Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

Lol besides the fact that you could not even successfully define the term 'black people' into an agreed upon and accepted term, are you really under the assumption that dogs know these sort of things?

I think you are unhinged.

Perfect.

My dog is way ahead of you. She can immediately recognise a black person, and her reaction to them was to be scared.

I am not sure how this logically follows and concludes being "way ahead of me". But anyway, if your dog saw a one month old human being, which you have labeled "black person", and your dog is scared of that baby human being, then it appears that you have yourself one pretty worthless and useless dog there. And, one that I would be very, very wary of. A scared dog is not something to be trusted and if you dog is scared of a one month old human babies just because of skin color, then that is one very dangerous piece of vermin you have yourself there.

It's simple enough - they have a different skin colour.

So, what makes a "black person" a "black person" to you?

And, if your dog is scared of the color of skin, then you have yourself one very mixed up and irrational dog.

Also, "they" (whoever they are?) have a 'different skin color' to what exactly?

She does not seem to know the difference between Asians or Africans, but was wary of the fact that they looked different.

Besides twins do you know of any two human beings who look the same?

The fact is everybody looks different. And, what is there to be wary about of this obvious fact?

Maybe she was not so easily able to read their expressions.
All I know is that she is smarter than you.

If you know this, then this MUST BE an unambiguous and irrefutable fact.

And, how your jumped to and arrived at this conclusion, from what we have been talking about, is truly amazing. Your conclusion that your dog is smarter than me because she does not trust those you call "black people" is perfectly fine with me.

Obviously, the fact that dogs who do not trust those people who some label as "black people" instantly means that those dogs are smarter than some.

And having managed to learn that my black neighbour is not a threat - put her in a league beyond your confused and garbled stutterings.

lol okay.

All this shows, to me, is your own racists views.

This shows to me that you are a moron.

Okay. 'I' am a "moron", to you.

Now that this is settled. Let us move on and see what other outstanding insights you may have obtained.

Was your dog born not trusting people that you have segregated into specific groups, or did your dog just gradually become that way, to which you may or not have felt ashamed of, and so then had to teach your dog other ways?

We do not have many black people around. I think she just found them strange. OR as a rescue dog may have had a bad experience before we had her.
She also has a massive fear of children shorter than about four feet high. Again - do not know why.
What idiotic conclusions about me are you going to make of that? ROLF

Nothing about you, except that now you are explaining reasons of why she might be like the way you say she is.

This either sounds like your dog has the human being ability to segregate human beings into separate categories and also has the human being ability to make generalizations about human beings, or, your dog is the one that cannot be trusted and maybe should be put down and gotten rid of completely? Or, have you been absolutely 100% successful in teaching your dog how to supposedly "trust" those people, which you have labelled into separate groups?

Like I said, she can see a different skin colour. Its not rocket science.

Although dog's eyes are not as good at distinguishing colors as human being's eyes are, your dog may well be able to see different skin color. But the reasons as for not trusting "black people" needs to be looked into fully. By the way, EVERY human body has 'different skin color'.

By the way, what is a 'vulnerable person'?

Anyone that I judge to be upset by her attentions, be that tail waging interest or fearful barking.

If you have to not allow your dog to bark at vulnerable people, then that means it does bark at vulnerable people when you are not around,

I've no idea what this means, since she does not roam the streets without me. How the **** do you treat dogs in your neighbourhood?

More or less about the same.

How do you treat your dogs in your neighborhood?

... and considering the fact that you do not have control over your dog all the time,

I have control of my dog at all times.

So, you are with your dog 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Okay, if you say so.

... then it might be better if that troublesome mutt was put down and killed now.

Not even the most vile and viscous dog hater would say that after meeting her. You ****. She can convince anyone that dogs are brilliant and better than most humans in five minutes. She loves people. But can get scared of some of them.

Ah that is right. She is scared of the color of skin. A scared dog is not some thing that usually convinces anyone that dogs are brilliant and better than most human beings.

In fact I would not even know what to gauge "brilliant" and/or "better" on in relation to comparing dogs with human beings.

This all sounds way to subjective and relative to be taken seriously here.

That way vulnerable people will not feel intimated nor scared.

Welcome to the fantasy world "creation". ROTFLMFHO

And what imagined "world" are you creating and assuming here.

I wrote what I did to promote a reaction. I got that reaction. So, that was all I needed, and wanted here.

..of Because someone might come along who also has the belief that they have the right to protect their own dog or themselves, to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if they were in danger and in doing so with this belief attack and harm you dog, which, according your to so called "logic" would be perfectly acceptable. Or, do you not believe that was is acceptable to you is not acceptable to others, if it is against you and/or your dog?

You are descending into gibberish.
Do you want to try to ask that question again?
This is so entertaining. Please continue.

You believe that you have the right to protect your own dog, and you have no doubt that you would protect you own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger, correct?

If yes, then is this right to protect also afforded to others and their dogs, or children, or just to you and your dog?

See, if I was walking with my baby and your dog started to not trust my child, then do I have a right to protect my own child to the detriment of your dog?

Would you allow me to protect my child or dog by shooting your dog dead for instance if I thought my dog or my child was in danger from your dog?

Obviously, if your dog did not trust my child, and I wanted to make the interpretation that your dog was showing aggression to my child so now my child was in danger, then do I have the same right as you believe you have to protect your dog?

[GE Morton]

You define morality as a set of principles and rules governing interactions between people in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal.

Yes.

And the goal you suggest is: to maximize welfare for all people in a social setting, to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between people, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more people.

Yes.

But you agree that any number of different principles, goals and rules can qualify as morality. So the goal you suggest is your preference - a matter of opinion. The assertion of a goal is subjective.

No; you're not reading what was written. Any number of principles and rules may qualify as a "morality," but not any goal. I'm claiming that if a set of principles and rules does not aim at the goal I presented, or something substantively similar, then those principles and rules would not qualify as a "morality." I'm also claiming that has been the underlying aim of virtually all moral theories and systems historically, both philosophical and vernacular.

Morality is understood --- universally, I'd venture --- to be concerned with how people treat one another, with how they interact with one another, and the effects of those interactions on their well-being. So anyone who does not share that goal is not interested in morality and has no need for one. He will be a moral anarchist, amoral.

You say that rules make social cooperation possible. But the assertion that we should want social co=operation is subjective.

Yes, it is. Someone who does not desire social cooperation has no need for morality either. One only needs a morality in a social setting. Until the arrival of Friday Crusoe had no need for a morality.

You say that some rules are neccesary for a functional society. But the assertion that we should want a functional society is subjective.

Yep.

You say that we need the best possible rules, consistent with subjectively chosen principles, to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

Nope. The goal is subjective, but the principles and rules for pursuing and reaching that goal are objective --- they either do or do not further the goal.

It may be a fact that a society must have rules, aimed at social co-operation, in order to function. But the assertion that a society should function, and therefore should have rules aimed at social co-operation, is subjective.

Yes, it is. Again, anyone who does not share that goal will not need a morality, which is just some set of rules for optimizing welfare for all agents in a social setting. The morality is that set of rules, not the goal at which those rules aim. And it can be objective.

An 'is' can never entail an 'ought'. Whatever facts we deploy to justify an opinion, it remains an opinion.

It can when the "ought" is instrumental. Rules, procedures, methods, proffered to promote some goal --- "oughts" --- can be objective. They either do or do not further the goal, which can be determined empirically.

[creation]

So, an example of what is right in Life that everyone agrees on at present is: If human beings do not need meat to eat, then everyone agrees that human beings do not need to eat meat to live. Therefore, if human beings do not need to eat meat to live, then human beings killing animals just for meat to eat is obviously the wrong thing to do in Life. Or, in other words 'immoral'.

