Philosophy

[Kasimir]

So my question is would one also ignore societal makeup of comprehensive doctrine while behind the Veil of Ignorance? Would you not consider that a population was twenty percent Hindu, twelve percent Muslim, fifty percent Christian, eight percent Jewish and ten percent other?

I think I'm leaning towards it not being necessary, since the preservation of reasonable pluralism should cover any concern one might have in preserving culture or religious identity.

Necessary caveat is that I'm not a Rawls specialist and we only did AToJ, so he's changed his views quite a bit since that text. My impression is that the main pressure is less about whether a multi-religious society ought to be included under considering "comprehensive doctrine" or whether they're actually smuggled in under Rawls's not-very-well elaborated concept of 'representative men.'

Representative men seem to play a key role in how we consider distribution, and yet they mostly seem to map over onto social class. But why should that be the case? Why should we not consider race or culture or gender with respect to representative men?

[Orlion Blight]

Necessary caveat is that I'm not a Rawls specialist and we only did AToJ, so he's changed his views quite a bit since that text. My impression is that the main pressure is less about whether a multi-religious society ought to be included under considering "comprehensive doctrine" or whether they're actually smuggled in under Rawls's not-very-well elaborated concept of 'representative men.'

Representative men seem to play a key role in how we consider distribution, and yet they mostly seem to map over onto social class. But why should that be the case? Why should we not consider race or culture or gender with respect to representative men?

 

A concept of representative men seems like it would be helpful in such a case, it also looks like Rawls makes no use of it. Matters are then further complicated:

From Political Liberalism

I end by pointing out the fundamental difference between A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism....justice as fairness is presented there as a comprehensive liberal doctrine in which all the members of its well-ordered society affirm that same doctrine. This kind of well-ordered society contradicts the fact of reasonable pluralism and hence Political Liberalism regards that society as impossible.

 

 

So it would initially seem that my interpretation of how Rawls include comprehensive doctrines behind the Veil of Ignorance may very will be incomplete, since it would appear that he almost immediately turns around and applies what he defines as a comprehensive doctrine to set up a Law of Peoples.

[SmurfAquamarineBodies]

I'm going to assume that this thread is the appropriate place for this.

 

Scenario:

Gather 10,000 babies and put them in an area 500 kilometers squared. Get an AI with the means to create an environment that grows and adapts depending on each child's individual needs. Separate the children so that they will never encounter another human until they reach a pre-determined age, the age doesn't really matter. 

Have the AI, after a certain time, reveal itself to the children. 

The AI must never tell them 'no' and always fulfill their every wish and desire. 

 

There is more to the scenario but I need to go so I will just post this and expand upon it later if someone asks.

 

Questions:

How many children when told 'no' to their request for sex would attempt to force the other to have sex with them?

-How many would train in the arts of combat and try again if the first attempt was unsuccessful?

How many would attempt to kill the other children?

-How many would train in the arts of combat and try again if the first attempt was unsuccessful?

How many would attempt to create a society?

How many would attempt to worship the AI?

If they had children how many would keep the baby?

-How many would abandon it?

Would the children bully each other?

Would they compete with each other? 

How many children would go insane through lack of human interaction

 

Was thinking about morality before and thought of this little experiment to see if morality is inherent in our nature or a construct of society.

Edited November 25, 2015 by SmurfAquamarineBodies

[Kasimir]

I just wanted to share this glorious gem from my university's metaphysics exam (today) which has gone viral:
 

Enjoy the gloriousness, everyone. Also, the answer is probably not 42

 

Edit: I would note that although I'm in my final year, I would have difficulty addressing these questions because they're so specific, and they're not in my area of expertise. Just look and laugh

Edited November 25, 2015 by Kasimir

[Haelbarde]

How does one even start to answer those questions... I feel like there's a severe lack of context. 

I mean, 'there' refers to a location, normally. So what location? Do we consider an arbitrary point in space (because really, is one point in space any more special than another?)? Or do we generalize to all reality? Does that make this a discussion on what reality is?

[Elbereth]

I just wanted to share this glorious gem from my university's metaphysics exam (today) which has gone viral:

 

Enjoy the gloriousness, everyone. Also, the answer is probably not 42

 

Edit: I would note that although I'm in my final year, I would have difficulty addressing these questions because they're so specific, and they're not in my area of expertise. Just look and laugh

That's hilarious.

[Arrae]

I have no expertise in philosophy whatsoever... so I'll take a shot. I wonder how badly I can misinterpret a question...

 

1. What is there?

Let us assume "there" a the place inside my mind that I am thinking of. It is a non-physical, entirely imaginary place, based off of various images I have seen over my lifetime. In one visualization, it has tall green grass on a hill. There is a leafless tree on/near the top of the hill, and it is pretty knobby. I don't know what type of tree it is, but I know it isn't a coast live oak or a maple tree. Coast live oaks don't lose their leaves, and it's too short to be a maple tree.

