Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

A lay person would probably suggest that choosing the non-relative person would be the selfish act to do - that I rate my brother's value higher than yours.
That would an off-shoot of selfishness. Instead of valuing your own self illegitimately above another, you're illegitimately valuing some other person over another. That you know him, or that you're his brother, has not effect on his objective innocence or right to stay alive.

Not if the good outcomes were in no way predictable, I agree to that extent. But if you undertake an action consciously or unconsciously knowing that there is a good outcome, I would suggest that it forms a part of the goal of the action.
Well, prediction is a conscious act, so that doesn't make much sense to apply that to the unconscious.
And why the jump into necessity. Logic would demand "good outcomes can be part of the goal" not "good outcomes are necessarily part of the goal.

I think feminism is silly. It's whole purpose is to pry the sexes apart even more.

Сообщение от Squishalot

That would an off-shoot of selfishness. Instead of valuing your own self illegitimately above another, you're illegitimately valuing some other person over another. That you know him, or that you're his brother, has not effect on his objective innocence or right to stay alive.

Which was the purpose of me asking the question - choosing him or otherwise will be selfish in some way.

Well, prediction is a conscious act, so that doesn't make much sense to apply that to the unconscious.

I don't think that it has to be a conscious act. A lot of things we do are subconsciously predictable - our body knows what the outcome will be. Pulling a hand away from an open fire when it gets too hot - it's a subconscious act, but our body knows that it's moving away from a dangerous place.

And why the jump into necessity. Logic would demand "good outcomes can be part of the goal" not "good outcomes are necessarily part of the goal.

I'm still finding it difficult to envisage a real life scenario whereby a good outcome is not part of the goal.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Which was the purpose of me asking the question - choosing him or otherwise will be selfish in some way.
And how do you draw that conclusion?

I don't think that it has to be a conscious act. A lot of things we do are subconsciously predictable - our body knows what the outcome will be. Pulling a hand away from an open fire when it gets too hot - it's a subconscious act, but our body knows that it's moving away from a dangerous place.
Our bodies don't know. Anything. We know things. Your hand flies of a hot stove, not because there's some sort of prediction or judgment or anything. It's a chemical reaction.

I'm still finding it difficult to envisage a real life scenario whereby a good outcome is not part of the goal.
Any scenario that you bring forth to show selfishness can also be used to show an unselfish action.

Сообщение от Squishalot

And how do you draw that conclusion?

Precisely because I'm illegitimately valuing one person over another.

Our bodies don't know. Anything. We know things. Your hand flies of a hot stove, not because there's some sort of prediction or judgment or anything. It's a chemical reaction.

I'm personifying things. Subconscious is a chemical reaction.

Any scenario that you bring forth to show selfishness can also be used to show an unselfish action.

That doesn't deny the reverse.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Precisely because I'm illegitimately valuing one person over another.
That's being selfish, but just because you would do that doesn't mean a legitimate judgment can't be made.

I'm personifying things. Subconscious is a chemical reaction.
And thus it can't predict. You pretty much just summed up exactly what I said.

That doesn't deny the corollary.
No more so than the corollary proves itself.

Сообщение от Squishalot

That's being selfish, but just because you would do that doesn't mean a legitimate judgment can't be made.

All I said was that "choosing him or otherwise will be selfish in some way."

And thus it can't predict. You pretty much just summed up exactly what I said.

Bias can also be subconscious. Would you say that acting on unconscious bias isn't inherently selfish?

No more so than the corollary proves itself.

You're going in circles. I'd be happy to accept your statement if I could envisage a real-life, human example of an purely altruistic action with no self-benefit. But I can't think of one.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

All I said was that "choosing him or otherwise will be selfish in some way."
And if you followed everything I've said, you'd see that I said quite the opposite. Illegitimately choosing him or otherwise will be selfish.

Bias can also be subconscious. Would you say that acting on unconscious bias isn't inherently selfish?
I would most definitely say it's not selfish.

Sure it's bad, but bad have to mean it's selfish.

You're going in circles. I'd be happy to accept your statement if I could envisage a real-life, human example of an purely altruistic action with no self-benefit. But I can't think of one.
If I'm going in circles, you're not going anywhere. I can't think it, therefore it isn't is to relativise the whole world and make this discussion meaningless.

Сообщение от Squishalot

And if you followed everything I've said, you'd see that I said quite the opposite. Illegitimately choosing him or otherwise will be selfish.

If it's not possible to make a legitimate choice, by definition, isn't any choice you make illegitimate?

I would most definitely say it's not selfish.

Sure it's bad, but bad have to mean it's selfish.

Why? Conscious bias leading you to make an illegitimate choice (by over/under valuing) would be considered selfish. Why is unconscious bias any different?

