Post 1751406 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
(DIR) More posts by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
(DIR) Post #1751406 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T21:31:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
My hope is, if you truly want to be a good person, logic and reason will guide you there.But my understanding is, if all you want to be is logical and rational, you might eventually find yourself in a very cruel way.
(DIR) Post #1751437 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T21:32:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This is one of those "your axioms dictate what kinds of theorems you can prove" kinda things. If you do not take empathy as an axiom, you will never prove you should be good to people.
(DIR) Post #1751495 by dzuk@weirder.earth
2018-12-05T21:33:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline its kinda like scientism - *science itself cannot provide the basis for ethics*
(DIR) Post #1751528 by popefucker@cybre.space
2018-12-05T21:35:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline not necessarily? If you're not good to people, they won't be good to you, therefore you should be good to people.
(DIR) Post #1751536 by sydneyfalk@elekk.xyz
2018-12-05T21:35:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline I always felt Spock's take on the Vulcan culture's philosophy was a good one: "It means to adopt a philosophy, a way of life which is logical and beneficial. We cannot disregard that philosophy merely for personal gain, no matter how important that gain might be."Logical sans beneficial is lawful evil at best and chaotic evil at worst. (Or sheer foolishness, which leaves the "logician" at the mercy of the manipulators who want to use them and their own worst impulses.)
(DIR) Post #1751642 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T21:38:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker Some people get around this by manipulating others, unfortunately.But I get that what I said is probably not always true. It might be possible to discover goodness from something external, but I think exercising empathy is so powerful it shouldn't be passed up.
(DIR) Post #1751716 by lexchimera@monsterpit.net
2018-12-05T21:39:50Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline A drive for logic and rationality at the expense of civility and empathy is something not worth trying to preserveBeing logical does not require being apathetic and mean-spirited.
(DIR) Post #1751813 by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2018-12-05T21:42:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
To my understanding, rationality and logic rarely are an end, more often means to an end. See the people whose aim it to "win" at debates using "logic". I actually think that if your goal is to be logical and rational, you may actually end up marginally good, although a little cold maybe.
(DIR) Post #1752567 by tsu@pleroma.site
2018-12-05T21:46:41.661298Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline "good" is a tough word in this context tho
(DIR) Post #1752568 by tsu@pleroma.site
2018-12-05T21:53:06.901131Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(if this is unwelcome, just let me know) @SuricrasiaOnline i encourage you to seek a phrasing which can be expanded on and proved empirically. i.e. the question is "killing another person good or bad"? you can't prove killing is bad, it's done everyday. in "legal" and "illegal" contexts. you probably won't change those peoples minds that think it's good eitherwhat you can do however is prove and show unintentional negative side effects of killing. in the case of war, how it affects image, community markets, long-term relationships. similar case in the case of individual or small group crimes. this also allows you to frame better long-term alternatives to the original question, as well as rephrasing it"is killing another person worth it? what other options are there?" that's not perfect, but something like that
(DIR) Post #1752569 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T22:09:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsu I'm sorry this isn't answering your question directly, but this is exactly my point. My fear is you cannot directly prove that killing is bad, empirically or not, without taking it axiomatically. Like, if we could find some empirical data that said killing actually improved people's lives, the economy, etc, should we accept that? I don't think so.(cont...)
(DIR) Post #1752671 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T22:14:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsu A little less unbelievably, suppose we found that reducing worker benefits to nothing massively improved a company's profitability, long term side effects and all. Should we accept this as justification for doing such a thing?If all we cared about was the bottom line, then of course. Given the empirical data, we should remove a worker's benefits.(cont)
(DIR) Post #1752811 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T22:20:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsu But I would say that such a thing is wrong, and should not be done. We shouldn't do things merely for the profit motive. We should do things to improve lives, so people are happier and more free. And if we found ways to measure happiness and freedom empirically we could probably prove it that wayBut there's the thing with empiricism. How do we choose what data to collect? How do we choose how to interpret it? Why isn't the profit motive the right thing to optimize for?cont
(DIR) Post #1753004 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T22:28:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsu My premise is, empiricism cannot speak for itself. If I measure the number of socks in my house before and after buying them I could say "the number increased, therefore I have proved buying socks is good." The statement doesn't follow unless we take "goodness is having socks" axiomatically. My fear is that I cannot prove killing is bad without taking "hurting people is bad" axiomatically.
(DIR) Post #1753010 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T22:29:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsu I hope most of that followed/made sense
(DIR) Post #1754172 by grainloom@cybre.space
2018-12-05T23:09:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuricrasiaOnline doesn't cooperation depend on empathy? and cooperation is kind of a good strategy to follow....ok that's not a very rigorous proof but i think it can be proven, it's just not intuitive
(DIR) Post #1754239 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T23:12:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@grainloom Not necessarily. If someone hits you with a big fish every time you don't cooperate with them, you will eventually learn to cooperate with them. No empathy needed. I do think empathy leads to cooperation, though.
(DIR) Post #1754248 by SuricrasiaOnline@cybre.space
2018-12-05T23:12:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@grainloom This is assuming you do not like being hit with a big fish.