Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greatoliver]

Concerning emotions: It's true that we're beginning to be able to assess emotions, but this still won't provide solutions.

Logic is fine and dandy, but it needs principles to function properly... Logical ethics is cool, but really, what are you going to base it on? There has to be some kind of irreducable principle, be it deism or utilitarianism... In which case, how would you measure these?

As said before, logic is a mechanism, not a be all and end all...

[Virex]

~ Stuff about why emotions are measurable

You still have got the problem that there is pretty much no way to define, logicaly, what is right or wrong. Take for example killing. Can you find a logical argument that killing is wrong, without at any point refering to improperly defined properties? If so, you should write a phylosophical thesis

[TheDarkJay]

Killing opens floodgates. Permit it, people start fearing because most people don't want to die, and people who are afraid don't act rationally, because fear gives what we term "fight or flight or fuck"...Which results in more killing. Ultimately, it goes against self-preservation of the individual, and therefore preservation of the group. Simplest solution is don't permit it, and deal with anybody who commits it.

[RAM]

Killing someone prevents them from contributing to finding a purpose. If however they are acting as an obstacle to finding a purpose then they should be restricted from doing so. If killing is the ideal method of furthering the long-term acquisition of data that could provide a logical purpose then it is logically moral.

[Earthquake Damage]

I was under the clearly-mistaken impression that "purpose" was axiomatic, not derived.

[Grakelin]

There's more to an intellectual debate than being verbose. Everybody here should try to put some substance behind their linguistic ability.

[RAM]

Searching for a purpose is purpose enough to operate logically.

[bjlong]

Searching for a purpose is purpose enough to operate logically.

You're in paradox land. If your purpose is to search for a purpose, then you have a purpose, and therefore do not need to search for a purpose. However, then you do not have a purpose, as your previous purpose is invalid. Therefore, you must search for a purpose. If you take your purpose to be searching for a purpose, then you start all over.

Also, why should we take this over having a purpose of, say, killing kittens and pissing on graves?

Killing opens floodgates. Permit it, people start fearing because most people don't want to die, and people who are afraid don't act rationally, because fear gives what we term "fight or flight or fuck"...Which results in more killing. Ultimately, it goes against self-preservation of the individual, and therefore preservation of the group. Simplest solution is don't permit it, and deal with anybody who commits it.

So you would not permit killing because it causes people to act irrationally? If this is the case, then increasing rationality is your goal, yes? Why choose this?

Also your blanket statements are incorrect--people often do react to killing in a much more detached fashion--a sniper in the military, for example. Or watching the death penalty being carried out.

I was under the clearly-mistaken impression that "purpose" was axiomatic, not derived.

QFT

[RAM]

I previously suggested that logic could produce a pseudopurpose. Seeking a logically derived purpose is a sufficient purpose until it is successful, at which point it will no longer be necessary. Logically, a purpose is required in order to use logic, seeking a purpose satisfies this and is logical. Definng something as a paradox has no influence upon its legitimacy, although the reasons as to why it would be a paradox usually do, in this case, they do not.

Killing kittens does not serve any purpose that I am immediately familiar with, and would therefore be illogical. Although I am confident that people do kill kitten for pure emotional gratification...

Snipers are selected for their mental traits, among which is a willingness to murder.
Observing death being carried out is very different from inflicting death, and a willingness to murder can be created in some circumstances...

The pursuit of a purpose satisfies the need for a purpose and is logically derived, citing a simple statement to the contrary, regardless of its source, is insufficient to discredit that.

[Soadreqm]

Killing kittens doesn't have to serve a purpose if killing kittens is the purpose. You can assume that killing kittens is Good, and construct an internally consistent system of ethics around this. Killing people is fine, as long as more kittens are also killed as a result. It's acceptable to let a kitten live if this leads to more kittens killed in the future. Interestingly, it follows that one should seek to maximize the number of kittens in the world, so that you could kill more of them faster.

[Earthquake Damage]

Interestingly, it follows that one should seek to maximize the number of kittens in the world, so that you could kill more of them faster.

That's an "ends justify the means" argument.  In fact, it appears similar to a claim that we should exterminate humanity to minimize human suffering.

[bjlong]

I previously suggested that logic could produce a pseudopurpose. Seeking a logically derived purpose is a sufficient purpose until it is successful, at which point it will no longer be necessary. Logically, a purpose is required in order to use logic, seeking a purpose satisfies this and is logical. Definng something as a paradox has no influence upon its legitimacy, although the reasons as to why it would be a paradox usually do, in this case, they do not.

Killing kittens does not serve any purpose that I am immediately familiar with, and would therefore be illogical. Although I am confident that people do kill kitten for pure emotional gratification...

Snipers are selected for their mental traits, among which is a willingness to murder.
Observing death being carried out is very different from inflicting death, and a willingness to murder can be created in some circumstances...

