philosophy

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5952/why-are-most-people-not-persuaded-by-rational-arguments

You both like philosophy.

You: hi

Stranger: Hi.

You: What do you want to talk about?

Stranger: nothing specific, I'm afraid.

You: What philosophy do you know?

Stranger: eh, what do you mean?

Stranger: Academically speaking I've mainly studied epistemology and ontology.

Stranger: From Hume to Kant.

You: Is that your major?

You: Philosophy

Stranger: No.

Stranger: My major is Computer Science.

Stranger: You still there?

You: Ya

Stranger: Ok, it feels good to know that I'm not the only one sitting in silence over the internet.

You: So what philosophy courses have you taken?

Stranger: Just the one. It was called philosophy. :D

Stranger: and ethics if you count that

Stranger: I did my own research.

You: Do you ascribe to any one, such as for ethics?

Stranger: I'm not really sure what you mean by ascribe to any one

You: Something you believe in

Stranger: oh. I'm a moral relativist

Stranger: meta-ethical at that.

You: ya, that makes sense

Stranger: I had an interesting talk with someone who posited that just like logic morality can have it's own set of axioms

Stranger: and regardless of the one experiencing it they would hold true.

Stranger: But didn't really manage to convince me.

You: Can I try to convince you?

Stranger: You can try.

You: So you avoid suffering and pain, yes?

Stranger: Not necessarily.

Stranger: Perhaps a better statement would be chose the lesser of suffering?

Stranger: I mean sometimes you just actually punish yourself

Stranger: which later brings relaxation

Stranger: but whatever.

You: Well, besides exercies "pain"

Stranger: no pain - no gain man :D

Stranger: Anyway lets assume that to be true. I'm wondering where this is going.

You: =)

You: So, most try to avoid, lessen or eliminate physical pain

You: What is suffering then?

You: (Socratic method)

Stranger: But I mean that's just self-preservation instinct. no?

You: Perhaps (but it will be expanded, and applied...soon)

You: What is pain in relation to suffering?

Stranger: I don't know. It's 2:44 AM don't ask me to think of your arguments :D

You: Aww, but then it won't be meaningful

Stranger: it sure will, just answer your own damn question.

You: Any guess is invited

Stranger: Ok, I think this is semantics, so we need definitions

Stranger: Suffering is defined by OED as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

Stranger: Therefore any continued or impulsive stretch of dislikeable experience can be considered as suffering

You: Sorry, but my arguments involve both parties having a say

You: And, yes

You: time

You: pain over time

Stranger: Now the "seriousness" of suffering can be different to different people

You: Yes, but I'll say something new:

You: suffering exists, outside of yourself

You: I mean...

You: Other people suffer?

Stranger: eeh no?

Stranger: I mean outside myself

Stranger: sure

Stranger: outside any consciousness .. no?

Stranger: Even so some philosophers would have say about the first one as well.

You: I simply mean that other people suffer--even though we (usually) don't feel it

Stranger: And I mean I can let that slide for the sake of the argument and common sense, but still I could argue that

You: (Are you going to continue?)

Stranger: no

Stranger: you have the stage

You: Oh, it just seemed how that sentence was left. Anyway

You: Would you agree that other people suffer much more than yourself?

Stranger: some other people, yeah.

You: May I ask who? (You don't have to know or have seen them.)

Stranger: A guy who got burned in a recent protest due to police brutality

Stranger: or sex-slaves of Isis

Stranger: anyone not suffering from the first world shit that I do/

You: lol

You: I'll take it. Can you do anything to lessen one or more of others' suffering?

Stranger: I guess I can.

Stranger: oi you there?

You: Oh, yes sorry

You: I have to scroll down every time for some reason

You: That's pretty much my argument. I left out the efficiency part, but altruism is what I'm getting at.

Stranger: bugs - another first world issue.

