dfsdf

“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.

Trivial is the word, phyllo. According to Mo’s thesis, every decision is a moral decision. Firstly, no one would live that way. Second, it robs meaning from morality. Which finger shall i pick my nose with? Well, if someone can say “You ought to use the most effective one,” then I guess, since they used the word “ought”, it must be a moral decision.

What stooges.

You have no idea what the fucking difference is, and if you did, you would have straightforwardly said what it is by now.

YOU HAVEN’T.

My view is clear. It’s the tradition in philosophy. Since Plato, Nietzsche, Hobbes, and others. You anon, phyllo, Faust, do not have a fucking clue what you mean by ‘moral’. You use it in a meaningless way. An empty term. That’s because you’re following the hard left the tradition took after Kant, and you don’t even realize it. Kant thought that prudence was your empirical/phenomenal self-interest. But you were also a noumenal being. Problem is, nothing in the noumenal realm can be known. And neither can your use of the term ‘moral’. So much the worse for you. I use fucking English, ORDINARY ENGLISH.

It’s a shame that you have nothing but insults to offer----and if they came after anything that wasn’t utterly ignorant, I would be insulted.

I can only allow those following this exchange to judge for themselves the extent to which Mo has accurately conveyed, oh, never mind…

prudent - 1. capable of exercising sound judgement in practical matters, especially as concerns one’s own interests
(from the Latin ‘prudens’, to fore-see)
moral - 1. relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct
(from the Latin ‘moralis’, of manners or customs used by Cicero as translation of the Greek ‘ethikos’)

Morality deals with relationships with other people. Prudence exists without these relationships but may be also be applied to relationships.

It may be prudent to cooperate with a psychotic killer although it involves doing something immoral.

Alone on a deserted island, prudence still exists but morality does not. It is prudent to build a shelter, but there is no morality associated with such an action. Same with brushing your teeth.

Hope this helps. :slight_smile: