dfsdf

  1. There’s one kind of ‘ought’. (And the probabilitistic phrase, “It ought to roll snake eyes” is a misuse of it, I think)
  2. If you think there’s a difference between prudential and moral oughts, then explain what you think the difference is.

The sense in which we say, “the baby ought not have been born that way”, is perfectly intelligible. What we are saying is that: All things considered, it is worse that the baby was born that way. A maximizing consequentialist would take that to mean: “There is more suffering in the world, now”.

You are free to tell me that I don’t understand English, that anyone over 7 would know what I don’t, and you can accuse me of not being serious… But I am dead serious, and I am dead serious when I say that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

Still, eventually, Mo will get around to, “the baby ought not to have suffered at the hands of someone’s abuse.”

And if it is established that someone abused the baby intentionally then surely this must be an “ought not” beyond which no rational mind could possibly object.

But what if the mind is able to convince itself that, in fact, any behavior deemed self-gratifying is not irrational at all?

Is this “in fact” false?

What if particular behaviors are rooted in labyrinthian motivation – inclinations, provocations, inducements, agencies etc. – that are hopelessly embedded [entangled] in any of a virtual infinite number of ways in which “I” might come to view its own life “out in the world”?

This is the argument I don’t quite know how to unravel. It repulses me that someone would derive actual gratification from abusing a baby…an innocent child. But I know from watching the local news there are people like this that do. And if there is no God how can it be argued objectively that such behaviors are in fact objectively immoral when in fact any particular dasein is able to rationalize them? If only because, “I do what I want.”

It seems to me [though I may well be wrong] Mo needs people he can become a river for. They can come to him and he can assure them that he knows when things are Good and when things are Bad. Not only that, but he knows this for sure, “scientifically”.

In other words, with respect to value judgments, Mo is not an ironist. He gets to say what he means because he really does believe he means what he says. He must because he seems adament that you must come to mean what he says too.

Some people are able to think like this. Some people are not. This is no less rooted in dasein. And parts of me would like to think like this again, but: I’m running out of time to be convinced it isn’t just a psychological defense mechanism invented by minds who [if only subconsciously] recognize what it means to live in a world where, in the absense of God, all things really can be rationalized.

And if you able to rationalize something then “for all practical purposes” it is permitted.

I can’t believe this is still going…

Yet another monument to Mo’s intransigence? Or ours?

“You are the person denying God exists - tell me why”. Burden of proof’s still on you, sir. So how do you measure the pleasure of creative achievements in order to balance it against the pleasure of drug euphoria?

“Then measure pain, not suffering. And measure pleasure. And reduce well-being to pain and pleasure.”

I don’t think it is.

You keep bringing this up. Please follow the thread. Faust said, it’s “neither a moral nor a prudential “ought””. I said, “the statement is not a moral one, you bring in prudence, I say it’s not prudential either.” Any difference between prudence and morality is utterly irrelevant, as no-one’s claiming it’s one and not the other. You should call it neither because it is neither, and your attempt to define it as such is bafflingly ill-advised.

You are the one who claimed that a drugged up society on opium was an objection to me. That needs to be explained. You can’t raise that as an objection to me, and also object that there’s no way to measure pleasure—because your first objection assumes that there is.

Whatever your point here is supposed to be, it’s not clear.

You can’t explain the sort of ‘ought’ you’re referring to by saying it’s not this, and not that. Tell me what it is, for the 10th time. Until then, I’m fully justified in telling you that, just like Faust, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you think that it was me who brought up prudence, then quote me doing it first. You are dead wrong about that. And why would I have done that? --I’m the only one not distinguishing between prudence and morality.

The sense in which the child ought not have been born that way is very clear—the world is a worse place because of it. Are you claiming that that is unintelligible to you?

I ought to know better than to post here, even occasionally. The subject of that statement is prudence, not morality.

The world is a worse place if you roll snake eyes.

A prudential ought simply defines an action that is pursuant to a goal.

“If you want to annihilate all the Jews in germany, you ought to set up a system.”

“If you wish to win at chess, you ought to study openings.”

“If you don’t want to be late for the prom, you ought to leave now”.

Certainly no one would mistake that last, at least, for a moral “ought”.

But notice that each “ought” is directed at a person.

So does the moral ought. Do you think the goals are different for some reason?

And btw, you can’t give examples of prudential ‘oughts’ that are clearly not prudential, nor are they things you ought to do. (E.g., genocide). Goals that don’t also fit the moral bill aren’t prudential. At least, I see no reason—nor has any been offered—to think so. If I want to cause a car accident, I ought to swerve and crash. --That’s not a prudential ought because causing a car crash is neither prudential, nor something you ought to do (in any sense).

Being a better chess player, and not letting your date down, are sometimes things you ought to do. But I still see no reason to think they’re prudential but not moral, or moral but not prudential. What do you think the goal of morality is? Because if you think it’s anything to do with human excellence, or something like that, then developing your skills (chess included), or being a good partner (proms included) are fucking included.