You: ha

You: I'm talking about preference utilitarianims

Stranger: Yeah this was anti-climatic

You: ooops

You: well, I don't know a better way

Stranger: utilitarianism sucks so does John Stewart Mill.

You: why

Stranger: It was the easiest topic to write the final essay on :D

Stranger: you just copy Kant and voila you get critique that was written before Mill was born.

Stranger: Because you can't measure "overall happieness"

You: That is why I said *preference* utilitarianism

Stranger: sooo If I help a guy hide his 6th body

You: Again, that is classical utilitarianism

Stranger: I kinda do what *preference* utilitarianism says is the right way to go.

Stranger: no no

Stranger: that's preference

Stranger: moting actions that fulfill the interests (preferences) of those beings involved.

Stranger: Those being involved is me not wanted to get into shit and guy who killed 6 people

Stranger: and wants to go off merrily killing others

Stranger: *promoting

You: Do you have a real argument?

Stranger: How is that a fake argument?

You: I thought you were joking around

Stranger: Nah that was a legit thought experiment

You: If not, then I assume you haven't heard of preference utilitarianism before this conversation

Stranger: That assumption would be half-true

You: If you don't mind me asking, how?

You: I have other philosophy we can talk about too

You: instead

You: (I think it bums people out to talk about extreme poverty and such things)

Stranger: I did hear about it. I just had to refresh my memory, because at the time it wasn't interesting

Stranger: and it was about 2 years ago

You: Yes, my last philosophy class was about that long ago too.

Stranger: I mean what they say about weighing preference mathematically, to me it's just impossible

You: I'm glad I met you, moral relativism is really what preference utilitarianism is today =J

You: There is no weighing in preference utilitarianism

Stranger: Moral relativism claims that morality is subjective and there is no inherent "moral" or "immoral" good or bad

Stranger: wait a minute

Stranger: aren't we talking about Hare and his theory?

You: ha, no

Stranger: THe point of this conversation was that you tried to convince me that there in fact is objectively true shit

Stranger: Then I'm lost

You: Wikipedia will only get you so far

Stranger: true

Stranger: although no

Stranger: false

Stranger: Wikipedia gets you everywhere :D

You: I'm also a little embarrassed, I never heard of Hare before today!

Stranger: If you don't wanna cite wiki, cite the citations cited in Wiki

You: I remember the calculating though

You: Anyway, I don't want people to necessarily lessen extreme (survival needs not met) poverty

Stranger: YOu don't

Stranger: ?

Stranger: You monster/

You: I just want others to lessen some kind of suffering--not necessarily the worst kind

Stranger: oh

You: Child sex slaves, women's rights, etc

Stranger: Anyway getting back to topic how is this proving existence of objective moral axioms?

You: Can you say that another way?

Stranger: The conversation started with you trying to prove that to me

You: I understand all the words. It's just

Stranger: :(

Stranger: I'm confused

You: That's probably my fault, let me try to summarize it in brief:

You: i.a) Suffering exists
i.b) Unnecessary physical suffering (pain) is bad
i.c) When possible, suffering ought to be avoided, lessened, or eliminated

You: Shall we go from there?

Stranger: That's assuming I'm a sensible person. not a psychopath raised

You: lol

Stranger: in a culture where hurting people is good

Stranger: so, no we can't continue from there

Stranger: that shit isn't yet established

You: well, the (ii) is all messed up (unfinished)

You: You remind me of a relevant question though...

You: just a sec

You: ough, it's being difficult to find...

You: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5952/why-are-most-people-not-persuaded-by-rational-arguments

Stranger: lol

You: Forget about my argument

Stranger: It's just funny to see question like that on stack

You: I realized from this question (answer) that I've been going about this all wrong

You: (I lovvvee stackEx)

Stranger: The title was funny

Stranger: the content seems goof

Stranger: *good.

You: It's so hard to convince people (I've convinced no one, here nor in person)

You: hell, in person everyone is against philosophy

Stranger: I have, and have been convinced on multiple accounts.

