impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
neonlyte said:
Hmm. WHERE is the morality issue, though: with the producers of such or with the participants/viewers?
Regardless of the morality, it's just fucking tasteless.
Morality
- Thread starter dr_mabeuse
- Start date
Hmm. WHERE is the morality issue, though: with the producers of such or with the participants/viewers?
Regardless of the morality, it's just fucking tasteless.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,772
impressive said:Hmm. WHERE is the morality issue, though: with the producers of such or with the participants/viewers?
Regardless of the morality, it's just fucking tasteless.
Seconded.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
tut, tut!
[Roxanne on separating reason and emotion]
RA It's a warm and fuzzy illusion that you find comforting, but it's not an accurate description of human beings and life. Therefore, when you make public policies or ethical systems based on it they don't quite work out. There are inevitably countless unintended consequences, because your premise is wrong.
Now and over the ages those unintended consequences have soaked the earth with the blood and tears of their victims.
So along comes someone like me who sees the connection between the flawed premises and their unintended consequences, and is appalled by all the unnecessary suffering and death they have generated. I share the same core humanistic values that you do. I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.
spoken in the manner of John Galt or Amicus.
mind your manners, dear!
suggesting that you are sighted/insightful whereas others are blind is a non-rational and unmannerly debating procedure.
note to others: beware the fellow who says s/he will show how to reduce the sufferings of the world through enlightening "you" as to the error of "your premises."
be cautious too of the "I care deeply for all humans" professers. there's usually a "however" coming in the next sentence or two.
[Roxanne on separating reason and emotion]
RA It's a warm and fuzzy illusion that you find comforting, but it's not an accurate description of human beings and life. Therefore, when you make public policies or ethical systems based on it they don't quite work out. There are inevitably countless unintended consequences, because your premise is wrong.
Now and over the ages those unintended consequences have soaked the earth with the blood and tears of their victims.
So along comes someone like me who sees the connection between the flawed premises and their unintended consequences, and is appalled by all the unnecessary suffering and death they have generated. I share the same core humanistic values that you do. I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.
spoken in the manner of John Galt or Amicus.
mind your manners, dear!
suggesting that you are sighted/insightful whereas others are blind is a non-rational and unmannerly debating procedure.
note to others: beware the fellow who says s/he will show how to reduce the sufferings of the world through enlightening "you" as to the error of "your premises."
be cautious too of the "I care deeply for all humans" professers. there's usually a "however" coming in the next sentence or two.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Scientists and philosophy
Mr Haidt said, quote by dr mab-- Emotions and gut feelings generally drive our moral judgments.
-- We engage in moral reasoning not to learn the truth, but to win others over to our viewpoint.
-- Morality was crucial for the evolution of human ultra-sociality, which lets us live in large, highly-cooperative groups. Gossip was also crucial; it’s the vehicle through which we seek to win over others, again using moral reasoning.
Together, these principles force us “to re-evaluate many of our most cherished notions about ourselves,” said Haidt, whose own research has found that people generally follow their gut feelings and make up moral reasons afterwards. (You can take a short test of your moral intuitions at www.yourmorals.org).
“Since the time of the Enlightenment,” Haidt said, “philosophers have celebrated the power and virtue of cool, dispassionate reasoning. Unfortunately, few people other than philosophers can engage in such cool, honest reasoning when moral issues are at stake. The rest of us behave more like lawyers, using any arguments we can find to make our case, rather than like judges or scientists searching for the truth. This doesn’t mean we are doomed to be immoral; it just means that we should look for the roots of our considerable virtue elsewhere.”
Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on, and constrained by, a handful of evolved psychological systems. Liberals rely mainly on two of these, involving emotional sensitivity to harm and fairness. Conservatives draw on these two, plus three more: sensitivity to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.
====
among his key points:
A. moral judgments are driven by emotions and feelings
B. morality is a cultural construct
C. most people's moral arguments are constructed to arrive at predetermined conclusions suited to their feelings and emotions.
----
on the last point, a noted philosopher observed that philosophers generally are finding good reasons for what they believe on instinct.
there is no "rest of us" [whose reasoning is tainted]
on points A. and B., the way they are deployed, this is known as the fallacy of origins.
it's equivalent to the following:
X: bird often carry diseases
Y: you're just saying that because you hate birds OR
you're just repeating what your father said, and he hated birds.
