Posted: Apr 18, 2016 5:18 am
Pebble wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
"Generally not approved of", eh? Got the good ol' "Tut, tut!" thing going, haven't ya? Parents harm their kids in little ways, and nobody knows about it, and so nobody disapproves. I know. They would if they could. What good is your 'generally disapproved of", then? How much harm is enough to bring down the wrath of Tut? You see, Pebble? This kind of philosophy is good for precisely fuck-all, and here you are, desperately trying to find a way to get someone to admit that this kind of philosophy is good for more than fuck all. Generally? Rough guide? Don't make me fucking laugh. Do some fucking work, and get back to me.
Oh, but yeah. Authoritarian tyranny is worse than an ice cream on hot day. Tut, tut.
Presently, I am simply introducing the general concepts - attempting to establish that there is a case for a principle based approach to moral decision making - you know the basics of an empirical approach. What no-one, to my knowledge, has done to date is to attempt to verify that any particular model is valid. By contrast your suggestion of 'case by case' individual by individual determination of 'right and wrong' (or whatever variation of same you prefer to use) is nothing but a return to stone-age guesswork.
What's missing here is what you hope to accomplish with this so-called 'principle-based approach'. It's your notion of 'making the world a better place'. I've offered the opinion that technology has made billions of people's lives obviously better, and you're whining that it's also put efficient tools in the hands of tyrants. So it goes, but try to figure that one out. Ditching technology and going back to stone-age guesswork is not my idea of progress, either. You're welcome to go on muttering that tolerance is better than tyranny, but until you explain how you're going to discourage tyranny with something besides technology, as far as I can tell, you're just trying to keep open a small space for the value of wibble in the modern world. "Tut, tut" is not the way to discourage tyrants. Learn that lesson, and you'll be off and running.
jamest wrote:I think that it's about time that we demand some clarity from this chap. He's taken this clever ploy with words too far and for too long, especially when he uses it as a ruse to undermine somebody or their ideas, not least as an excuse to insult them in a manner which evades consequences wrt the FUA.
Is clarity what you want? OK: Edie Brickell says it best:
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box; religion is the smile on a dog.
Sing with her, James:
I'm not aware of too many things. I know what I know, if you know what I mean.
She says that more plainly than you manage, too, if clarity is still what you're after.
People are entitled to their opinions about the value of philosophy to humanity, when matched up against the value of technology. I doubt if Edie Brickell is the same sort of staunch defender of technological progress I am, but she certainly made use of it in the recording studio, and we're all using it to argue on the internet. Live with it, James. You will, anyway.