And btw, is it your view that mathmatics is a subjective enterprise? Because you’ve quoted me as saying it’s not… and you typically only quote people who you think have said something ridiculous. I’m trying to figure out a way to quote you as quoting me saying something pretty commonsensical.

I am a river.

Are you claiming that every goal is a moral goal? The goal of winning a card game is a moral goal? of completing a house of cards? Of drawing a picture of a boat?

Really?

But it is - if your goal is to cause the accident, you ought to swerve. This is just English. it’s the way we use the language. You can’t just make up new meanings and discard the ones you don’t like. Except that if you don’t, your thesis falls apart.

And sometimes not. So what? To claim a moral theory, you’d have to tell us which times are which. Which is why I call your thesis completely vapid. It tells us nothing.

I have stated many times that my claim is that the subjective/objective dichotomy is useless.

What?
I’m here to tell you that you keep begging the question… everytime you suggest that something can be prudential but not moral, or moral but not prudential----without. ever. explaining. the. difference. Maybe you should go back a few pages and start from the beginning.

How the fuck is that prudential? Use fucking English.

Typical iambiguous ploy. “So abortion is sometimes ok, and sometimes not!!! What!!!”. Red herring. It’s like asking me to explain the game of baseball and then being dissatisfied because I didn’t tell you how they make the bats. Wake up. If you want an answer, then create a thread…

lol. yea totally useless…
No point addressing that one.
Opinion and reality… psh, who needs it.
I think it’s early onset dementia… as it was for dear Fritz.

What was that??? :open_mouth:

Truly? You can’t tell the difference? I have explained it several times, now. I don’t think i can make it any simpler. But I’m not making it up. It’s a difference that everyone who has ever written about the topic seems to know but you. Not that i have read everything on the topic, but I’ve read a lot. I think you’re on your own, here. There are some philosophical issues that have been accepted as settled.

Because “prudential”, in this context, means “instrumental”. Pursuant to a goal. This is verrry standard stuff. The rest of the world uses the word this way - again, you are the only person that i know of who does not already know the distinction.

I would expect you to describe the bat well enough so that i could make one, yes. Else I wouldn’t be able to play the game. I would not require lathe speeds, but I would want to know which materials would not work. So…yeah. Sure.

it’s really not that early, in my case.

Let me put this gently…

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRUDENCE AND MORALITY.

  1. There wasn’t for Plato. That’s why “all evil is due to ignorance”. That’s why Socrates wouldn’t escape from jail when he had the chance. That’s why “it’s better to suffer harm, than to do harm”. That’s why the good life is a properly ordered psyche.

  2. There wasn’t for Nietzsche. That’s his beyond good and evil. Power (aka “abilities-to”) itself is what’s valuable. Nietzsche is not an amoralist, he just tied his values to enhancing power (prudence)

  3. There wasn’t for Hobbes. You obey the Sovereign—and give him all of your power, submitting almost completely—because it’s in your self-interest. After the Sovereign is established, you obey—and you ought to obey—only because it’s in your self-interest. When your life is threatened by the Sovereign, you have no duty to obey anymore. Hobbes is not a moral nihilist, he equated prudence with morality—what you ought to do.

These are your fucking philosophers. They’re the guys you reference, as a SCtheorist, as a supposed Nietzschean, and the one that anyone with a shred of philosophical dignity references (i.e., Plato). The only main philosopher who distinguishes them is fucking KANT!!! (The person you claim is an idiot!! How do you like him now!?).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

BAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ahem. Sometimes ILP makes me insane.

Ring the gong maestro.

Prudent means prudent. I use fucking English, and it’s a simple word that doesn’t need to be twisted by you.

phyllo, what says you in the peanut gallery?

I am a river.

If you look in a dictionary, you will find a significant difference in the meanings of the words ‘prudent’ and ‘moral’. It’s easy to think of actions where prudence and morality are not aligned. It’s also easy to think of prudent actions which do not even raise the issue of morality.
You should try it. It’s lots of fun. :banana-dance:

Ruh-roh.

phyllo,

You are eating peanuts on the shit end of a sinking dingy going nowhere. I am making it rain. Faust is rethinking Kant and prepping your life-preservers. I am captaining a comfortable ship cruising past. Here’s a wave. The rivers going where I want, because I am the river.

Go ahead, holler at your last two friends, Merriam and Webster. They can’t hear you, and if they could, they’d tell you you’re wrong.

Kind regards,

Mo

Would you also say there’s no difference between your neck and your head?

Mo,
Of course you are comfortable, you’re out of touch with reality. You have redefined the meanings of words until they no longer match common usage. Your definitions are either outright wrong or just trivial. It’s impossible to have a discussion with you because you are using a different language than everyone else on this forum.

You are all wet.