JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 65 of 65
  1. #51
    bathes in gluten
    zoltanspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,593
    Blog Entries
    8

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Effectiveness is not measured against an arbitrary standard assumed a priori, but against a standard constructed through empirical iteration.
    I'm not sure about this.

    The moral standard which Harris is proposing is to determine whether the effects of an action result in 'well-being'. While those effects might be assessed empirically, I don't think the idea itself of well-being is arrived at empirically. He hasn't performed tests to conclude that well-being is a good moral standard, and other tests that show the falsity of moral imperatives or show that having a virtuous character is a bad moral standard.

    Well-being is an idea which Harris arrives at through deliberation, not parsing evidence.
    pro bonobo

  2. #52
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    I don't think Sam would contest to that at all. Here's what he's said:

    "...I asked whether subjecting children to “pain, violence, and public humiliation” leads to “healthy emotional development and good behavior” (i.e. does it conduce to their general wellbeing and to the wellbeing of society). If it did, well then yes, I would admit that it was moral. In fact, it would appear moral to more or less everyone—just as slitting open a child’s belly to perform an emergency appendectomy seems obviously moral to anyone who understands the purpose of this procedure. The patent immorality of corporal punishment relates to the sense that it is clearly bad for children, both in the moment and in the long run (along with the fact that it is generally the product of anger, rather than benevolence, on the part of the brute holding the paddle)."
    Where is it established that "corporal punishment... is clearly bad for children"?

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    Understand that he is talking about (in my initial post) the worse possible misery for everyone not merely doing something even if it may result in pain or disaster. If you think the word "ought" allows you to say, "Maybe we ought to seek the worst possible misery for everyone," this expresses pure confusion. How is it even conceivable that we ought to seek the worst possible misery for everyone? What could "ought" mean in this case?
    That concept of "the worst possible misery" is a fallacious argument since no one would aim for such a thing. And regardless of the content of a particular statement, the meaning of "ought" remains the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    Sam has responded to critics who have raised the question of ambiguities:

    "Of course, goals and conceptual definitions matter. But this holds for all phenomena and for every method we use to study them. My father, for instance, has been dead for 25 years. What do I mean by "dead"? Do I mean "dead" with reference to specific goals? Well, if you must, yes -- goals like respiration, energy metabolism, responsiveness to stimuli, etc. The definition of "life" remains, to this day, difficult to pin down. Does this mean we can't study life scientifically? No. The science of biology thrives despite such ambiguities. The concept of "health" is looser still: it, too, must be defined with reference to specific goals -- not suffering chronic pain, not always vomiting, etc. -- and these goals are continually changing. Our notion of "health" may one day be defined by goals that we cannot currently entertain with a straight face (like the goal of spontaneously regenerating a lost limb). Does this mean we can't study health scientifically? "


    "Health" is not "defined with reference to specific goals"; he's not giving goals but prescriptions. The definition of "health" won't change, either, only what we can do to achieve it. From his approach, I would have to answer, "Yes -- by your definition, indeed we cannot study health scientifically, because we don't know what it is".

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    I wonder if there is anyone on earth who would be tempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine with questions like: "What about all the people who don't share your goal of avoiding disease and early death? Who is to say that living a long life free of pain and debilitating illness is 'healthy'? What makes you think that you could convince a person suffering from fatal gangrene that he is not as healthy you are?" And yet, these are precisely the kinds of objections I face when I speak about morality in terms of human and animal well-being. Is it possible to voice such doubts in human speech? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should take them seriously."
    His definition of health is sloppy as all heck -- and it's really fairly easy to define. But this "well-being" is even slipperier, so there's no way at all to study it scientifically.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  3. #53
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    If he's only doing that to a certain extent, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what he is doing beyond that extent.
    Dodging and weaving to avoid facing that given his approach, there's no way to achieve what he wants.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  4. #54
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    Here's a really good excerpt from Sam to get the debating juices going:

    "So, while it is possible to say that one can't move from "is" to "ought," we should be honest about how we get to "is" in the first place. Scientific "is" statements rest on implicit "oughts" all the way down. When I say, "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen," I have uttered a quintessential statement of scientific fact. But what if someone doubts this statement? I can appeal to data from chemistry, describing the outcome of simple experiments. But in so doing, I implicitly appeal to the values of empiricism and logic. What if my interlocutor doesn't share these values? What can I say then? What evidence could prove that we should value evidence? What logic could demonstrate the importance of logic? As it turns out, these are the wrong questions. The right question is, why should we care what such a person thinks in the first place?

    So it is with the linkage between morality and well-being: To say that morality is arbitrary (or culturally constructed, or merely personal), because we must first assume that the well-being of conscious creatures is good, is exactly like saying that science is arbitrary (or culturally constructed, or merely personal), because we must first assume that a rational understanding of the universe is good. We need not enter either of these philosophical cul-de-sacs."
    He's making a very basic philosophical error on the matter of empiricism and logic: they're not "values" to be held or not, they're systems that correspond to the real world.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  5. #55
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    I've always thought that ethics and morals are evolutionary survival behavior. We humans are communal creatures, we always have been. Our numbers and our cooperation make us strong. We survive through community, through group dynamic. We do not do so well as lone individuals explicitly thinking only about ourselves.
    Which is ironic considering that one of the two pro-business parties in the US seems to believe in social Darwinism, and clearly believes that we all are in fact lone individuals thinking only about ourselves -- and that these are virtues.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  6. #56
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by poolerboy View Post
    Of course there are many folks who dislike a description of morality as a side effect, let alone the byproduct of evolutionary biology. I never understood why that should diminish our perceptive value of it.
    Evolutionary theory is a better foundation for morality than this "well-being" notion. It sets out species survival as the prime value, and everything bends to that.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  7. #57
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by AsianDream View Post
    Boy - aren't you USA Christians arrogant!
    It is relevant because it is part of the Buddhist belief system – in which all life is sacred.
    What does being a Christian have to do with it?

    The Buddhist belief system is no more relevant than the Hindu, Christian, Satanist, pagan, or any other.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  8. #58
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoltanspawn View Post
    I'm not sure about this.

    The moral standard which Harris is proposing is to determine whether the effects of an action result in 'well-being'. While those effects might be assessed empirically, I don't think the idea itself of well-being is arrived at empirically. He hasn't performed tests to conclude that well-being is a good moral standard, and other tests that show the falsity of moral imperatives or show that having a virtuous character is a bad moral standard.

    Well-being is an idea which Harris arrives at through deliberation, not parsing evidence.
    This, especially the last.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  9. #59
    JUB Addict FirmaFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,059

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Evolutionary theory is a better foundation for morality than this "well-being" notion. It sets out species survival as the prime value, and everything bends to that.
    I would argue that survival is a far less optimal standard for morality than well-being is. If you are to curb the notions of morality to only survival, an extreme amount of well-being could easily be sacrificed as long as it doesn't compromise survival. I usually hate pointing towards science-fiction movies to make a point, but they do tend to serve as a kind of oculus into our culture, and your comment about curbing morality to survival reminded me of the film "I, Robot" where the robots, to ensure humanity's survival, decides to imprison every human being, thus protecting them from any potential for harm. Would such a system as that be considered moral, as it all but guarantees the survival of a species? A system of well-being would, by necessity, include a consideration of survival. Survival does not necessarily include consideration of well-being.

  10. #60
    bathes in gluten
    zoltanspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,593
    Blog Entries
    8

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    pro bonobo

  11. #61
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,257
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by FirmaFan View Post
    I would argue that survival is a far less optimal standard for morality than well-being is. If you are to curb the notions of morality to only survival, an extreme amount of well-being could easily be sacrificed as long as it doesn't compromise survival. I usually hate pointing towards science-fiction movies to make a point, but they do tend to serve as a kind of oculus into our culture, and your comment about curbing morality to survival reminded me of the film "I, Robot" where the robots, to ensure humanity's survival, decides to imprison every human being, thus protecting them from any potential for harm. Would such a system as that be considered moral, as it all but guarantees the survival of a species? A system of well-being would, by necessity, include a consideration of survival. Survival does not necessarily include consideration of well-being.
    I would not consider locking everyone up to be "survival". But beyond that, you may have a point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by zoltanspawn View Post
    Right on target -- Sam is skewered.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  12. #62
    bathes in gluten
    zoltanspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,593
    Blog Entries
    8

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    I imagine Sam wouldn't have made such a stir had he subtitled his book, 'How Philosophy Can Determine Human Values.'
    pro bonobo

  13. #63
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,111
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    No no no. That whole division of thinking, that Ryan would like to stake out as a separate discipline, has a name in science: the hypothesis.

    Then this:
    If physics were to presuppose that string theory is correct, it would commit the deeply unscientific sin of asserting a fundamental, revolutionary finding that it hadn’t actually made. If Sam assumes that science will elucidate moral reality by identifying the correct ethical theory, his science of morality commits that same sin when it presupposes that welfare maximizing consequentialism is correct.
    Physics doesn't even suppose it can ever conclusively determine whether string theory is correct or not, never mind making any assertions that it already knows. Science is the enterprise of trying to find out anyway.

    That's exactly what Sam Harris is doing with morality: looking for answers in the same way. Ryan is just grasping at straws.
    Last edited by bankside; June 24th, 2014 at 05:32 AM.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  14. #64
    bathes in gluten
    zoltanspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,593
    Blog Entries
    8

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    No no no. That whole division of thinking, that Ryan would like to stake out as a separate discipline, has a name in science: the hypothesis.

    Then this:


    Physics doesn't even suppose it can ever conclusively determine whether string theory is correct or not, never mind making any assertions that it already knows. Science is the enterprise of trying to find out anyway.

    That's exactly what Sam Harris is doing with morality: looking for answers in the same way. Ryan is just grasping at straws.
    I believe Ryan is accurate in identifying 'well-being' as an 'axiom' which Sam's science of morality assumes; the axiom is arrived at through deliberation, and as an idea in itself is not subjectable to subsequent empirical review like a hypothesis would be. Reasoning does not always lead to subsequent testing. An example of this distinction might be like this: it is a hypothesis that wearing shiny loafers leads to well-being, and this hypothesis could be tested; but the idea of well-being itself is an axiom which is presupposed as a part of that hypothesis.

    Are you suggesting that because there is a part of science which considers problems, then such consideration is the essence of science? I wouldn't agree. Hypothesis-making is neither specific to, nor the best notion of science.

    Regarding the quote, Ryan wrote, "If physics were to presuppose...". He doesn't write that physics does presuppose. So, if Sam were to presuppose the correctness of well-being...which he does...his contentions are outside the realm of science.
    pro bonobo

  15. #65

    Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

    its all words words words

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.