Freethought & Rationalism Archive

shamon · 04-12-2002, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:


Want exists,its an emotion, a desire,it exists in the same way that love or hate exists,it is innate. NEED on the other hand, doesn't exist in this way.

I would like you to show me how any of these definitions of need can possibly be innate.

need [need ] verb (past need�ed, past participle need�ed, present participle need�ing, 3rd person present singular needs)

1. transitive and intransitive verb require: used to indicate that something is required in order to have success or achieve something Do you need any money? He told me that I didn't need to know.

2. intransitive verb be unnecessary: used to indicate that a course of action is not desirable or not necessary (used in negative statements) You don't need to thank me; I'm happy to help whenever I can. Studying medicine need not mean you can't study architecture later.

3. transitive and intransitive verb deserve: to deserve a particular, usually punishing treatment (informal) That little boy needs to be given a good talking to. Those troops need to be shown who's boss.

4. intransitive verb to be essential: essential or necessary to something (archaic) "I think that we are all agreed in this matter, and therefore there needs no more words about it." John Bunyan Pilgrim's Progress (1678)

noun
requirement: something that is a requirement or is wanted an economic system that recognizes the need for financial security His needs are small.

[Old English n(o)d . Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of German Not "need, misery."]

in need
1. not having enough of things essential for an adequate standard of living children in need

2. needing something

no need to or for no reason or justification for something
<a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/" target="_blank">http://dictionary.msn.com/</a>

I will have to continue this discussion (all you guys!) on Monday. Have a great weekend. I'll delete this post then.

The AntiChris · 04-12-2002, 07:12 AM

Valmorian

Quote:

The AntiChris: I'd be interested to know what you understand by the word "wrong" when used in the current context. It's been in common usage for some while now so you must have formed some ideas.

Valmorian: That's the point. As far as I can tell, "Wrong" is a word that is weighted with subjective morals. I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong. I don't believe in objective morals.

There is simply "amoral" actions. It is the values and judgements that people place on those actions that give them any moral weight.

Ok. As you're unwilling to offer your understanding of "wrong" in this context, let me suggest a possible translation for you:

I subscribe to the intersubjective valuing of human life, to the extent that I would coerce others to refrain from murder (as commonly understood).

Assuming you would broadly agree with this, unless of course you're actively campaigning for the repeal of laws restricting the taking of human life, the word "wrong" in this context is not contentious.

The point I'm trying to make is that definitions of "wrong" or "immoral" seem to be irrelevant in the subjectivist/objectivist debate. It seems to me that it's the "why" that is at issue.

While the the words "wrong" and "immoral" continue to be used in common parlance, it seems pointless to get endlessly hung up on definitions.

Chris

Valmorian · 04-12-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris:

I subscribe to the intersubjective valuing of human life, to the extent that I would coerce others to refrain from murder (as commonly understood).

I would accept that as an accurate representation of my beliefs.

Quote:

Assuming you would broadly agree with this, unless of course you're actively campaigning for the repeal of laws restricting the taking of human life, the word "wrong" in this context is not contentious.

What is subjectively "wrong" is different than what a moral objectivist is claiming as "wrong".

"Wrong" is a value judgement placed upon an action by a person or persons based upon their own goals. I don't believe there is an action that is intrinsically "wrong" in and of itself.

Quote:

The point I'm trying to make is that definitions of "wrong" or "immoral" seem to be irrelevant in the subjectivist/objectivist debate. It seems to me that it's the "why" that is at issue.

Yes and No. While both subjective and objective moralists would view something "wrong" as "something you should not do", the subjective moralist recognizes that it is not the action itself that is "wrong". It is the values placed upon that action by person/persons that make it "wrong".

Quote:

While the the words "wrong" and "immoral" continue to be used in common parlance, it seems pointless to get endlessly hung up on definitions.

Chris

The only reason I get hung up on the definitions is because to the objective moralist, the action itself is intrinsically "wrong". So for them to say something like "Murder is wrong" doesn't have the same definition as when a subjectivist says "I believe Murder is wrong".

In the latter case, the subjectivist is putting forth a value judgement based upon their own goals and desires. In the former, the objectivist is making a statement about a quality that the action supposedly "has".

I compare "Wrong" to "Delicious". While I can say that "Steak is delicious!", this is simply a value judgement I am making. I'm not seriously stating that steak has the quality "delicious". I'm saying that I enjoy the taste of steak, and therefore find it delicious. I can, however, accept that other people do NOT find steak delicious.

I don't say that those people are incorrect for not finding steak delicious, because I recognize that "Steak is delicious" is a subjective thing, not objective.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Valmorian ]

99Percent · 04-12-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Except that violence isn't irrational. If someone could come to your house, kill you, and steal everything you own, not get caught and not feel guilty about it, exactly how would they be irrational. Derive a contradiction.

Sure it is possible that can happen, but the decision to do it before the act, in other words the morality behind it, is irrational.

Its like saying: If someone bought a lottery ticket with million to one odds and won the lottery, exactly how would he be irrational?

You are presupposing a positive outcome.

tronvillain · 04-12-2002, 11:05 AM

Why is the decision to do it before the act irrational? I see you making assertions over and over without ever supporting them. If someone was confident of not being caught or feeling guilty, why would it be irrational for them to to come to your house and kill you? If someone considered the risk of being caught and the guilt they would feel worth the benefits of killing you, why would it be irrational for them to do so?

I don't understand your comparison with winning the lottery. Are you saying that it is irrational to buy a lottery ticket? Perhaps if you are using expected monetary value as your indicator of rationality, but I see no reason to do so.

The AntiChris · 04-12-2002, 11:19 AM

Valmorian

Quote:

What is subjectively "wrong" is different than what a moral objectivist is claiming as "wrong".

Yes, I understand the subtle but significant differences in the two positions, but it seems to me that these differences are merely a consequence of the underpinning moral positions. I'd have thought that it would be more productive to examine the underlying reasons for the "wrongness" rather than get diverted by incidental symptoms.

I should point out that I'm a neophyte subjectivist seeking wisdom.

Chris

dk · 04-12-2002, 11:22 AM

Quote:

(snip)
And I've NEVER seen a cat needlessly kill anything.

cheers,
Michael

Domestic tom cats slaughter a litter of kittens for no apparent reason. The same is true for many predator. Morality only applies to a species with the capacity to reason. Reason permits people to gleam the essence of what exists from the image of what exists. Absent the capacity to reason morality is a non-sequitur. A human society or culture that commits ritualistic murder of babies, virgins or other so called interferer members becomes degenerate because they wantonly destroy human life without regard for its creative and inspirational potential. For example many Chinese families kill the first born until a boy is born, even today. In doing so they forsake reason to embrace a tradition that holds them in contempt. Clearly if a mere peasant is at liberty to wontonly murder a baby, then the liberty an important government bureaucrat can wield is virtually limitless.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

tronvillain · 04-12-2002, 11:29 AM

I've seen cats kill birds and then not eat them quite often. Does this count as a "needless" killing?

vixstile · 04-12-2002, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:

Domestic tom cats slaughter a litter of kittens for no apparent reason. The same is true for many predator.

A male cat will instinctively kill a litter of kittens that aren't his so they wont compete with his offspring. This helps insure the survival of his genetic heritage.

If you you study evolution at all, you will find that most all behaviors evolved into species for the purpose of insuring the continuation of there genes.

99Percent · 04-12-2002, 11:47 AM

tronvillain: Why is the decision to do it before the act irrational?

Because you are initiating violence. By doing so you enter a win/lose proposition. Someone is going to lose. This is what makes it irrational. A rational decision, OTOH, would be one where you enter a win/win proposition such as in a trade or any productive and constructive endeavor.

This is not unlike gambling because a gambler is always in a lose/lose proposition. If he wins a bet, he says to himself "ah shucks, I could have won more" So he still loses. Likewise the guy who murders and steals adopts this same attitude. He will continue in this game until he loses, eventually. In effect, he is selfdestructing.

A win/win situation is when there is no game, no uncertainty, just a knowledge of a positive outcome. A violent situation, no matter how certain it looks, is still uncertain, precisely because it is a win/lose situation. That is why human caused violence is irrational.

I am not simply asserting it, I am using common sense and logic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2002, 11:05 AM	#85
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Why is the decision to do it before the act irrational? I see you making assertions over and over without ever supporting them. If someone was confident of not being caught or feeling guilty, why would it be irrational for them to to come to your house and kill you? If someone considered the risk of being caught and the guilt they would feel worth the benefits of killing you, why would it be irrational for them to do so? I don't understand your comparison with winning the lottery. Are you saying that it is irrational to buy a lottery ticket? Perhaps if you are using expected monetary value as your indicator of rationality, but I see no reason to do so.

04-12-2002, 11:29 AM	#88
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I've seen cats kill birds and then not eat them quite often. Does this count as a "needless" killing?

04-12-2002, 11:47 AM	#90
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	tronvillain: Why is the decision to do it before the act irrational? Because you are initiating violence. By doing so you enter a win/lose proposition. Someone is going to lose. This is what makes it irrational. A rational decision, OTOH, would be one where you enter a win/win proposition such as in a trade or any productive and constructive endeavor. This is not unlike gambling because a gambler is always in a lose/lose proposition. If he wins a bet, he says to himself "ah shucks, I could have won more" So he still loses. Likewise the guy who murders and steals adopts this same attitude. He will continue in this game until he loses, eventually. In effect, he is selfdestructing. A win/win situation is when there is no game, no uncertainty, just a knowledge of a positive outcome. A violent situation, no matter how certain it looks, is still uncertain, precisely because it is a win/lose situation. That is why human caused violence is irrational. I am not simply asserting it, I am using common sense and logic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.