Stranger: Maybe it's yuo?

Stranger: *you

You: Well, I make it sound like they've been living their life wrong

You: (So yes, it's definitely me.)

You: It's all about the approach

You: How else should I go about it (even if you don't agree with anything I've said so far)

You: to convince people to 'find a cause'

You: lessen suffering, be altruistic

Stranger: To convince me, all you need is a good argument.

Stranger: I mean it's all nice and dandy about helping others

Stranger: but what relation does it have to our initial topic?

You: philosophy?

You: I don't know what initial topic you're referencing?

Stranger: about morality

Stranger: having a set of true axioms analogous to logic that exist regardless

Stranger: of the consciousness experiencing it.

Stranger: In logic you have shit like this

Stranger: Something cannot be A and not A at the same time

Stranger: which is true

Stranger: Always

Stranger: does morality have shit like that?

Stranger: you said yes. And the whole thing was for you to convince me in that/

You: So, how can I have you agree with something that will inevitable prove the acts of altruism true (since going against the axiom would contradict your agreement in the first place)?

Stranger: Well the same way if I tried to convince you that logic axioms such as the one already presented

Stranger: exist

Stranger: trying to prove by contrapositive

You: I think I follow.

Stranger: or by inability to bring counter example

Stranger: I mean If from A follows B that implies that from not B follows not A.

You: yes, yes

Stranger: This is pefectly justifiable

You: I understand what you mean

Stranger: *perfectly

You: I would start talking about consequentialism...

You: but I kind of should go

You: cool, I will have to think this over more to simplify the logic of preference utilitarianism

Anthony

You both like existentialism.

Stranger: Hey

You: hi

Stranger: How're you doing?

You: good, why existentialism?

Stranger: It's interesting. It's quite useful

Stranger: It's been liberating for me, personally

Stranger: And you?

You: Are you religious?

Stranger: No

You: Then what's your philosophy?

Stranger: I'm an absurdist

You: oh, ha

You: What do you do for a living?

Stranger: I'm also a pragmatic hedonist

Stranger: I'm a student

You: hugh, haven't heard of a pragmatic one

You: What are you going for?

Stranger: Haha. Perhaps, you should read Michel Onfray

Stranger: Philo undergrad

You: I may

Stranger: You've not yet answered my question. What's existentialism to you?

Stranger: And, are you religious?

You: =) I'm more religious than most! But, no.

You: preverence utilitarian is my choice

Stranger: What does the preverence refer to?

Stranger: Oh

You: preference

Stranger: Preference

You: sorry

Stranger: Sorry

You: lol

Stranger: Haha

Stranger: So, you've, perhaps, read Singer?

You: I don't think I've read one of his books. But I read probably just as much. I tried to get him to speak at my college too.

You: What book of Michel Onfray's do you recommend?

Stranger: I've not actually read Onfray. I've only heard of him, today, actually. But, he seems to be a pragmatic hedonist and a great thinker

Stranger: I've personally read Nietzsche, and Camus for my own philosophy

Stranger: And talked with a bunch of people

Stranger: So, why are you a pref util?

Stranger: What's the appeal?

Stranger: Ayn Rand is a pragmatic hedonist

You: I was just kind of always that way, just didn't know what it was called

You: Isn't Ayn Rand many things?

Stranger: Yes

Stranger: Like many people are

Stranger: I'd consider her egoism a pragmatic hedonism

Stranger: Hedonism is egoistic

You: Oh, I think I know know.

You: Pragmatism is what my prof left us with

Stranger: Left you with?

Stranger: To explore, you mean?

You: More like, this is today & it's the best (for 'common people' ~ who think philo is useless)

You: He didn't say it like that

You: He didn't know who Singer was

Stranger: Okay, I see

Stranger: So, have you rationalised your pref util as it is now?