Sorry, but that is an elementary mistake. You're trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." That humans do not need meat to live (the "is" statement) has no bearing on whether it is (morally) right or wrong to eat meat (the "ought" statement). I.e., normative conclusions cannot be drawn from factual premises. That is called the "naturalistic fallacy."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Well you have obviously made assumptions and jumped to wrong conclusions without ever clarifying with me what I am actually saying and meaning. This assuming and jumping to conclusions, without clarity, is probably the biggest fundamental and elementary reason why there is so much misunderstanding and confusion among adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

I am NOT trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" at all. To me, an "ought" is like a "should", which both are just one's own view of things, which are being expected to be agreed with and/or followed by others. This is exactly NOT what I do.

If you read what I actually wrote, instead of just making assumptions based on your own already previously held views and/or beliefs, then you might have seen what I was actually getting at. That is; what is 'necessary' in Life plays a part, with 'agreement and acceptance' with and by everyone, on what is (morally) right and wrong in Life.

Obviously, what IS 'necessary' to live, plays a part in morality, otherwise absolutely anything could be attempted to be "justified" as being moral, which is more or less where human beings are right now in the days of when this is being written. Human beings will attempt to "justify" just about every wrong doing they do.

What is 'needed' to live does have a bearing on what is right and what is wrong in Life. 'Life' is about living, being alive. Morality is about living rightly and wrongly. Therefore, how one chooses to 'live', which affects how other's 'live', has a bearing on what is morally right and wrong in Life. If one chooses to live by what is 'needed' in Life, or, chooses to live by what is just 'wanted' in Life, then this will decide if one is living morally or immorally.

As for your "normative" conclusions, what are they 'normal' to exactly?

As for what I wrote as being some "naturalistic fallacy", then that is just your fallacy in and of itself.

I am not deriving an "ought" from an "is" at all.

I am just showing what the actual facts are from what thee actual Truth of things IS.

I am not saying anyone "ought" to do some thing. I am just providing examples of how to find and know what is morally right and wrong in Life. I am also just showing how to obtain this objectively, so that unambiguous and irrefutable facts can be seen for what they ARE.

Now, if you want to look at just what I am saying and meaning, instead of expressing your preconceptions, and you can see something false, wrong, and/or incorrect in what I am saying and meaning, then re-write that particular, and explain how and why what I have said is false, wrong, and/or incorrect. If you do that, then you will be showing all of us what is actually True, Right, and Correct, which I would be more than happy being exposed to and shown.

Do you see anything in the actual words I have written?

If yes, then go ahead.

Please do not bring your past subjective views of what I am saying and meaning into this. If you do, then on just about every occasion you do you will be where and why that is false, wrong, and/or incorrect. As above.

[Terrapin Station]

To me, there is nothing in Life that anyone "should" do. I am not that self-righteous enough to expect others "should" be doing some thing the way I see they "should" be doing it. From my perspective, there is no "should". By the way, I am not sure how "normative" relates to this.

"Normatives" are "should" (or "ought" etc.) statements.

To me, what makes morality objective is from looking at a moral questions objectively. That is by just looking from the perspective of every one. To look subjectively is to just look from one's own perspective or a select few's perspective.

Do you think that one option there is better than the other? What would make an option better?

When we are looking at any thing 'objectively' then we can discover and see thee actual Truth of things.

Why is "the perspective of everyone" on a moral issue what's "true"?

[Terrapin Station]

Not really. See, if you are to be Truly OPEN and Honest with ALL of my clarifying questions, then we will find out and see what you REALLY agree with, and disagree with.

However, if you continue to be CLOSED and dishonest as you have been, then you are right. It would take more work with you to expose and reveal thee Truth here.

So you think that I don't actually know what my view is, that I might have a view that I'm not aware of?

[Terrapin Station]

Now, if you disagree with (A), (B), and (C), then why?

Re (A), there is no "actual right and wrong." What it would be for there to be an "actual right and wrong," what it would require for anything to do the work of an "actual right and wrong," would be for moral stances to be "embedded" in the extramental world somehow. But they're not. No other option (with respect to anything we name "actual right and wrong") can do the same work that moral stances embedded in the extramental world would do.

(B) There is no fact that everyone agrees on.

(C) Multiple reasons here:
(i) No moral stance of mine amounts to, "Just in case one does not need to do x, then x is wrong" (For all conceivable x)
(ii) I don't at all feel that it's wrong to eat animals. Moral stances are ultimately ways that we FEEL about behavior.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes it is, by and large. It is analysis of concepts, which are linguistic constructs.

Oy vey. You're supposed to be addressing what the world is like, and the majority of the world doesn't consist of concepts or language.

Oh, yes, we could say that, but probably won't, because such an analysis would have no explanatory value.

The explanatory value is in addressing what things really are, what they're really like, which is often different than beliefs and conventions had it.

[GE Morton]

Yes it is, by and large. It is analysis of concepts, which are linguistic constructs.

Oy vey. You're supposed to be addressing what the world is like, and the majority of the world doesn't consist of concepts or language.

No, it doesn't. But all "addressing" it does.

Oh, yes, we could say that, but probably won't, because such an analysis would have no explanatory value.

The explanatory value is in addressing what things really are, what they're really like, which is often different than beliefs and conventions had it.

What they are "really like" is whatever we say they are really like, provided that what we say allows us to communicate information to one another and to anticipate and predict future experiences.

[Sculptor1]

I've had to delete the rest of your idiotic ramblings.
I'll just deal with your idiotic concluding remarks.

You believe that you have the right to protect your own dog, and you have no doubt that you would protect you own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger, correct?

Yes

If yes, then is this right to protect also afforded to others and their dogs, or children, or just to you and your dog?

I don't care about others as much as my dog.

See, if I was walking with my baby and your dog started to not trust my child, then do I have a right to protect my own child to the detriment of your dog?

No an issue. She is scared of toddlers and wont go near them. If you were to be stupid enough to allow your child to pester and tease my dog then I would see that as just were she to give your child a nip.
If you complained I probably have to give you a lesson in child control. If you persisted in your stupid behaviour I'd have to give you a slap.

Would you allow me to protect my child or dog by shooting your dog dead for instance if I thought my dog or my child was in danger from your dog?

You hurt my dog, you die.

Obviously, if your dog did not trust my child, and I wanted to make the interpretation that your dog was showing aggression to my child so now my child was in danger, then do I have the same right as you believe you have to protect your dog?

You are worth less to me than my dog's welfare.
Reading what you wrote in your last response you are worth less to the world than infected yeast.
Have a nice day.

[GE Morton]

Sorry, but that is an elementary mistake. You're trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." That humans do not need meat to live (the "is" statement) has no bearing on whether it is (morally) right or wrong to eat meat (the "ought" statement). I.e., normative conclusions cannot be drawn from factual premises. That is called the "naturalistic fallacy."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Well you have obviously made assumptions and jumped to wrong conclusions without ever clarifying with me what I am actually saying and meaning. This assuming and jumping to conclusions, without clarity, is probably the biggest fundamental and elementary reason why there is so much misunderstanding and confusion among adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

I am NOT trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" at all. To me, an "ought" is like a "should", which both are just one's own view of things, which are being expected to be agreed with and/or followed by others. This is exactly NOT what I do.

If you read what I actually wrote, instead of just making assumptions based on your own already previously held views and/or beliefs, then you might have seen what I was actually getting at. That is; what is 'necessary' in Life plays a part, with 'agreement and acceptance' with and by everyone, on what is (morally) right and wrong in Life.

Well, you just contradicted yourself, and your own previous claim. You say, "I am NOT trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" at all," then proceed immediately to do just that: " . . .what is 'necessary' in Life plays a part, with 'agreement and acceptance' with and by everyone, on what is (morally) right and wrong in Life."

"What is morally right and wrong in life" is a normative, an "ought," statement. "What is necessary" and "Agreement and acceptance by everyone" are factual statements ("is" statements). What is moral cannot be deduced from what is necessary or what is accepted. That is a logical error.

As for your "normative" conclusions, what are they 'normal' to exactly?

And,

To me, an "ought" is like a "should", which both are just one's own view of things . . .

"Oughts" are not "just one's own view of things." They are advisories, are instrumental, and can be objective.

You're clearly not familiar with the terminology of this field. I'd suggest trying to acquire a deeper background in moral philosophy.

[Terrapin Station]

No, it doesn't. But all "addressing" it does.

Sure, but the tasking isn't primarily to analyze addressing it. That's for linguists, etc. The task is analyze the world.

What they are "really like" is whatever we say they are really like,

No. It's not dependent on that at all. People can and frequently do get things wrong. It's not determined by what people say. That's an argumentum ad populum.

[creation]

To me, there is nothing in Life that anyone "should" do. I am not that self-righteous enough to expect others "should" be doing some thing the way I see they "should" be doing it. From my perspective, there is no "should". By the way, I am not sure how "normative" relates to this.

"Normatives" are "should" (or "ought" etc.) statements.

Okay, to me, I do not like to use "should" or "ought" statements ever, so I do not want to ever use a "normative" statement. They defeat the purpose of how a Truly moral life will come about and will continue on.

To me, what makes morality objective is from looking at a moral questions objectively. That is by just looking from the perspective of every one. To look subjectively is to just look from one's own perspective or a select few's perspective.

Do you think that one option there is better than the other?

Yes.

What would make an option better?

An option where a larger field of view is able to be obtained from.

Or,

An option where one is able to gain a wider and bigger perspective of things from.

This obviously means to look at any and all things from the objective point of view is better than looking from a subjective point of view only.

When we are looking at any thing 'objectively' then we can discover and see thee actual Truth of things.

Why is "the perspective of everyone" on a moral issue what's "true"?

I never said the perspective of everyone on a moral issue is what is true.

Obviously what is true, is different from what is right. Moral issues are in relation to what is right, and what is wrong, in Life in regards to human behavior, which is just a choice one makes. Truth is in regards to statements.

Besides this, why is 'the perspective of everyone' on a moral issue what is right (or on a truth issue what is true) is because the agreed upon perspective of everyone is not wrong (nor false).

Obviously, what one says is right could be in fact be wrong, but just as obvious is what everyone says is right could not be wrong, for two reasons:

1. While everyone is agreeing on an issue being right, then, for that time being, there is obviously no one saying it could be wrong. Therefore, for that time, what is said is right has to be right.
2. Not everyone would agree on an issue being right if it could be wrong in any possible way. Therefore, everyone could and would only agree on 'that' what is right.

[creation]

Not really. See, if you are to be Truly OPEN and Honest with ALL of my clarifying questions, then we will find out and see what you REALLY agree with, and disagree with.

However, if you continue to be CLOSED and dishonest as you have been, then you are right. It would take more work with you to expose and reveal thee Truth here.

So you think that I don't actually know what my view is, that I might have a view that I'm not aware of?

There are some views that are known and there are some views that have yet to be made aware of. Of course those views that are shared are known, but there are other views that you are unaware of.

See, when 'you' discover who and what thee 'I' is actually, and who and what the 'you' actually is, then this will be much better understood, and much easier to understand.

[Terrapin Station]

An option where a larger field of view is able to be obtained from.

Or,

An option where one is able to gain a wider and bigger perspective of things from.

This obviously means to look at any and all things from the objective point of view is better than looking from a subjective point of view only.

What makes a "larger field of view," a "wider and bigger perspective" or "the objective point of view" better?

1. While everyone is agreeing on an issue being right, then, for that time being, there is obviously no one saying it could be wrong. Therefore, for that time, what is said is right has to be right.

It's not possible for everyone to be wrong?

2. Not everyone would agree on an issue being right if it could be wrong in any possible way.

Weird. That seems like a completely arbitrary thing to think.

[Terrapin Station]

There are some views that are known and there are some views that have yet to be made aware of. Of course those views that are shared are known, but there are other views that you are unaware of.

See, when 'you' discover who and what thee 'I' is actually, and who and what the 'you' actually is, then this will be much better understood, and much easier to understand.

I don't buy that I can have a view that I'm not aware of.