The pursuit of a purpose satisfies the need for a purpose and is logically derived, citing a simple statement to the contrary, regardless of its source, is insufficient to discredit that.

Firstly and formostly, this is not a paradox because I arbitrarily defined it as such. It is a paradox because it contradicts itself, in the same way that "Everyone on the internet is a liar" contradicts itself. Your best escape is not to say that it doesn't matter, because using logic with paradoxes as axioms is pretty silly--rather like dividing by 0, but rather to say that your pseudo-purpose is "To logically derive a purpose to humanity from logical first principles, which is itself independent of the mechanisms of deriving and choosing a purpose."

Secondly, you still haven't addressed the basic objections. If something is logically derived, then you can go back to axioms (here, basic logical principles), and pump out arguments that bring about your conclusion. So, I'm saying either back up your claim, or lose the whole "logically derived" business. (Good luck!)

Even more basic, you've come up with "legitimacy" as a measure of the goal's success, but this seems to be rather arbitrary. Any stated goal will be legitimate, in that it requires someone to do something, which you seem to be getting at. In any case, this is a poor measure of a goal, and should be discarded, save as a definition of a goal.

Less logically, why should we take your goal, at a human level? Doesn't your goal require everyone to be doing something that facilitates philosophers, which means that philosophers will live in decadence, leaving the rest of us to rot, as we don't matter as much?

Your rebuttals need some work. First, choosing an arbitrary purpose does not require the purpose to be more fully explained, as it's axiomatic. You can't make arguments to it, but you can make some arguments that show that it makes sense as a moral system. So my example of killing kittens doesn't need a higher purpose to serve. (Edit: Ninja'd. Grr.)

Snipers are not selected for their willingness to (loaded word!) murder. They are selected for emotional control, marksmanship, and discipline, then trained to kill under very specific circumstances. This does not invalidate the example--people can kill, and yet remain rational. It may be bad, but it doesn't destroy logic! (Furthermore, this assumes a purpose of maximizing the logical decisions in a population.)

You're correct, I didn't rebut any of your arguments with my QFT, but I did succinctly state my position.

[Soadreqm]

Interestingly, it follows that one should seek to maximize the number of kittens in the world, so that you could kill more of them faster.

That's an "ends justify the means" argument.  In fact, it appears similar to a claim that we should exterminate humanity to minimize human suffering.

Indeed. Both claims hinge on selecting a single issue and basing a whole alignment system on it, ignoring everything else. The ends don't even have to justify the means, the means are irrelevant to begin with.

[RAM]

Searching for a purpose is purpose enough to operate logically.

You're in paradox land. If your purpose is to search for a purpose, then you have a purpose, and therefore do not need to search for a purpose. However, then you do not have a purpose, as your previous purpose is invalid. Therefore, you must search for a purpose. If you take your purpose to be searching for a purpose, then you start all over.

Also, why should we take this over having a purpose of, say, killing kittens and pissing on graves?

It is effectively a logically derived purpose. There is no logical reason to take killing kittens as a purpose, and there are emotional reasons to take it as a purpose, rendering the argument irrelevant and invalid, and utterly ridiculous.

Logically logic attains a perfect state. In the absence of a purpose the perfect state is the current state. Given that the current state was derived from illogical means there is no reason to believe that it is logical, so it should be assessed for logical qualification. Given that no current standards exist for logical qualification of a final state they must be derived. So the logical course is to seek a purpose. However, seeking a purpose is sufficient to provide a purpose to logically pursue. It is perfectly valid...

The above complaint is not that the subject is paradoxical, it is that it is a 'perpetual loop'. However, the arguments that would cause this require overprocessing the one statement, and are effectively pure semantics. It provides a sufficient purpose to persist and therefore requires no further analysis for this function. In short, you can pursue a purpose, and that is enough. It is logically derived and valid.

Arguing that purpose must come from beyond logic 'just because' is not going to garner any respect from me...

[bjlong]

-snip-

It is effectively a logically derived purpose. There is no logical reason to take killing kittens as a purpose, and there are emotional reasons to take it as a purpose, rendering the argument irrelevant and invalid, and utterly ridiculous.

Logically logic attains a perfect state. In the absence of a purpose the perfect state is the current state. Given that the current state was derived from illogical means there is no reason to believe that it is logical, so it should be assessed for logical qualification. Given that no current standards exist for logical qualification of a final state they must be derived. So the logical course is to seek a purpose. However, seeking a purpose is sufficient to provide a purpose to logically pursue. It is perfectly valid...

The above complaint is not that the subject is paradoxical, it is that it is a 'perpetual loop'. However, the arguments that would cause this require overprocessing the one statement, and are effectively pure semantics. It provides a sufficient purpose to persist and therefore requires no further analysis for this function. In short, you can pursue a purpose, and that is enough. It is logically derived and valid.

