post because of the character limit, so I chopped it in pieces and posted them, but only some of the posts got posted in random order and others get lost...and someones appeared later but I posted duplicated....

[bobbincygna]

if universally preferred behavior is the same as morality and using known words with good grammar that others can understand is universally preferred, ¿is it immoral to talk to people with a language I created?

[stefbot]

No, it would just be meaningless, just as if you'd posted a question composed of random letters. Excellent question though!

[bobbincygna]

And another doubt I have is this:

if UPB is the same as morality and using proper language is universally preferred, ¿is it immoral to mumble?

I would greatly apreciate a response.

[bobbincygna]

And another doubt I have is this:

if UPB is the same as morality and using proper language is universally preferred, ¿is it immoral to mumble?

I would greatly apreciate a response.

[drew335533]

@bobbincygna

No, UPB is universal. Proper language is just a subjectively preferable.

[bobbincygna]

You give lots of examples of someone having preferences and claiming it's a contradiction. It's not.

Stating PERSONAL preferences doesn't imply the existence of UNIVERSAL preferences.

But still even if there are universal preferences that doesn't mean that the set of thous preferences are what morality is. You haven't made the case for it.

[stefbot]

There is another part to the ethics series, and I also go into more details in my podcasts - thanks for your excellent questions!

[Ospire]

you are working from the bottom up...unless you have understanding, ethics mean nothing. all i can say is see Spinoza.

[davidngo4415]

thank you for putting this up. i really appreciate someone attempting to explain these things in laymen terms in a logical manner. please continue doing this