---
the man does philosophy as badly as i do science.
Mr Haidt said, quote by dr mab-- Emotions and gut feelings generally drive our moral judgments.
-- We engage in moral reasoning not to learn the truth, but to win others over to our viewpoint.
-- Morality was crucial for the evolution of human ultra-sociality, which lets us live in large, highly-cooperative groups. Gossip was also crucial; it’s the vehicle through which we seek to win over others, again using moral reasoning.
Together, these principles force us “to re-evaluate many of our most cherished notions about ourselves,” said Haidt, whose own research has found that people generally follow their gut feelings and make up moral reasons afterwards. (You can take a short test of your moral intuitions at www.yourmorals.org).
“Since the time of the Enlightenment,” Haidt said, “philosophers have celebrated the power and virtue of cool, dispassionate reasoning. Unfortunately, few people other than philosophers can engage in such cool, honest reasoning when moral issues are at stake. The rest of us behave more like lawyers, using any arguments we can find to make our case, rather than like judges or scientists searching for the truth. This doesn’t mean we are doomed to be immoral; it just means that we should look for the roots of our considerable virtue elsewhere.”
Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on, and constrained by, a handful of evolved psychological systems. Liberals rely mainly on two of these, involving emotional sensitivity to harm and fairness. Conservatives draw on these two, plus three more: sensitivity to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.
====
among his key points:
A. moral judgments are driven by emotions and feelings
B. morality is a cultural construct
C. most people's moral arguments are constructed to arrive at predetermined conclusions suited to their feelings and emotions.
----
on the last point, a noted philosopher observed that philosophers generally are finding good reasons for what they believe on instinct.
there is no "rest of us" [whose reasoning is tainted]
on points A. and B., the way they are deployed, this is known as the fallacy of origins.
it's equivalent to the following:
X: bird often carry diseases
Y: you're just saying that because you hate birds OR
you're just repeating what your father said, and he hated birds.
---
the man does philosophy as badly as i do science.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
for dr m.,
probably you know it, but Hume, one of the great philosophical intellects said:
"reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions."
--
many of the conundrums above are rationalist puzzles of the sort: would you do X for a million dollars. and the replies are rational and self idealizing. not to pick on her too much, but RA's statement that she'd die to avoid having a child blinded.
we're all exemplars in such discussions.
we know that, in practice, parents have sold off a daughter to gain a few funds for the family.
a spouse has done in another for the $50,000 insurance. (whereas if i asked someone how much to kill your spouse [whom you love], they'd say, 'a trillion dollars.')
on the other side, is Hume's famous example: he argued there is nothing against reason in preferring the extinction of the world instead of the least prick to my little finger. [IOW it's not 'reason' that leads one to consider others' sufferings.]
probably you know it, but Hume, one of the great philosophical intellects said:
"reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions."
--
many of the conundrums above are rationalist puzzles of the sort: would you do X for a million dollars. and the replies are rational and self idealizing. not to pick on her too much, but RA's statement that she'd die to avoid having a child blinded.
we're all exemplars in such discussions.
we know that, in practice, parents have sold off a daughter to gain a few funds for the family.
a spouse has done in another for the $50,000 insurance. (whereas if i asked someone how much to kill your spouse [whom you love], they'd say, 'a trillion dollars.')
on the other side, is Hume's famous example: he argued there is nothing against reason in preferring the extinction of the world instead of the least prick to my little finger. [IOW it's not 'reason' that leads one to consider others' sufferings.]
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,772
WRJames said:
My favourite author once wrote "The Holocaust was a perfectly rational act."
I'll plug one of my favourite books by him. Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in The West. Thanks to that I learned what a limited thing reason is.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Why hold back? You just dismissed a post I made in another thread by flat out calling me a hypocrite. If you're going to crap all over the ethos of civility that most people would prefer to prevail here, you might as well do it all the way.Pure said:
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Nah, the real pissing just took place in the World Bank thread. I'm taking a long shower.elsol said:
Please resume interesting thread.
PS. Sorry.
Last edited:
