LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[columbia]

Most people would be fired from their jobs, if they were unable to allow rationality to overtake emotion.

[count2infinity]

Most people would be fired from their jobs, if they were unable to allow rationality to overtake emotion.

Sure, when given the time to sit, think, weigh out the different choices, do cost-benefit analysis, that sort of thing people need rational and logical thought processes to make those decisions, but when time is not afforded to you, then where do your decisions come from?

[columbia]

Me? I quickly override what I would actually like to say and then don't say anything. This is in the context of dealing with terrible co-workers and/or bosses.
I unfortunately have a few of the former (as is always the case for everyone?), but definitely not the latter.

[shmenguin]

It's instinct to act logically at work rather than emotionally. I never think about it. I just do it.

[PensFanInDC]

It's instinct to act logically at work rather than emotionally. I never think about it. I just do it.

I bet you have emotions that come first but you're an adult so you've learned to bring logic to the table in a matter of a fraction of a second. I still think emotion comes first no matter what.

[redwill]

OK. A current, real-life example of the question I proposed:

From the current incarnation of the PDT:

http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB ... 0#p2892963" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bunch of morons.

Part of Greenpeace's apology, issued Wednesday, read: "Without reservation Greenpeace apologises to the people of Peru for the offence caused by our recent activity laying a message of hope at the site of the historic Nazca Lines. We are deeply sorry for this."

The group said it meant for the message to be seen by leaders gathering at United Nations climate talks in Peru, with an "urgent message of hope and possibility." Instead, Greenpeace says, it came across as "careless and crass."

Greenpeace's executive director, Kumi Niadoo, is expected to travel to Lima to offer a personal apology.

Who cares about the Nazca Lines? They're just rocks on the ground.

In 1985, the French deliberately sank Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior, resulting in the death of a man.

Would you rather have saved life of Fernando Pereira, or see the obliteration of the Nazca Lines?

(Obviously, the Nazca Lines were not obliterated -- probably not even damaged.)

[PensFanInDC]

Doesn't compute as that specific ship was not the end all be all of saving or losing the rocks.

I also have no idea what the Nazawhatever rocks are. To the internet!

Edit: apparently I do know what they are. I just didn't know what they were called...

[redwill]

Doesn't compute as that specific ship was not the end all be all of saving or losing the rocks.

I know. I was just lamely trying to find a way to tie it in to the previous discussion. Just an idea for thought as to how important art is to some people. Another idea is the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

[columbia]

Are the Nazca lines more worthy of saving than a Rembrandt painting?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Yes because of aliens

[Willie Kool]

Another idea is the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

What are the odds you would mention that? I almost posted a reply last night about the Buddhas and Taliban.

[redwill]

Are the Nazca lines more worthy of saving than a Rembrandt painting?

Hmmmmm....

It's weird how these things go. I would say yes, but I can't readily think of a convincing way to say why. Sort of like asking the question MIMH asked earlier in the thread about Rembrandt vs. Picasso.

I suppose one could conceivably develop a calculus about the relative cultural importance of an item. I think in that case one could make an argument that, for example, the Nazca Lines > Rembrandt > a kindergarten painting by redwill > an LGP post by redwill.

[Willie Kool]

On that note, I would definitely consider letting someone die or maybe even sacrifice myself for the contents of the Library of Alexandria.

[PensFanInDC]

On that note, I would definitely consider letting someone die or maybe even sacrifice myself for the contents of the Library of Alexandria.

You may have stumbled upon a conundrum for me. I mean, not really as my stance remains the same, but I think this might be as close as you can get...

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I have a lot of inner debate in regards to wonders of the world/landmarks.

I hate the notion of a government limiting access to a landmark.

Like, if I was to go to My. Rushmore, would I be able to walk anywhere I want around it? Would I be able to rock climb up it? (I actually don't know, I've never been there)

I would assume not and that annoys me. Not that I would actually rock climb up it because I don't rock climb but I just have an irrational anger at stuff like that (if they do limit where you can go and what not). I understand its for preservation purposes but I just get a sense that like were unable to truly enjoy landmarks like that if they're controlled or monetized. If someone was to vandalize it then oh well, new history will be made

[redwill]

Like, if I was to go to My. Rushmore, would I be able to walk anywhere I want around it? Would I be able to rock climb up it? (I actually don't know, I've never been there)

No and most definitely NO. There are really cool white mountain goats that climb on it, though. They're allowed. You aren't.

Last time I was there was in maybe 2003. What I found most fun was that there were park rangers all around the place with automatic weapons prominently displayed. There were maybe a thousand people there including several busloads of kids. Were the kids interested in Mt. Rushmore? Nope. Not in the least. The kids were all pestering the rangers about their guns. Haha.

[Kraftster]

I was listening to a free will/moral responsibility podcast yesterday and Galen Strawson's "basic argument" on the lack of free will and moral responsibility was discussed. Its a nice, succinct presentation of the argument.

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

[columbia]

That was Kicksave's defense.

[shmenguin]

I was listening to a free will/moral responsibility podcast yesterday and Galen Strawson's "basic argument" on the lack of free will and moral responsibility was discussed. Its a nice, succinct presentation of the argument.

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

this is all correct. BUT...you still are accountable. which is definitively unfair.

[Kraftster]

Are you observing that we are accountable socially or saying that we are accountable in that we should be accountable.

[shmenguin]

Are you observing that we are accountable socially or saying that we are accountable in that we should be accountable.

we are. and we should be, to an extent. an extreme example is the kid who grows up in the hood, his father's in prison, his mother is a junky, he starts selling drugs to survive, gets deeper into gangs and eventually he kills someone. that person should be sent to jail. for public safety reasons at the least. get a murderer off the streets.

this person wasn't in control of their fate (bear with me you free willers out there), but they still need to serve the punishment. but like i said, that's an extreme example. i don't know where the line is where accountability starts.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

it gets really weird. If homosexuality is genetic (which like I said previously, I don't think it is, but that's a different argument. Let's just say it is for gits and shiggles) then can't other people be genetically predisposed to be a murderer, pedophile, etc?


that is a huge inner conflict I have with myself. Like, as per pedophiles, they have no shot at being able to exist in today's society. I'm not saying a pedophile that acts on their attraction, but one that just is attracted to prepubescent children. Like from day 1 they are disadvantaged.

of course, I don't have any kids so I'm probably more sympathetic than others on here, but yeah. Same thing goes for murderers, etc. If there is some amount of natural..."push" to have them commit crimes others wouldn't, how accountable can they be?

[largegarlic]

Derk Pereboom, who's famous for staunchly believe free will and moral responsibility are illusory, makes the case that we should essentially treat criminals like we would people with contagious diseases. We have to lock them up, since they're dangerous to society, but it's not like they really are responsible for being the danger that they are. So, just the same way we'd have to quarantine someone with ebola (or mumps apparently), we'd quarantine someone who had innate, uncontrollable tendencies towards pedophilia. In both cases, there's no moral judgments--it's just that person's bad luck to have that disease/character flaw that makes them dangerous.

[redwill]

Does evil exist?

It just struck me today that our language is kind of partial to it, since "good" is semantically the opposite of both "bad" and "evil."

Does bad = evil?

I mean, I concede that Billy Joel, for example, is "evil," but is he something more than very very very bad?

[shmenguin]

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More
antonyms: good, virtuous
(of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil.
"we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit"
harmful or tending to harm.
"the evil effects of high taxes"
synonyms: cruel, mischievous, pernicious, malignant, malign, baleful, vicious; More
(of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant.
"a bathroom with an evil smell"
synonyms: unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, horrible, foul, disgusting, filthy, vile, noxious
"an evil smell"


...yes it does apparently. But it had nothing to do with god or the devil.