[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 42 KB, 517x371, 61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6062997 No.6062997 [Reply] [Original]

Harris maintains that utilitarianism is as objective as the laws of physics, whereas Molyneux maintains that the NAP is as objective as the law of gravity.

What I'd like to know is, could they both be right? The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness. Therefore, is not the NAP ultimately true for utilitarianism?

Is there any major thinker working to integrate them? Since the science of morality is a relatively new field, it's possible they've both discovered the truth, just different parts of it

>> No.6063009

>>6062997
If utilitarism is objective, then common good is objective, then good is objective, then morals are objective, and if they are objective, they must proceed from an absolute and only exist for themselves, in themselves and by themselves, and have no /genealogy/, --- at this point, Sam Harris wished he had not proven wrong with the enlightenment of his own intelligence the concept of divinity, for it would be the only one justifying his morals!!1!

>> No.6063034

>>6063009
Have you actually read the Moral Landscape, or are you just talking out of your ass? Moral truths are objective, "morality" as some big bubble thing is something else.

>> No.6063060

>>6063034
>moral truths are objective
Please, m'lord, throw some "moral truths" this way.

>> No.6063062
File: 54 KB, 301x452, BraveNewWorld_FirstEdition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063062

Harris's utopia

>> No.6063066

>>6063060
Let me put it this way: physics is the study of physical truths, but there is no special supernatural "physics" that physical truths emanate from, there is no special well of physical truth

>> No.6063069

Look at me, throwing thousands of years of debate and study out of the window

>> No.6063073

>>6063066
>moral truths are objective
Please, m'lord, throw some "moral truths" this way.

>> No.6063077

>>6063073
Fine, lying is always wrong

>> No.6063082

>>6063077
why?

>> No.6063086

>>6063077
If a nazi comes to my house and asks me if I'm hiding a jew, which I am doing, and I answer I am not, am I doing something wrong?

>> No.6063090
File: 512 KB, 1920x1600, samharris1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063090

>> No.6063091

>>6063073
Happiness is good, unhappiness is bad

>> No.6063097

>>6063086
Yes, you've devalued the only means humans have of communicating with each another

>> No.6063100

>>6063091
If killing people makes me happy, am I good?

Hitler certainly was a happy person, or at least some of his friends who took part in the systematic murder of six million jews; if they were happy doing it, were they good men?

>> No.6063101

>>6063090
Every time

>> No.6063104

>>6062997

>The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness.
And where is your empirical evidence?

I'm getting tired of Harris' mug shot. Can /lit/ please post his face from another angle?

>> No.6063114

>>6063086
You can choose not to answer the question, since there is no obligation to give him an answer.

>> No.6063116

lets say killing one person = -100 utility for that person
but the murderer is a freak who enjoys killing so much he gains +200 utility from it

so it would make sense for the murderer to kill many people, because it increases the amount of utility

>> No.6063119

>>6063114
Try not to go full retard. Please.

>> No.6063123

>>6063091

read dostoevsky

>> No.6063126

>>6063086
you switch the lever so it only kills the one person

>> No.6063129

>>6062997
>What I'd like to know is, could they both be right?
Easily. The Law of Gravity is a human cultural institution that poorly reflects the totality.

All the principles you're talking about are substantiated ad bacculum by the US nuclear arsenal, and are as passing as limbo or indulgences.

>> No.6063137
File: 108 KB, 567x800, hitler2 electric jewgallo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063137

>>6063086
/pol/ here, yes.

>> No.6063142

>>6062997
>The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness.

A prediction concerning a term which is not even defined properly followed by a historical claim about a theoretical entity which has never existed. That's cool.

>> No.6063151

>>6063091
>being an Englishman

>> No.6063170

>>6063100
>If killing people makes me happy, am I good?
Killing people in the long-term will make you unhappy, therefore it is had.

>Harris maintains that utilitarianism is as objective as the laws of physics, whereas Molyneux maintains that the NAP is as objective as the law of gravity.

What I'd like to know is, could they both be right? The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness. Therefore, is not the NAP ultimately true for utilitarianism?

Is there any major thinker working to integrate them? Since the science of morality is a relatively new field, it's possible they've both discovered the truth, just different parts of it
He committed suicide at the end.

Cool godwin tho

>> No.6063183

>>6062997

The questions that you're posing are corrupted by cognitive bias that lead responses in a direction.

These are the fundamental assumptions you draw, inadvertently or not:
>Capitalism prevails against utilitarianism in the criterium I present
>Because Capitalism prevails against utilitarianism in my criterium, is Capitalism utilitarian

Essentially, you're telling us that Capitalism makes people happy and is therefore utilitarian. You asked whether or not these opposing views were both correct; you proceeded to answer your own question, and ask for our confirmation.

In a court of law, that's an ask and answer.

>> No.6063188

Stefan Molyneux (someone /lit/ really hates because he's an atheist and extreme libertarian who advocates severing contact with family members and friends who aren't hyper-capitalists) Vs. Sam Harris (someone /lit/ really hates because he's an outspoken atheist and a scientismist)

very clever.

>> No.6063197

>>6063170
Are you fucking retarded? I'm not into that shit, but free market has 300 million children digging through fucking garbage everyday (not saying that I mind).

But using moral arguments to justify this shit is so fucking retarded holy shit I'm fucking losing it

>godwin
Are you fucking reddit or something

>science of morality
Holy fucking shit open a fucking book or something holy shit I can't even believe this how can people like Sam Harris be so retarded and how can people actually fall for this shit goddamn this shit is more obvious than fucking scientology it's literally retardation made flesh open a fucking book for fucks sake

>> No.6063231

>>6063197
>Holy fucking shit open a fucking book or something holy shit I can't even believe this how can people like Sam Harris be so retarded and how can people actually fall for this shit goddamn this shit is more obvious than fucking scientology it's literally retardation made flesh open a fucking book for fucks sake

Hey I'm not that guy, but can you explain why Harris is retarded. I'm not saying either way I'm really just curious, I don't really know enough philosophy yet.

>> No.6063234

>>6063197
>Are you fucking retarded? I'm not into that shit, but free market has 300 million children digging through fucking garbage everyday (not saying that I mind).
The market becomes freer as our morality progresses. Conditions will continue to improve.

>> No.6063238
File: 574 KB, 600x840, heidegger-final1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063238

SCIENCE DOESN'T THINK

SCIENCE DOESN'T THINK

SCIENCE DOESN'T THINK

stop infusing yall's democratic liberal ethics with electrons fedorable niggers

>> No.6063240

>>6063231
>science of morality
>there is no god
>religion is false

Where do you think you got your idea of right and wrong from?

Out of nowhere?

It spawned?

Right/wrong; Good/evil; --- is a strictly judeo-christian concept which does not exist in ancient Rome or amongst the Greek: pity is a negative term, as a feeling and as an act, amongst the Greek.

His whole "science of morals" is justifying something false, while destroying the sole possible justification for this thing, divinity.

He would never have thought about making people happy or the common good in general, were it not for christianity!

And he wishes it destroyed, yet wants to keep its morality, without justification, and creates a new scientific one!

Objective morality! what? -- would this mean that all humans have the same morality? --- how does one explain history?

>> No.6063242

>>6063183
Utilitarianism is ultimately capitalist, Charles Dickens wrote Hard Times largely as polemic against capital utilitarianism.

>> No.6063244

>>6063238
What the hell is wrong with /lit/ these days.

>> No.6063247

>>6063231

/lit/ is one of the worst places to get an opinion on Harris

>> No.6063250

>>6063234
Yet morality was more important in the Dark Ages, when capitalism didn't exist. Care to explain?
YOUR CONCEPT OF GOOD IS STRICTLY CHRISTIAN, AND YET YOU REFUSE CHRISTANITY WHILE TRYING TO JUSTIFY ITS MORALITY WITH SCIENCE

YOU TAKE SOMETHING NOT SCIENTIFIC, SOMETHING FLAWED AND DEEPLY ROOTED IN A GIVEN CULTURE, AND TRY TO MAKE IT OBJECTIVE

TO MAKE SOMETHING OBJECTIVE OUT OF A CULTURAL FACT (MORALITY) ONLY SHOWS HOW FLAWED YOUR METHOD IS

>> No.6063254

>The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people
ppppppppffffffffthhthhhhhhh

>> No.6063271

>>6063244
/lit/ is virtually unusable now.

>> No.6063280

>>6063097

You've sacrificed a good for a greater good

>> No.6063290

>>6063271
I would not even be surpised if it's legitimately due to shills. Whether because all of 4chan is associated with GG and /pol/ and /lit/ (sometimes) has good political discussion, or because tumblr has decided 4chan is not allowed to exist, the absolute "what in the actual living fuck is even wrong with someone to shitpost like this", it's uncanny and unprecedented anywhere near this level.

>> No.6063292

>>6063250
>Yet morality was more important in the Dark Ages, when capitalism didn't exist. Care to explain?

That was "morality" like alchemy and astrology are sciences.

>> No.6063312

>>6063290
Ah, that good old /pol/ paranoia. Quick reminder that you are part of the problem.

>> No.6063316

>science of morality
is this really becoming a thing?
L M A O
M
A
O
it's like post-structuralism is happening again, and i can see it with my eyes

>> No.6063318

>>6063316
It has been a thing ever since Rand debunked relative morality through Objectivism (that's why it's called "Objectivism", because it only deals with scientific morality).

>> No.6063325
File: 231 KB, 803x688, suomi well maymay'd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063325

>>6063318

>> No.6063344

>>6063231

>Hey I'm not that guy, but can you explain why Harris is retarded. I'm not saying either way I'm really just curious, I don't really know enough philosophy yet.

He is retarded because plenty of philosophers have come out with pretty good arguments why objective morality is bullshit, and Harris instead of explaining why they are wrong, he just ignores them.

>> No.6063348

>>6063344
>philosphyfags getting butthurt that science ignores them

Yeah, he also doesn't address why every religion in the world is wrong, that's because it would be retarded for a scientist to bother with things that aren't even scientific to begin with

>> No.6063357

>>6063344
>plenty of philosophers have come out with pretty good arguments why objective morality is bullshit

Name some and limn their arguments.

>> No.6063359

>>6063344
>>6063357
What are some of the best arguments against/for objective morality by philosophers? Anything I could read?

>> No.6063366

>>6063359
Hume, followed by Max Stirner.

>> No.6063376

>>6063231
harris is retarded because his argumentation is terrible. i mean i believe in moral truths, and while it is intuitive it certainly cant go without argumentation by anyone purporting to be a philosopher. he also completely denies the is/ought distinction and presumes utilitarianism to be true without any good arguments. he then goes on to try to provide for utilitarian calculus which is theoretically plausible but the first non-retarded person calculating this should should come to the conclusion "dont encourage utilitarian calculus" because it will rarely if ever benefit society to have a bunch of retards trying to do this or justifying their bullshit with it

>> No.6063380

>>6063366
The first is an emotivist, the second a moral nihilist.

The best philosopher in favor of objective morality is Kant.

>> No.6063381

>>6063290
>or because tumblr has decided 4chan is not allowed to exist
It's not tumblr. /lit/, like most of society, has sabotaged itself by embracing post-modernism with open arms.

Postmodernism may seem sleek and progressive from afar, but once you open those relativistic flood gates and claim there are no such thing as human universals, everyone from quadsexual, transgendered, anthropology deniers, to evolution denying neo-nazis come crashing down on you; and this is exactly whats happened.

/lit/ is quite content to sit and thrash away at the entire body of science, vocally flog objectivity, emphasize cultural differences while ignoring the similarities, join in the choir of abuse at social sciences and fields like psychology, then gets all confused at the repercussions.

>> No.6063383

>>6063366
Can you describe and define some of Hume's arguments?

Don't bother with Stirner, I don't read /lit/ fads.

>> No.6063397

>>6063376
Not very convincing when you use words like "terrible", "good", and "bullshit".

I'm starting to think you guys are just mad that people actually listen to Harris whereas all they do is roll their eyes at your, "first of all, it's terrible. it's not even good. this is such bullshit" "critiques".

>> No.6063401

>>6063397
you forgot retarded

>> No.6063402

>>6063383
Stirner has been popular on /lit/ practically since /lit/ existed, he's hardly a fad. But if you don't trust /lit/'s recommendations or advice, then please don't ask me any more questions because as far as I'm concerned you're wasting my time.

Here's an article on Hume's argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>> No.6063407

>>6063397
Dude, you're a retarded fedora wearer; literally an autistic redditor who needs to go back to tumblr and stop using ad homonoms.

>> No.6063417

THIS is Molyneux:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mek2Dl03NBQ

>> No.6063423

>>6063397
ok his argumentation is invalid and unsound. we're speaking about philosophy, you wont gain knowledge being needlessly pedantic and uncharitable. you should be able to understand my criticisms all the same. harris assumes various contentious stands often without argumentation or with invalid "argumentation", etc.

>> No.6063429

>>6063407
It's just a waste of time, forming these "arguments" that convince nobody.

I worry about you.

>> No.6063440

>>6063240
are you really gonna sit here and tell me that Hindus, and Daoists don't have a concept of right/wrong, or that it's only there because of christian influence?

Harris is a cuck, but it's clear that the concept of right and wrong is some form of convergent cultural evolution.

>> No.6063447

Sam Harris is SATIRE

Why do people not fucking understand this?

>> No.6063451

>>6063359
Kant, but you're better off reading a summary of his argument.

>> No.6063469

>>6063447
>I was only PRETENDING to participate in philosophical discourse!

Don't do that.

>> No.6063478

>>6063402
Can you actually link and explain how Harris violates the is/ought problem? It seems like your critique of him comes from that cartoon everyone posts with the Hume robot.

Don't worry. Cartoons are great fun! But I'm looking for something a little bit more substantial than "Harris is wrong, a webcomic mentioned Hume".

>> No.6063563

>>6063478
Hume is probably the easiest philosopher to read, he's lucid as hell, anyone who has taken philosophy has read him, he's fundamental. You're just very, very poorly read, and so assume he comes from a cartoon.

Now, since you think it is appropriate to dismiss philosophers for being memes, why not dismiss Harris?

Anyway, since you have not read Harris, Hume, or Stirner (whereas I have read all three), I will have to lay our Harris's actual argument for you as well as Hume's.

Harris argues that moral is teleological, and that certain moral decisions are better in the since that there is a better chess move, even if we cannot always know what these are.

