Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[The New Sea Territory]

Everyone associating with everyone isn't required when people can associate freely. People can freely associate in there own closed subcultures, their own family communes, etc. Or, you can associate with no one.

It also makes it very easy to reject people who don't fit in.

This typically how subcultures form in any society. I don't really see any way to stop this, under any situation.

[United Marxist Nations]

It also makes it very easy to reject people who don't fit in.

As does any society. Your point?

A moralistic society can have inclusion based on moral responsibility to be charitable, as well as moral responsibility to associate with certain persons.

[Mattopilos]

As does any society. Your point?

A moralistic society can have inclusion based on moral responsibility to be charitable, as well as moral responsibility to associate with certain persons.

In other words, force people to get along? I don't see anything going wrong there /s

[The New Sea Territory]

So is science.

Except the foundings of science, unlike that of religion, can be demonstrated clearly in front of our eyes.

Science does make some philosophical assumptions around the nature of knowledge. Wisecrack explains this.

[United Marxist Nations]

Science is a figment of the human mind.

Nonsense, they exist purely in your mind. They do not demonstrably exist outside of one's perception.

Can we not say the same about religion.

You could. I would disagree with both statements (mine and yours), but, I only reject them on the bases of religious doctrine. Were it not for that, I would be very much in-line with Berkeley.

[United Marxist Nations]

A moralistic society can have inclusion based on moral responsibility to be charitable, as well as moral responsibility to associate with certain persons.

In other words, force people to get along? I don't see anything going wrong there /s

As opposed to a society that doesn't force people to get along, where people who are social outcasts go insane.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Except the foundings of science, unlike that of religion, can be demonstrated clearly in front of our eyes.

Science does make some philosophical assumptions around the nature of knowledge. Wisecrack explains this.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, I'll make it more specific next time the issue is brought up.

[The New Sea Territory]

As does any society. Your point?

A moralistic society can have inclusion based on moral responsibility to be charitable, as well as moral responsibility to associate with certain persons.

A moralistic society, like all other moralistic societies, will collapse due to the contradiction between the overt selflessness of the moral system but the deeper, selfish reasons for following such a moral system in the first place.

It's how we got to our current position of secularism.

[Mattopilos]

Science does make some philosophical assumptions around the nature of knowledge. Wisecrack explains this.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, I'll make it more specific next time the issue is brought up.

Yeah, the issue with science is that, well, some assumptions have to be made. To be fair, without those assumptions, science would fall apart and anyone could claim their own truth, so I am happy with the assumptions made, even if that means various theories and the likes have to be tested ad nausium.

[Minzerland II]

Except the foundings of science, unlike that of religion, can be demonstrated clearly in front of our eyes.

Nonsense, they exist purely in your mind. They do not demonstrably exist outside of one's perception.

Science is the observation of the physical realm (the material as opposed to the immaterial), it is the only way we have, as humans, to verify our existence.

[Trotskylvania]

Him asking the question presupposes its truth value. No one asks questions about what determines obligations to falsehoods.

...perhaps the conclusion I intended people to draw from my statement is that the basis of a "public morality" is pretty shoddy at best?

I'm not presupposing any truth or value in the "public morality", rather subverting its basis by questioning it. If you want to prove an ethical truth to me, you have to start with metaethics. My nihilism is a metaethical position that denies any intrinsic value of morality itself. If you want to make a case for me to accept any prescriptive ethics or moral obligations, you first have to prove to me that what your claims are grounded on is sound by proving the intrinsic value of your moral positions (subjective ethics can be pushed over with "I disagree").

This is where things usually get really spooky.

I was mostly talking about your chosen rhetorical strategy, but if you want to wrestle the greasy pig of metaethics with me then I guess here go once again.

My problem with moral nihilism is that it is meaningless and incoherent.

All arguments for moral nihilism are self-contradictory, because the advocacy of any position presupposes that truth has a normative value. If truth has no normative value, then all statements are trivial are aesthetic. A "false" belief in moral realism (and it's not, but we're simply supposing for arguments sake) would thereby be perfectly valid.

In other words, advocacy of nihilism is self-defeating.

Moral normative facts and epistemic normative facts are instrinsically similar. Terrence Cuneo goes into much greater depth on this in his book The Moral Web. The jist of the argument is that if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts must not exist. Since epistemic facts clearly do exist, as it is possible to rationally and empirically evaluate the world or constructs of pure reason, moral realism must also be true.

I'd also argue pretty vehemently against error theory if you were to go that route, because the empirical and rational evaluation of moral theories like virtue ethics, utilitarianism or the categorical imperative is pretty overwhelmingly in their favor.