 

It looks pretty lifeless there. Well, there's no animals or insects as far as I can tell, but there's plenty of grass. The grass is very green and uniform -- no flowers or other plants on the hill(s?) except for the tree. It's probably an invasive plant, and it definitely can't be from where I live because the native grass where I live is bunchgrass.

 

The sun is rising to my (assuming that I'm even there) left, beyond the hills. It's providing a nice backlight to everything there, but the sky is rather murky. It isn't the murky of stormclouds everywhere, but it's more like the murkiness of mud.

 

There's a slight breeze causing the grass to ripple and wave. The sun is backlighting the grass and turning it a very yellow-green. Some blades of grass have drops of dew collected on them.

 

Of course, the next time I visualize "there," it's going to be a completely different place. This is the nature of "there" -- it changes constantly. However, this iteration of "there" is closer to a polluted place with invasive species wiping each other out. Now I'm starting to think pipes...

 

Did I answer the question in a satisfactory manner? Is this even metaphysics? 

[Kasimir]

I have no expertise in philosophy whatsoever... so I'll take a shot. I wonder how badly I can misinterpret a question...

 

...

 

Did I answer the question in a satisfactory manner? Is this even metaphysics? 

Arr! I like yer answer, matey, but it wouldn't have counted

For context, here's the course syllabus, yer scurvy dogs:

 

"What is there? In the first half of this course, we will discuss what kinds of things - such as atoms, numbers, properties, fictional characters, and people - exist.

And what are they? In the second half of the course, we will discuss questions concerning identity, such as whether wholes are identical to parts, and the problem of personal identity."

It's one of those things which looks really undoable at first sight and to anyone who hasn't spent a semester studying metaphysics, but then you realise that the two questions map really well onto the course syllabus. In other words, they're standard regurgitation questions: the student is invited to more or less go over one or two of the main debates learned for each course area, and after they've laid down/regurgitated the basics, they can build on it, offer some objections to traditional views, or their own perspective

Edited November 26, 2015 by Ookla the Piratical

[Arrae]

 In other words, they're standard regurgitation questions: the student is invited to more or less go over one or two of the main debates learned for each course area, and after they've laid down/regurgitated the basics, they can build on it, offer some objections to traditional views, or their own perspective

Well, at least it's not a multiple choice test. 

 

Do you study metaphysics?

[Kasimir]

Well, at least it's not a multiple choice test. 

 

Do you study metaphysics?

No kidding...

I have studied some but only lower-level metaphysics, and very specific topics within it (e.g. metaphysics of personal identity, natural kinds, social kinds.) So I would not be qualified to address such questions.

[Silverblade5]

@bleeder

You were looking for philosophy?

[Darkness Ascendant]

Aha! I had no idea there was a Philosophy thread! Thank you Silver for reawakening it, even though u meant it for Bleeder.

What shall we discuss?? Why ancient civilisations needed to embody evil in the form of spirits? Why mankind is destined to war amongst itself?? Ethics perhaps?

[Eccentric Hero]

28 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Aha! I had no idea there was a Philosophy thread! Thank you Silver for reawakening it, even though u meant it for Bleeder.

What shall we discuss?? Why ancient civilisations needed to embody evil in the form of spirits? Why mankind is destined to war amongst itself?? Ethics perhaps?

How about we discuss Stick?

Here is my theory, the Stick Paradox.

Quote

Stick is not a villain. It is not a hero. It is not a fire. It is a stick, nothing more, nothing less. Stick teaches us to accept ourselves who we are. Stick is stick and that's amazing in it's own way. Because, although Stick teaches us to accept ourselves for who we are, we more than ever want to be Stick. And, that my friends, is the Stick Paradox.

 

[Silverblade5]

23 minutes ago, Eccentric Hero said:

How about we discuss Stick?

Here is my theory, the Stick Paradox.

 

So Stick is a Daoist then?

[Eccentric Hero]

8 hours ago, Silverblade5 said:

So Stick is a Daoist then?

Well, I'm no expert but you seem to know what you're saying, so I'm gonna agree with you.

To tell you the truth, I want to be Stick just like everyone else but I'm not. The truth is I’m Rick Harrison, and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I’ve learned after 21 years – you never know WHAT is gonna come through that door.

[Stick.]

12 hours ago, Eccentric Hero said:

How about we discuss Stick?

Here is my theory, the Stick Paradox.

 

I approve   

[Eccentric Hero]

6 hours ago, I_am_a_Stick said:

I approve   

You might like this.

Hi. I'm Stick Harrison, and this is my shore. I live here with my old man and my son, Big Twig. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 21 years - You never know WHAT is gonna come through that sea.

 

Back on track, I have some answers to those tough questions? Like, is there a spike that can turn you into a stick? (Actually, I don't know the answer to that.)

So... Hell. Damnation. That is my topic for now. My brother raised the question about why people would get punished in Hell if they can't control their destiny.

(Side-note: I think that destiny is the predicted outcome that takes freewill into account. And that's how free will and destiny can coexist.)

So why would you punish an evil man if he was destined to be evil? I made an analogy that makes sense for me. A fly was destined to be a fly, a rat was destined to be a rat; they had no choice. Yet we still want to kill them because of what they are although they had no choice. I hope I make sense.

 

So those are my two contributions: "How destiny coexists with free will" and "Why people are punished in the afterlife."

[Darkness Ascendant]

6 hours ago, Eccentric Hero said:

So why would you punish an evil man if he was destined to be evil? I made an analogy that makes sense for me. A fly was destined to be a fly, a rat was destined to be a rat; they had no choice. Yet we still want to kill them because of what they are although they had no choice. I hope I make sense.

They obviously embraced their destinies. And you say the man was already evil. 

Quote

evil man if he was destined to be evil?

6 hours ago, Eccentric Hero said:

"How destiny coexists with free will"

There is quite alot on this, but I reckon the best analogy would be to watch Legends of Tomorrow. "Destiny" is like wet cement, it's there, but you can always make your imprint before the cement hardens.

6 hours ago, Eccentric Hero said:

"Why people are punished in the afterlife."

Why not?(jk)

Define "afterlife", what perspective are you looking at? What sort of people do you mean? That is quite a vague question I'm afraid. 

[Arrae]

7 hours ago, Eccentric Hero said:

You might like this.

Hi. I'm Stick Harrison, and this is my shore. I live here with my old man and my son, Big Twig. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 21 years - You never know WHAT is gonna come through that sea.

 

Back on track, I have some answers to those tough questions? Like, is there a spike that can turn you into a stick? (Actually, I don't know the answer to that.)

So... Hell. Damnation. That is my topic for now. My brother raised the question about why people would get punished in Hell if they can't control their destiny.

(Side-note: I think that destiny is the predicted outcome that takes freewill into account. And that's how free will and destiny can coexist.)

So why would you punish an evil man if he was destined to be evil? I made an analogy that makes sense for me. A fly was destined to be a fly, a rat was destined to be a rat; they had no choice. Yet we still want to kill them because of what they are although they had no choice. I hope I make sense.

 

So those are my two contributions: "How destiny coexists with free will" and "Why people are punished in the afterlife."

Another question is, what should the purpose of punishment be? Reformation, to give them a consequence to want to avoid? Retribution, to carry our vengeance on behalf of the wronged? Something else entirely?

Also, what makes someone "evil"? Is it a specific set of actions, such as murder? A specific intention? If Person A attempted to murder Person B but was unsuccessful, is that as evil as if Person A had successfully murdered Person B? What if the evil action had positive consequences? If Person B was a dictator who routinely tortured other people just to showcase their power, would the (attempted) murder be less evil than if Person B was an average person living an average life?

[Darkness Ascendant]

Or is evil an intention to do harm? Not merely the action, as accidents are prone to happening

[ParadoxicalZen]

What was Morzathoth's debate in the Random thread from o'er yon? Completely missed that.

And I hold to a more nihilist philosophical mindset.

[Stick.]

On 24 September 2016 at 1:53 AM, Eccentric Hero said:

You might like this.

Hi. I'm Stick Harrison, and this is my shore. I live here with my old man and my son, Big Twig. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 21 years - You never know WHAT is gonna come through that sea.

 

Back on track, I have some answers to those tough questions? Like, is there a spike that can turn you into a stick? (Actually, I don't know the answer to that.)

So... Hell. Damnation. That is my topic for now. My brother raised the question about why people would get punished in Hell if they can't control their destiny.

(Side-note: I think that destiny is the predicted outcome that takes freewill into account. And that's how free will and destiny can coexist.)

So why would you punish an evil man if he was destined to be evil? I made an analogy that makes sense for me. A fly was destined to be a fly, a rat was destined to be a rat; they had no choice. Yet we still want to kill them because of what they are although they had no choice. I hope I make sense.

 

So those are my two contributions: "How destiny coexists with free will" and "Why people are punished in the afterlife."

[Zathoth]

2 hours ago, AnanasSpren said:

What was Morzathoth's debate in the Random thread from o'er yon? Completely missed that.

And I hold to a more nihilist philosophical mindset.

In short: Moral nihilism.

 

[ParadoxicalZen]

Ahhh, and your view was what exactly? (From what i gathered in earlier posts, you don't believe in it) I'm contradictory in this but I'm more along the lines that it is a social construct; I don't believe there is a universal/divine law of morality, just actions that I guess are 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable'. For me, the terms 'right' and 'wrong' encompass such narrow and nuanced viewpoints that I find most real-time applications and usage of them futile 

[Zathoth]

Last time I got the entire forum after me XD

Spoiler

Morality is an opinion, no more real than lets say your opinions on a certain film. A murder is of course tragic, but the tragedy is in our heads. The knife entered the flesh and the vital functions stopped, that's it. I think we are right to stop it from happening if it pleases us, but I don't think our pleasures go above the killers by any divine, god given laws (and even deities have opinions, they may be slightly more informed than us, but in general it doesn't make them more right). It is all in our heads, all illusions, necessary illusions, maybe, but illusions.

I do think that murder is wrong, I just don't think wrong and right are hard coded into the laws of physics.