Hume's argument is that the things we use to connect logical ideas (this is that, therefore this) cannot be properly applied to morality, because morality works in an imaginary real. By definition it does not deal with reality, it deals with an imaginary reality. But unlike the reality that IS, the imaginary reality is completely arbitrary.

Because there is no God according to Harris, humanity is not a chess game, there is no objective imaginary reality we want to turn it into. Harris assumes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (which deals with so many variables it completely collapses under chaos theory) is what all morality is really about This is clearly wrong, because there are terrorists whose morals want to inflict suffering on most people; Harris gets around this by stating there is no such thing as Muslim moral or Christian morality, because morality is only what he says morality is, not what they say; that is just redefining the term "morality" to mean "exclusively MY morality", and that is the only way he can even begin to argue the point, to say that any morality that doesn't agree with him is not really morality.

But Hume would say his ideal is not more "necessarily connected" to the real world, than any other ideal, be it Eliot Rodger's ideal or what have you. "Necessary connections" in Hume means something that logically follows a premise, but Harris's ideal does not logically follow from any premise, he just solves that by dismissing all other ideals as invalid because they aren't morality, leaving his to be the only one which is necessarily connected to the premise of reality...but even supposing you eliminate all other ideals as not actually morality, his ideal still does not follow from any premise, it's just inserted.

>> No.6063565

>>6062997
> The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people

lmfao

according to what

>> No.6063568

>>6063565

The great God and Savior Ludwig von Mises

>> No.6063578

>>6062997

How can people take these two clowns seriously?

Why are you trolling me /lit/, by posting Sam Haris ugly mug 7 in the morning? What have I done to you to deserve this?

Utilitarianism as objective as the law of physics? Even when Mill said it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a happy pig?

How can this bullshit count as philosophy under any one who has read even a little bit of moral philosophy?

Why have I been born in the same era as Sam Harris?

Why do you punish me so, God?

>> No.6063580

>>6062997

Both are bitch ass wannabe Auguste Comtes

>> No.6063582

>>6063578
>How can this bullshit count as philosophy under any one who has read even a little bit of moral philosophy?

They write for an audience that doesn't read. That's why the rehash of the same dated arguments get them so thrilled.

>> No.6063588

>>6063578
Science > philosophy

>> No.6063596

>the free market
>gratifying selfish desire through mass consumption
>dominant ideology of economic station = merit

>most happiness

>> No.6063600

>>6063588

Philosophy> Science> Pop academic's pseudo science= these people's idea's.

>> No.6063601

>>6063563
>Harris assumes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (which deals with so many variables it completely collapses under chaos theory) is what all morality is really about This is clearly wrong, because there are terrorists whose morals want to inflict suffering on most people
using your own interpretation of harris's morality this is an incorrect account. the correct course of actions would be to stop the terrorists, thus preserving happiness for the most people

>> No.6063604

>>6063381

Are you seriously implying that epistemological relativism necessarily follows moral relativism ?

Because if you do, you are a fucking idiot.


Firstly there are tons of analytic philosophers who are moral relativists or follow a pragmatic approach to moral issues.

Secondly, please give me an example of post-modern philosopher who was an epistemological relativist.

Derrida maintained Deconstruction as the ultimate tool of unearthing phalogocentrism.

Foucault maintained that the genealogical/archeological method was the best to uncover historicity.


Please stop reading Wikipedia, and open up a book sometime, the whole "Postmodernism is responsible for all the evils of the world" kool-aid, only serves to make you sound retarded.

>> No.6063607

>>6063116
By what units are we defining utility? Is it a quantifiable metric?

>> No.6063609

>>6063601
>using your own interpretation of harris's morality this is an incorrect account. the correct course of actions would be to stop the terrorists, thus preserving happiness for the most people
Yes, but the issue with Harris is that he considers his morality not the only the "correct" morality, but the ONLY morality, all others are not moralities at all. Even Christian fundamentalists recognize that religions exist other than Christianity.

>> No.6063812

>>6063604
>my fookoe, derrider, lacan and barthe
Yeah, you're about 60 years late to the table, you fucking idiot.

We are discussing postmodernity in 2015, and the cultural impact of the central thesis, "There are no such thing as human universals," upon the facebook generation.

I suggest you stop wiki-ing différance and play catchup. And no, wiki-ing Baudrillard doesn't count as catchup.

>> No.6063819

>>6062997
>free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness.

You know how they say Jesus was king of kings? This statement is dubious of the dubious

Literally every assumption this sentence makes is worth questioning

Since you're likely a retard, OP, why don't you question whether a "free market" actually exists an what that sentence actually means

>> No.6063829

>>6062997
You're right, if utilitarianism is true, then morality is objective. But there's no way to determine if utilitarianism is "true", because no ethical statement is true or false without an axiomatic moral ought

IOW, "we should maximize happiness", if taken as truth, does entail a lot, but there's no way to say "we should maximize happiness" is true. Ultimately what's "true" morally is the social contract

Even if you knew every fact about everything, there is still no way to overcome this dilemma. Sorry.

>> No.6063834

>>6063829
The concept of "truth" itself is a construct, not an argument.

>> No.6063853

>>6062997
No moral claim can be objective as moral claims are meaningless without humans.

Did you mean universal instead of objective?

>> No.6063862 [DELETED] 

">My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics"

-Sam Harris

>> No.6063866

>>6063604
>Are you seriously implying that epistemological....
(This is called the strawman. This 'implication' has been fabricated by contestant Anon who is now is going to construct his scarecrow + 2 fedoras)
>Because if you do, you are a fucking idiot.
(Coupled with the above, this walks the tightrope between mundane verbal abuse and an abusive ad hom. This would get a higher mark, but the "Are you seriously implying? coz if so, you're a 'tard" structure is so overused. + 1 pineapple )
>Firstly there are tons of...
(Anon is now attacking his strawman, isn't he cute. + 1 fedora)
>Secondly, please give me an example ..
(Anon is now fabricating a burden of proof for his strawman, and under the guise of a second counter argument. Nice. + 1 dreidel)
>Derrida maintained...
>Foucault maintained...
(Double appeal to authority. Double Impressive. + 2 pineapples)
>Please stop reading Wikipedia, and open up a book sometime
(Classy as fuck. + 1 fedora)

Congratulations, contestant Anon, you win four fedoras, three pineapples, and a dreidel. Thank you for playing Talking Absolute Bollocks.

>> No.6063868

>>6063853
"My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics"
-Sam Harris

>> No.6063873
File: 15 KB, 281x242, 1243325495793.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6063873

>>6063866
B-B-But that "analyses" itself was piling up fedoras...

>> No.6063879

>>6063866
>Derrida maintained...
>Foucault maintained...
Neither of these are appeals to authority though. Post-Structural/Post-Modern are terms used to describe the philosophies of both, and is not something they subscribe to/try to define.

>> No.6063883

>>6063868
Damn, I actually thought this guy was intelligent.

>> No.6063894

>>6063868
>"My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics"

It's all about context. Harris is talking about right moral answers because he is asking the moral questions within his own semantic utilitarian framework. If you accept his axiomatic grounding, there are right moral answers relative to structural 'flourishing' schematic that he provides.

>> No.6063897

>>6063834
Lol

>> No.6063904 [DELETED] 

>>6063894

"Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see tht there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality."

>> No.6063906

>>6063894
"Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality."

>> No.6063907

>>6063894
But he is oblivious to his own framework. ,_,

>> No.6063920

>>6063906
Exactly. Christian or Muslim moral structures is reduced to faith, while his has an empirical grounding.

>>6063907
>But he is oblivious to his own framework
He wrote a book about it. His semantic framework is 'human flourishing,' and he reasons that we can split most actions and events into a binary relative to this using empirical inquiry. Any given action can be described fairly accurately using a variety of theorems and models, and we can collect enough data on anything that impacts us to determine if it is for or against human flourishing.

>> No.6063929

>>6063920
>Exactly. Christian or Muslim moral structures is reduced to faith, while his has an empirical grounding.
Ultimately, not. He still starts with a moral premise (utilitarianism) that he expects you take for granted. If he said, "morality can be scientific if we assume a premise", that would be one thing, but he says any premise but his own is not morality.

>> No.6063972

>>6063366
Is/ought problem is not adequate to overcome Harris, because he notes moral values can be treated as facts.

Not even going to touch Stirner. That's just English major tier philosophy.

>> No.6063975

>>6063972
Sam Harris considers moral "truths", as he calls them, optimal moves toward "winning" the game humanity is playing. He admits that outside of the game of chess, chess moves are not objective, but that within the game of chess, there are moves which can more or less work toward winning.

Hume's Guillotine applies here because Harris's idea of "winning" is not something which is derived from any premise, it is wholly arbitrary, yet Harris tries to make it more by dismissing any competing notion of "winning", or hell, even the question that there is such a thing as "winning". We are, after all, not chess pieces, humanity is a product of evolution, its existence is not teleological.

>> No.6063976

>>6063563
>(whereas I have read all three)

Dropped.

>> No.6063981 [DELETED] 

>>6063972
>Not even going to touch Stirner. That's just English major tier philosophy.
Not evening going to touch Harris. That's just Reddit tier philosophy.

>> No.6063983

>>6063972
>Not even going to touch Stirner. That's just English major tier philosophy.
Not even going to touch Harris. That's just Reddit tier philosophy.

>> No.6063995

>>6063972
Except Harris is not demanding that you follow him. He's saying, "In my model, 'human flourishing' can be described by these 300 empirical attributes, and actions can be describes as 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the model." If you agree with his model, then you are in his inter-subjective club. Either way, he has internal consistency, and attacking him external to his model is redundant.