Stranger: That is to say, do you adhere to it out of choice or simply cling onto it from being conditioned to adhere to it without rationalising it yourself

Stranger: ?

You: just a sec

Stranger: kk

You: I don't believe I rationalize it.

You: deontology

Stranger: Okay. You haven't felt the impulse to?

You: There's nothing impulsive about it

You: What are you trying to say?

Stranger: I'm asking whether you've felt the need to rationalise your philosophy?

Stranger: Ignore the '?'

You: I don't need to. I don't get understanding out of anyone I know, but that's just how it is.

You: Why would I need to rationalize it?

Stranger: To justify it for your personal adhering to it

You: Ohhh, justify is a much better word!

Stranger: Haha. Okay

Stranger: I'm glad we're on the same page

You: So, in a word: deontology.

You: I was born into good circumstances

Stranger: You feel obliged to be a pref util?

You: Very much so. Can you guess my preference?

Stranger: Not without some more context

Stranger: Liberalism?

Stranger: Justice?

Stranger: I'm throwing out ideas

You: Hint: it's a cause

Stranger: I'm in a very ignorant position

You: Ok, I give up too.

Stranger: Haha

You: Before though, do you know poverty?

Stranger: Yes

You: What kinds?

Stranger: You're speaking very generally

You: (I know.)

Stranger: I know of homelessness

Stranger: Of poverty in the Third World, so called

Stranger: Is it that, perhaps?

Stranger: You want to ameliorate the welfare of Third World peoples

Stranger: /

Stranger: ?

You: Yes, the poverty where they cannot meet basic human needs to survive. Immense suffering

Stranger: I see

You: absolute, extreme

You: abject

Stranger: Where is that occurring, do you perceive?

You: ?

Stranger: The immense suffering you refer to, where is it occurring, according to you?

Stranger: Could you give me an example, perhaps

You: You just told me, but you would like specifics?

You: ok

Stranger: I was unsure whether I was exact or not

You: Kenya, Sub-saharan Africa, Brazil, India, etc

You: I've never seen it though

Stranger: What is an example of this, so called, immense suffering?

Stranger: In terms of what is actually happening

You: 19000 die every day

You: under 5

You: tropical diseases infect one of every six people

You: including more than 500 M children

You: ringworm

You: roundworm

You: hookworm

Stranger: Okay, I see. That suffices

Stranger: Lots of fucking worms

Stranger: xD

Stranger: Ever watched Upstream Colour?

You: well, I was going to go on to other non-worm...

You: I've not.

Stranger: I understand. I was just remarking at the worms

Stranger: It's quite like a David Lynch film

Stranger: Has a plot involving worms

You: aww

Stranger: And little piggus

Stranger: Anyway. Why care for those people?

Stranger: What value do they have to you?

You: It's not like they have value to me personally.

You: I don't get why distance has to matter

Stranger: So why care for them?

You: Because distance doesn't matter

Stranger: I'm not talking about relationships with them

Stranger: You seem to value them, since you care whether they die/suffer

Stranger: I'm asking what that value is exactly

Stranger: Utilitarianism is contingent on the assumption that human life has value

Stranger: What is this value to you?

You:https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3uu8ky/is_all_human_life_equally_valuable/

Stranger: You want me to read the OP?

You: na, it's just there

You: so

You: all human life

You: a 5 year old

Stranger: What's just where?

You: ?

Stranger: 'na, it's just there'

You: for you if you want

Stranger: Ah, okay

Stranger: Continue

You: All human life, whether it's a five year old drowning in a puddle a foot away or drowning in a puddle 100 miles away, is worth equal value

You: generally speaking

Stranger: According to what standard?

Stranger: Is this the base assumption?

You: hold on...

Stranger: kk

You: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/

You: it's been a while since I did this...

Stranger: I've seen that one

Stranger: I like that site

You: well then, what are you asking about?