[The New Sea Territory]

Nonsense, they exist purely in your mind. They do not demonstrably exist outside of one's perception.

Science is the observation of the physical realm (the material as opposed to the immaterial), it is the only way we have, as humans, to verify our existence.

But the assumptions the scientific method makes about the nature of knowledge do cast doubt on this. Faith could be a way of overcoming this, even if its only faith in the idea that the universe can be comprehended in human terms.

But I'm not too well read in epistemology, so that's all I'll say on that.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, I'll make it more specific next time the issue is brought up.

Yeah, the issue with science is that, well, some assumptions have to be made. To be fair, without those assumptions, science would fall apart and anyone could claim their own truth, so I am happy with the assumptions made, even if that means various theories and the likes have to be tested ad nausium.

I believe assumptions are necessary to come to a conclusion, I believe that they use the studies to either verify or dismiss the assumption.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, the issue with science is that, well, some assumptions have to be made. To be fair, without those assumptions, science would fall apart and anyone could claim their own truth, so I am happy with the assumptions made, even if that means various theories and the likes have to be tested ad nausium.

I believe assumptions are necessary to come to a conclusion, I believe that they use the studies to either verify or dismiss the assumption.

Then you are using the assumption to prove itself. It is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning, is necessary for knowledge.

[Trotskylvania]

"of said person"

So, one person's self-interest justifies any action they could take? This is absurd.

That's how the world actually functions, yes. People will rationalize their actions to themselves.

If I choose to violate a law, I do so out of self-interest. If I choose to abide by a law, I do so out of self-interest. Any ethical justification is just a projection of my self-interest onto a pseudo-objective, mythical code of conduct. It's more of a bullshit story people tell themselves than an actual guide to how people live...ideology is never solely an explicit message, as Zizek says, but an empty container open to nearly all possible meanings.

This is cognitively incoherent.

People in general act based on beliefs and assumptions in a manner that is not explained by psychological egoism.

[The Liberated Territories]

From my point of view, egoism would both erode the rule of law and the liberties that it defends, and make everything an utter free-for-all where only the strongest, most capable, or whatever have peace of mind. In effect it is not that much different than the capitalism it critiques, but even anarcho-capitalism as built in mechanizations to stop the usurping of society by those who have power, whereas egoism and other forms of anarcho-individualism do not.

This doesn't seem to be too deep an analysis of what egoist anarchists were actually saying. What is your evidence, based on the ideas Stirner, Novatore and Tucker advocated, that a society of egoists could not maintain mutual aid-based relationships? Just stating this doesn't really convince me.

Also, egoism is incredibly different from capitalism, and this is made most evident by the egoist critique of ideology, which capitalism is steeped in.

What is it not? Let me review. First off, the egoists accept a "society" of themselves, but call the fundamentals of the state (selfish people banding together to defend their lives, property, whatever) as inherently spooky, as if no person would have a reason to do so. It rejects property similarly as spooky and believes that it would be more beneficial to go around taking the fruits of other's labor for themselves instead of the notion that perhaps it is better in people's self interest that they allow the producers to produce, otherwise there would be no reason for production at all. From an Objectivist or Kantian (my) perspective it is utter irrational as it universalizes morals that make no sense if taken to their logical conclusion. The selfish person living off of the dole of other people is at least understandable from an egoist standpoint, this I have no idea how it would benefit any self-centered, egoist person.

[Minzerland II]

Science is the observation of the physical realm (the material as opposed to the immaterial), it is the only way we have, as humans, to verify our existence.

But the assumptions the scientific method makes about the nature of knowledge do cast doubt on this. Faith could be a way of overcoming this, even if its only faith in the idea that the universe can be comprehended in human terms.

But I'm not too well read in epistemology, so that's all I'll say on that.

What assumptions does Science make of the nature of knowledge? Science merely determines how knowledge is gathered and used.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I believe assumptions are necessary to come to a conclusion, I believe that they use the studies to either verify or dismiss the assumption.

Then you are using the assumption to prove itself. It is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning, is necessary for knowledge.

Except we don't use an assumption to prove itself, we use studies and research built off of experiments which are formulated through the question where trying to answer; I only believe that an assumption is needed in order for the experiment to take place and the assumption to either be confirmed or proven incorrect.

We only use the assumption to create the experiment of which will be used to either confirm or prove the assumption incorrect.

[United Marxist Nations]

But the assumptions the scientific method makes about the nature of knowledge do cast doubt on this. Faith could be a way of overcoming this, even if its only faith in the idea that the universe can be comprehended in human terms.

But I'm not too well read in epistemology, so that's all I'll say on that.