>> No.6064000

>>6063975
When we're discussing objectivity, we only admit those who agree with Harris. Because he's not a platonist, this opinion does not need to be derived from facts. Is -> ought is irrelevant. How Harris got to this opinion also is.

The choice to do science is always subjective, and that remains for the science of morality.

Not even defending Harris. For instance, its much easier to attack his position on what morality is, but that still leaves his ethical framework intact. A very fruitful avenue is how he determines human flourishing.

I'm afraid I have to ignore anymore responses you give. Your appeals to authority, pretentious language, incapacity to break down a problem or others views into their constituent parts, its clear to me you're not a high IQ male or an analytic philosopher. Bye.

>> No.6064005
File: 595 KB, 460x600, 1406839343709.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6064005

>>6064000
>its clear to me you're not a high IQ male or an analytic philosopher.

>> No.6064006

>>6063240
How did people get as far as they did if they weren't first equipped with the knowledge of right and wrong? It is WRONG to kill your neighbor for his shit, cavemen had to have known that. Cavemen disliked civil unrest just like we do now, and Im sure now that we are 7 billion strong, that those cavemen didn't kill each other off.

>> No.6064010

>>6064000
> but that still leaves his ethical framework intact
If you mean utilitarianism, there is an abundance of criticism on that.


>Your appeals to authority, pretentious language, incapacity to break down a problem or others views into their constituent parts, its clear to me you're not a high IQ male or an analytic philosopher. Bye.

:^)

>> No.6064021

>>6064006
>It is WRONG to kill your neighbor for his shit, cavemen had to have known that. Cavemen disliked civil unrest just like we do now, and Im sure now that we are 7 billion strong, that those cavemen didn't kill each other off.
it's "wrong" because it will come around and bite you in the ass and/or because you like the guy

it's not inherently wrong, which is why people do it all of the time

>> No.6064090

>>6063866
This is probably the most fedora post I have yet to read on this board

>> No.6064092

>>6063866
This is probably the most fedora post I have yet to read on this board

>> No.6064111

>>6063866
This is probably the most fedora post I have yet to read on this board

>> No.6064115

>>6063866
This is probably the most fedora post I have yet to read on this board

>> No.6064124

>>6063563

>I read wikipedia

>> No.6064127

>>6064124
:^)

>> No.6064203
File: 24 KB, 396x360, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6064203

>> No.6064276

>>6063866
10/10

>> No.6064298

why do these same threads with the same OP picture keep popping up every single day

reposting is against the rules

>> No.6064304

>>6064298
One of them types normally, the other in lowercase, and they both possibly create, then enter and shit within, the same threads over and over. The two of them also seem to enter threads about non-Analytic philosophy to try and derail discussion.

>> No.6064583

>>6062997
>The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people, and has been to shown to be the greatest system for alleviating unhappiness.

Were you being sincere when you wrote this? That would be funny af

>> No.6064592

>>6064304
>He actually thinks that distinction means there are actually two people
>He is actually this new/ignorant/unable to think

Hahahahaha

>> No.6064637
File: 5 KB, 205x200, mongler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6064637

>> No.6064676

>>6063292

So, when does "real morality" comes into play and how is it detached from either levantine or hellenic ideals of morality?

>> No.6064725

>>6062997
You know what, when the revolution comes I will not feel bad for putting you in the gulag.

>> No.6064792

>>6064583
It improves living conditions for a greater number of people. This is undeniable. (See number of people in China and India pulled out of poverty after instituting free trade.) It's only after wealth and capital are accumulated that instituting forms of socialism would become the best moral choice (to a Utilitarian).

>> No.6064809

>>6064792
>It improves living conditions for a greater number of people. This is undeniable. (See number of people in China and India pulled out of poverty after instituting free trade.)

Ehm... no sir, that is very deniable.

>> No.6064830

>>6064809
>Ehrm, sir, I have no real refutation other than my condescension
>>>/reddit/

>> No.6064845

utilitarianism is a dumb philosophy for simplistic people that actually believe in things like "happiness"

happiness in quotes because it refers not to happiness, but economic utility: so called "happiness" that can be chopped, manipulated, served up animalstyle and is oftentimes considered analogous to wealth itself (imagine the ignorance in that!)

>> No.6064870

>>6062997
>The free market ultimately leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people
Isn't free market why we have for-profit agriculture that spends more money growing fuel than providing food for hungry poor people? I mean what is your claim based on beside wishful thinking?

>> No.6064904

>>6064870
It's also why we have supermarkets where food is available freely to the other 90% of Americans. Better than what most other countries have. Ever been to a third world country?

>> No.6064911

>>6064904
>Better than what most other countries have
So it's obviously the best.

Buddy, for your own sake, lay off the Libertarian kool-aid.

>> No.6064912

>>6064904
>It's also why we have supermarkets where food is available freely to the other 90% of Americans
Wait, food is free in America?

>> No.6064917

>>6064912
Yeah dude why do you think we're all fat as hell? The only food in America citizens are required to pay for is the MacDonalds one dollar menu.

>> No.6064921

>>6064912
He means you can freely choose to pay money to buy food. Just like you can freely choose to not pay money be poor and die. You just have so much choice available to you in this capitalist utopia in which we live.

>> No.6064922

>>6064870
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578643-world-has-astonishing-chance-take-billion-people-out-extreme-poverty-2030-not

I'm surprised you don't know this. Those third world premature "Communist" countries opened up their markets to free trade and conditions immediately improved. We now have the lowest rates of poverty the world has ever seen

>> No.6064927

>>6064921
>>6064911
>>6064912
No one is saying free market Capitalism is perfect. Just that, in this current moment, it's the best tool to lift more people out of abject poverty. Socialism could very well be the next step (after a country has "made it")

>> No.6064939

ITT: Middle class Americans talking about the 4 or 5 bad things they have to deal with in a Capitalist system countries are now actively and enthusiastically modeling themselves after

>> No.6064951

>>6064939
oh shit you sure showed them

woah that's not a simplification at all fucking wrecked my friend sick burn dude

>> No.6064952

>>6064809
I mean, you could argue that a minority gets used and thrown away. But we're talking about utilitarianism here, so

>> No.6064958

>>6064951
It's perspective. You are (probably) living exactly the life most other people hope to achieve. You're just also really used to it, and want something better.

>> No.6064970

>>6064958
>You are (probably) living exactly the life most other people hope to achieve.
Personal undermining aside, this is probably applicable to you.
>You're just also really used to it, and want something better.
"Don't be a Socialist and want a better world for everyone because there are people who are worse off than you now" I don't get your argument. You want to me to fast and go on some ~spiritual journey~ to realise my place in the world? Do some poverty tourism and think how lucky I am? What would that achieve?

>> No.6064982

>>6064970
I'm not saying not to be a socialist. I'm saying Capitalism is a general force of good in the world, today. You can be a good socialist in Sweden or some other (solidly) wealthy country if you want to.

>> No.6064986

>>6064982
Please define good.

>> No.6064992

>>6063060
>>6063073
Categorial Imperative
owned

>> No.6064996

>>6064992

An imperative is not a truth, it's a deduction made from axiomatic principles

>> No.6065024

>>6064927
>Just that, in this current moment, it's the best tool to lift more people out of abject poverty
Poverty is a problem born from the practice of selling people their own survival. The production and maintenance of basic necessities is easily met leaving the majority unneeded and therefore unemployed, but since those necessities are arbitrarily restricted (murder is illegal, but anyone is free to die from lack of food, shelter or medicine) people are forced to invent reasons to exist, and it gets really retarded. All this because private ownership is recognised and protected. Fucking hell, soviet death camps won't come back by letting people eat for free.

>> No.6065076

>>6063234
Ahaha, seriously? The market has only gotten less free as things get better.

Free market advocates opposed the abolition of slavery. They opposed the abolition of child labour. They continue to oppose unionisation.

The foundation of free market capitalism is exploitation.

>> No.6065081

>>6062997
Yeah but Molyneux is a retard.

>> No.6065249

>>6065024
Consider practically what you're calling for here. In order to dispense food to all people in a country for free, you'd need a central institutional force that a) has claim to every citizen's property and b) provides and controls all resources involved in food production (land, power/water, food reserves, farmer's wages, etc.). No one would be able to compete with the government, and any improvements to the system (cheaper goods, better goods) are reduced because there is no incentive - because no one can compete with free and no one has a right to benefit (except in a broad sense, like they benefit as much as everyone else) from their own production.

What has literally always happened is the government doesn't turn power back over to its citizens and those citizens lose any ability to exert power over their government. Anything they once had to leverage with (votes, influence, wealth (choosing whether or not to buy something - "this product is shit, I'm going to go to a different supplier")) is necessarily gone. A citizen in a Communist country is essentially fucked as an individual and entirely at the mercy of their government, who is just trusted to make the right decisions on everyone else's behalf. This so obviously ends in corruption when you're dealing with people I'm amazed anyone sincerely believes this can work in the 21st century.

My parents are from Mexico and Cuba. There was a time when public intellectuals largely supported Communism and Maoism. They've since taken a few steps back. There's a reason people like Zizek take the "ideology" angle now - because utopia doesn't exist except in theory, and Communist theory has essentially just become critique of real-world Capitalism.

>> No.6065268
File: 27 KB, 250x373, 200808-post-american-world-fareed-zakaria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6065268

ITT

>> No.6065380

>>6064922
The fastest growing economy on earth is a Marxist-Leninist state :^)
Communists don't necessarily oppose free-trade and Marx was one of the biggest proponents of it
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/
Pretty much every economic embargo is imposed by capitalist countries

>> No.6065412

>>6065249
>Consider practically what you're calling for here. In order to dispense food to all people in a country for free, you'd need a central institutional force that a) has claim to every citizen's property and b) provides and controls all resources involved in food production (land, power/water, food reserves, farmer's wages, etc.). No one would be able to compete with the government, and any improvements to the system (cheaper goods, better goods) are reduced because there is no incentive - because no one can compete with free and no one has a right to benefit (except in a broad sense, like they benefit as much as everyone else) from their own production.
It's not all or nothing, you could do what >>6065024 wanted by just extending foodstamps, or soup kitchens. Go be an political-idealist elswhere.

>> No.6065419

>>6065380
>The fastest growing economy on earth is a Marxist-Leninist state :^)
Is this b8 or do you really not know about economic convergence?
Do you even know anything about economics past a few philosophical works?

>> No.6065497

>>6065380
>The fastest growing economy on earth is a Marxist-Leninist state :^)
That started behaving like a Capitalist, free market economy in key areas. My bf is Chinese and an economy/sociology student, we've discussed this at length, and "opening up the markets," allowing privately owned companies to exist and compete, etc. is generally understood to be what facilitated this growth. It isn't just whorish manufacturing like a lot of people seem to think.

I think the future for China will be really interesting. They have the money and the ability to institute policy change quickly and effectively. The people have less of a say but the US's democratic, bogged-down legislature may (ironically) perform a lot worse as a server of the people in comparison.

>Communists don't necessarily oppose free-trade and Marx was one of the biggest proponents of it
This is interesting. Do you have any sources for this? Genuinely curious, I don't doubt you. I've always thought Marx was bastardized and misunderstood to a degree.

>> No.6065498

>>6062997
I'd like to punch them both in the face and see what they make of that argument

fucking cunts

>> No.6065503

>>6065412
I'm not being a political idealist. I'd advocate for everything you're mentioning. What we've been talking about is the good and bad created by Capitalism in general.

>> No.6065514

>>6065497

Yes actually, there's a speech he gave to the Democratic Association of Brussels in 1848, I'll try to find it for you

>> No.6065536

>>6065497
>>6065514

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/

Ah well, you can't access it online any more thanks to those bastards at Lawrence and Wishart, but there's still some stuff left here.

Here's a quote;

"But in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old antionalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade..."

>> No.6065777

>>6063234
My god, pure ideology

>> No.6065831

>>6064792
We don't even have a true free market bro. In a true free market, anything goes, no regulations or law to hold it back. Slavery, kids in factories, no rights for consumers or employees.

>> No.6065842

>>6065831
This is ridiculous, in a truly free market you'd have privatized courts, laws and police, so no.

>> No.6065893

>>6065842
No, that would be a regulated free market.

>> No.6065912

>>6063086
Yes because maybe your Jew would out for a minute and the nazi could look and not find him but if you say no maybe the nazi went away and saw your Jew outside and kill him so it follows that lying is always wrong.

- Kant

>> No.6065922

>>6065842
>felony insurance
hooboy

>> No.6065928

>>6065893
That would be an oxymoron.

>> No.6065954

>>6064792
>chinese state capitalism
>free market

ayy le fucking mao zedong

>> No.6066033

>>6065954
Way to go for the lowest common denominator. Jesus you people can't debate

>> No.6066054

>>6066033
there's no point in debating someone who thinks china and india are examples of free market economies, they're paradigmatically disabled.

>> No.6066064

>>6066054
China's economy is far freer than it used to be, and it improved correspondingly. It's not totally free by any means, but neither are Western economies (although they are far freer than China's and thus have improved conditions).

>> No.6066077

>>6066064
The Chinese economy is more like mercantilism than capitalism.

>> No.6066082

>>6065928
You don't understand the free market.

>> No.6066116

Funny thing: If you study latin american and other colonial countries, you'll realize the biggest advocates for free MARKET are usually the biggest oppositors to free TRADE.

>> No.6066149

>>6066082
How can regulations, which are undeniably restrictions in possible actions, possibly grant freedom to something? If they can then if the slightest capacity for autonomous action exists (which is inevitable), then you could conceivably call Stalin's Gosplan a regulated free market because both qualifiers apply to it. Regulation must necessarily affect either supply and demand, otherwise it would be pointless.

>> No.6066156

>>6064203
push it again

>> No.6066164

>>6066149
Our current model of the free market is heavily regulated...

>> No.6066170

>>6064996
Harris contends they're conditionals, not imperatives.

Confirms that those who argue against Harris have never read him.

>> No.6066179

>>6066170
He says they're conditional, but then says ever other conditional is invalid because it's not REAL morality, and only his morality actually counts as morality. So he comes very close to making them imperatives.

>> No.6066197

>>6066164
You're confusing 'market economy' and 'free market'. Free market is a bullshit hypothetical that libertarians wank over.

>> No.6066222

>>6066197
I'm not confusing anything. The OP is.