If I'm going in circles, you're not going anywhere. I can't think it, therefore it isn't is to relativise the whole world and make this discussion meaningless.

It's all relative at the moment. I'm saying this, you're saying that. Neither of us have any legitimate evidence for or against. You're presenting no evidence that you can have a purely altruistic action, you're simply stating it as a fact. At least I'm trying to prove my side of the argument (re: our argument on bias).

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

If it's not possible to make a legitimate choice, by definition, isn't any choice you make illegitimate?
Why is it not possible to make a legitimate choice? Give x, y, and z circumstances, certain courses of action will be legitimate. There is always a legitimate choice...illegitimacy makes no sense apart from it.

Why? Conscious bias leading you to make an illegitimate choice (by over/under valuing) would be considered selfish. Why is unconscious bias any different?
As I said, the subconscious doesn't make choices. You heat water, it boils. You stimulate x receptor on a person, they do y. Selfishness makes no sense in either.

It's all relative at the moment. I'm saying this, you're saying that. Neither of us have any legitimate evidence for or against. You're presenting no evidence that you can have a purely altruistic action, you're simply stating it as a fact. At least I'm trying to prove my side of the argument (re: our argument on bias).

My argument for altruism is exactly the same as your argument for selfishness, so don't give me crap about not presenting evidence.

The difference is that my ultimate claim is particular, yours is universal. You can't make universal claims from particular claims. At most you can show that something is probable that way, but nothing beyond that.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Why is it not possible to make a legitimate choice? Give x, y, and z circumstances, certain courses of action will be legitimate. There is always a legitimate choice...illegitimacy makes no sense apart from it.

If you're forced into the position where you have to choose between the death of person A and person B, with no further knowledge of their life value, can there be a legitimate choice? Or an illegitimate choice, for that matter? Remembering why we are defining legitimacy, both actions can be selfish, just for different reasons.

As I said, the subconscious doesn't make choices. You heat water, it boils. You stimulate x receptor on a person, they do y. Selfishness makes no sense in either.

Subconscious influences your conscious choice. I'm arguing that your conscious choice is biased as a result. By your argument, a hard determinist would see no selfishness in the world at all because noone 'makes' choice, they're all byproducts of determinism.

The difference is that my ultimate claim is particular, yours is universal. You can't make universal claims from particular claims. At most you can show that something is probable that way, but nothing beyond that.

Of course I can't prove the claim. I don't even think it's possible to. What I am doing is trying to demonstrate that for all intents and probable purposes, human actions are selfish. If there is a meaningful action that isn't selfish that we're likely to encounter, then that's great, I can say that I'm wrong. If we can identify an exhaustive list of actions and identify selfishness in them, then we can say that 'known' actions are selfish. By association, we can suppose that 'unknown' (universal) actions are selfish. Of course we're never going to prove it, just like we can't truly prove anything. But we can accept that there is evidence towards it. Where's the evidence against it?

Einstein had that famous quote about nothing ever being able to prove his theory right, but only needing one thing to prove it wrong. I have a theory, with a reasonable amount existential evidence to back it up. You're theorising that my theory is false, thus far, by using a metaphysical example of what would falsify it. On whom does the burden of proof lie? The person who can only continue to provide examples, unable to prove? Or the person who can't demonstrate a real life example to the contrary?

We talk about quantum randomness vs hidden variables. As scientific theories go, the real burden of proof is on those who would identify the hidden variables. It's not to say that the hidden variables don't exist, it's that there is no evidence to suggest that they do exist at the moment, other than a metaphysical, theoretical argument.

Сообщение от 451639

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Adamsm

while raped men not reallyHonestly happens just as much, men are just less likely to report it.

Сообщение от 451639

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Skreeran

I suppose TVTropes has the answer, then...

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

an there be a legitimate choice?
Legitimacy is something relative to the circumstances. What you know of the people below you is one such circumstance. It will change what you're legitimately able to do, not whether you can legitimately do anything. There is always at least one legitimate legitimate course of action for any set of circumstances.

Subconscious influences your conscious choice. I'm arguing that your conscious choice is biased as a result. By your argument, a hard determinist would see no selfishness in the world at all because noone 'makes' choice, they're all byproducts of determinism.
That bolded part. Exactly.

It would be silly to ascribe selfishness to any sort of deterministic system. If A, then B. That's not selfish, that's necessary cause and effect.

...a reasonable amount existential evidence...
You're one person out of the trillions(?) of people who have ever lived. That fact by it's very nature prohibits you from coming to conclusions about human nature in general. You can come to conclusions about Squishalot nature, but that's about it.

Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?

Ответить