What assumptions does Science make of the nature of knowledge? Science merely determines how knowledge is gathered and used.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

[United Marxist Nations]

Then you are using the assumption to prove itself. It is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning, is necessary for knowledge.

Except we don't use an assumption to prove itself, we use studies and research built off of experiments which are formulated through the question where trying to answer; I only believe that an assumption is needed in order for the experiment to take place and the assumption to either be confirmed or proven incorrect.

You need the assumptions to trust the experiment.

[Mattopilos]

I was mostly talking about your chosen rhetorical strategy, but if you want to wrestle the greasy pig of metaethics with me then I guess here go once again.

My problem with moral nihilism is that it is meaningless and incoherent.

All arguments for moral nihilism are self-contradictory, because the advocacy of any position presupposes that truth has a normative value. If truth has no normative value, then all statements are trivial are aesthetic. A "false" belief in moral realism (and it's not, but we're simply supposing for arguments sake) would thereby be perfectly valid.

In other words, advocacy of nihilism is self-defeating.

Moral normative facts and epistemic normative facts are instrinsically similar. Terrence Cuneo goes into much greater depth on this in his book The Moral Web. The jist of the argument is that if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts must not exist. Since epistemic facts clearly do exist, as it is possible to rationally and empirically evaluate the world or constructs of pure reason, moral realism must also be true.

I'd also argue pretty vehemently against error theory if you were to go that route, because the empirical and rational evaluation of moral theories like virtue ethics, utilitarianism or the categorical imperative is pretty overwhelmingly in their favor.

Sorry, I don't see how moral nihilism is 'self-defeating'. How is saying "I see no value in morals and therefore see no reason to follow them" self-defeating? All you have said is that to have the postion of moral nihilism, we must assume all truth has a normative value, and apparently it is not the case if moral nihilism is advocated. Bull. Shit. How on earth can you think that nihilism translates to everything in our vies not having normative truth? so I don't see how there is a contradiction. Again, this means that this 'moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts must not exist' argument is bullshit as well.

[Mattopilos]

This is cognitively incoherent.

People in general act based on beliefs and assumptions in a manner that is not explained by psychological egoism.

How so? Are you suggesting that upholding a religion or view is not self-serving, and therefore not selfish in some way or another?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Except we don't use an assumption to prove itself, we use studies and research built off of experiments which are formulated through the question where trying to answer; I only believe that an assumption is needed in order for the experiment to take place and the assumption to either be confirmed or proven incorrect.

You need the assumptions to trust the experiment.

You only need an assumption to base an experiment on, the results of the experiment will with confirm it or disprove it.

[United Marxist Nations]

I was mostly talking about your chosen rhetorical strategy, but if you want to wrestle the greasy pig of metaethics with me then I guess here go once again.

My problem with moral nihilism is that it is meaningless and incoherent.

All arguments for moral nihilism are self-contradictory, because the advocacy of any position presupposes that truth has a normative value. If truth has no normative value, then all statements are trivial are aesthetic. A "false" belief in moral realism (and it's not, but we're simply supposing for arguments sake) would thereby be perfectly valid.

In other words, advocacy of nihilism is self-defeating.

Moral normative facts and epistemic normative facts are instrinsically similar. Terrence Cuneo goes into much greater depth on this in his book The Moral Web. The jist of the argument is that if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts must not exist. Since epistemic facts clearly do exist, as it is possible to rationally and empirically evaluate the world or constructs of pure reason, moral realism must also be true.

I'd also argue pretty vehemently against error theory if you were to go that route, because the empirical and rational evaluation of moral theories like virtue ethics, utilitarianism or the categorical imperative is pretty overwhelmingly in their favor.

Sorry, I don't see how moral nihilism is 'self-defeating'. How is saying "I see no value in morals and therefore see no reason to follow them" self-defeating? All you have said is that to have the postion of moral nihilism, we must assume all truth has a normative value, and apparently it is not the case if moral nihilism is advocated. Bull. Shit. How on earth can you think that nihilism translates to everything in our vies not having normative truth? so I don't see how there is a contradiction. Again, this means that this 'moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts must not exist' argument is bullshit as well.

Because it also means there's no value in not following them. Basically, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, and nihilism is right, because there's still no reason for me not to try to impose my moral system on others.

[Trotskylvania]

But the assumptions the scientific method makes about the nature of knowledge do cast doubt on this. Faith could be a way of overcoming this, even if its only faith in the idea that the universe can be comprehended in human terms.

But I'm not too well read in epistemology, so that's all I'll say on that.

What assumptions does Science make of the nature of knowledge? Science merely determines how knowledge is gathered and used.

The validity of inductive reasoning, for one