Arguing that purpose must come from beyond logic 'just because' is not going to garner any respect from me...

Goodness. You seem to be somewhat upset--please take a deep breath, remember that this is THE INTERNETS! and not something that matters, and try to word your posts a bit less acerbically. Thanks!

I'm not sure what an "effectively" logical derivation is. What does this effectively mean? Because when I use it in physics, I use it to mean "Not really, but here's something you can relate to."

Aaand once again you're trying to attack any justifications for an axiomatic choice. You've claimed that you can "effectively" logically derive this goal. My question, once again, was "why should we willingly choose this?" Especially since it's only a pseudo-goal, and only effectively derived.

Furthermore, you're rejecting a specific example. I picked something ridiculous, but I could have just as easily picked "Maximize happiness" or Kant's Categorical Imperative--two systems that have immediate real-world applications. The example was supposed to be ridiculous, so you should be able to refute it. And you're rejecting it because it was chosen out of emotional reasons? What if I chose to help a dying man out of emotional reasoning? Isn't that good? Don't you get emotionally involved in this debate--feeling that you should be right, and getting just a twinge angry at each rebuttal?

You've included a logical derivation! Excellent!

However, you start it with "Logically logic" which is an awful phrase. Moving on!

You have two unjustified assertions in your derivation. How do we know logic attains a perfect state? Does logic have some sort of built-in mechanism where each proof brings society closer to awesome? Do we have some way to empirically measure this? Logic is only a way to get from premises to conclusions--with the false premises, one can't say if the conclusion is correct. How does this set of rules seek a state? It sounds like integration naturally tending towards 2.

The second is that a perfect state is one without a goal to apply logic to. I'll let it slide, but if you want to answer this, how do you know?

Your proof is otherwise sound, save that it happens on a paradox. This is not valid.

Allow me to explain. A paradox has three components to it: It is self-referential, it contradicts itself, and it has an infinite regression. Here the paradox is as follows:

In lieu of a clear goal, we choose the search for a goal as our goal. Is this valid?

• Does this reference itself? Yes. Clearly, we are referencing our own lack of a goal in our stated pseudo goal.
• Does this contradict itself? Yes. For the goal to be valid, we must be able to work towards the goal. We must work towards finding a goal, so the pseudo goal is valid. However, no sooner is our pseudo goal chosen then it is met--we now have our goal. It is our pseudo goal. Therefore, the pseudo goal is no longer valid as a goal.
• Does this infinitely regress? Yes. Whenever we have no clear goal, we then choose the search for a goal as our pseudo goal. (valid!) But then the pseudo goal is met. Then we have no clear goal. (invalid!) So we choose the pseudo goal as our goal. (valid!) &c.

Therefore! Paradox.

If you claim that this doesn't matter, then you're throwing out logic. Sorry. Paradoxes and logic are like electricity and water, except with electricity and water you don't start sounding incredibly stoned. The reason is, you can't just arbitrarily say "Stop at this point of the proof." The argument must come to its final conclusion. Neither can you say its validity doesn't matter--this would be like saying "Let's forge a sandwich for dinner tonight." While I might say it jokingly, you can't forge something edible. If I gave that as instructions to a robot, it would start smoking, and I'd be out a robot.

You know, you're throwing the words "logic" and "valid" around quite a lot. I'm afraid that you're starting to use them like "good" and "really good," because there have been several times you've used them where they obviously didn't belong.

I can't give a rigorous logical proof that logic requires additional axioms to apply to morality--if I could, I'd be too busy writing a PhD thesis to post on a message board. However, here's an inductive argument (Noting that a completely logical system of morality is defined as a desirable system of morality that can be derived from logical first principles, demonstrably so in the modern day; and a definite problem is a problem that can be explicitly stated, has basic principles that can not change, and a defined goal which does not change.):

P1) Philosophy and logic have been around for thousands of years.
P2) Any completely logical system of morality discovered would have made its discoverer famous, and propagated through the years.
P3) No current system of morality is entirely based on logic.
---
C1) Therefore, no completely logical system of morality has been invented.

P1) A great number of very intelligent philosophers and logicians have existed through the thousands of years.
P2) Most, if not all, have at one time attempted to come up with a completely logical system of morality, or modify a system to be more logical.
---
C2) Therefore, a great many very intelligent people have worked to make a completely logical system of morality.

P1) A great number of very intelligent people have worked on a very definite problem over thousands of years
P2) This problem remains unsolved
P3) The problem cannot be demonstrated to be unsolvable.
---
C3) The problem is most likely unsolvable

P1) Working out a completely logical system of morality is a very definite problem.
P2) Take C1) , C2) and C3) as premises.
---
C) Therefore, a completely logical system of morality is most likely unable to be formulated and demonstrably proven.