Stranger: I'm asking what your views are

Stranger: Haha, it says 'It is necessary to make a couple of things clear before we get going. The first is that if you're a moral nihilist - i.e., if you think there's no such thing as right and wrong - then this activity probably isn't for you.'

Stranger: That's me out

You: =J

Stranger: Am I unclear in what I'm asking of you?

You: Did I make "all human life is worth equal value" not apparent?

You: So what are you asking?

Stranger: I'm asking why you believe that

You: Tell me how it's not.

Stranger: I'm not making an argument

Stranger: You are

Stranger: You require propositions

Stranger: (Side note: Are you studying philo?)

You: (Lightly, do you visit StackExchange?)

Stranger: (No)

You: I believe all human life is worth equal value because, any child simply deserves a chance to live in comparison to ten rich haughty fat American--hell, even in comparison to one.

Stranger: Why does the child deserve that?

You: Is that what you want?

Stranger: (You didn't answer my question on whether you study philo)

You: Why does every child born deserve to live longer than five?

You: (lightly)

Stranger: (StackExchange seem useful)

Stranger: (Ah, I thought you used that to open your question)

Stranger: No, no. You said 'any child simply deserves a chance to live in comparison to ten rich haughty fat American--hell, even in comparison to one'

Stranger: I'm asking how they deserve it

You: Because they were born

Stranger: Flies are born

Stranger: Do they deserve to live simply because they are born?

Stranger: Or the worms?

You: Yes, why shouldn't they? Although, again, for humans as sentient beings I mentioned consequentialism as a synergetic component

You: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4506/adam-uraynar

You: like I said, lightly

Stranger: What's ee?

You: Buddhism is intriguing me recently

You: Electrical Engineering

Stranger: Ah

You: my other interests show that

You: along with psychology

Stranger: You didn't mention consequentialism

Stranger: So, all life inherently matters?

You: "deserves a chance to live in comparison"

You: feel so pretentious quoting myself

Stranger: No worries

Stranger: On what grounds though?

Stranger: Deserve by what standard?

You: the standard to lessen suffering (which Buddhism points out)

Stranger: For what reason do you adhere to this?

Stranger: reason(s)

You: Are you asking for a personal reason?

Stranger: Yes, of course

Stranger: Otherwise you're just outlining Utilitarianism

You: I could say, to live an ethical life or to be a "good person" but that's just fluff really

Stranger: Then, what?

You: I'll give two quotes, then barrage me with analysis...

Stranger: Okay

Stranger: Would you like to move this conversation to a call?

Stranger: (btw)

You: (na) The first is from a mathematician and engineer

You: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."--Ludwig Wittgenstein

You: & the second by a poet

Stranger: That's not an argument

You: "We are here to help others; the reason the others are here, I have no idea." -- WH Auden

You: hhahhaha

Stranger: Neither is that

You: synergy man

Stranger: What do you mean?

You: Ok, let's backtrack into a little more of my subtle mentionings...

You: Do you know much about Buddhist philosophy?

Stranger: A little

Stranger: But, I do not understand why you are not presenting me with the reason(s) why you adhere to pref util

Stranger: You're following tangents without resolving any previous ones

You: =J

Stranger: You're just throwing quotes at me

Stranger: I told you my analysis

Stranger: And you've ignored it

You: I said, two quotes

Stranger: Yes?

You: those quotes together both share one thing

Stranger: Yes, the absence of argument

You: haha

Stranger: They both suppose that life is valuable without establishing why

You: I mean literally

You: more literally, nihilism--essentially

Stranger: Yes, they literally have no argument

Stranger: Could you clarify what you mean

Stranger: They share nihilism?

Stranger: Is that what you're claiming

Stranger: ?

You: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."--Ludwig Wittgenstein
"We are here to help others; the reason the others are here, I have no idea." -- WH Auden

You: I don't know why = I have no idea

Stranger: So, you cannot justify your preference utilitarianism

Stranger: ?

You: entertaining armchair philo

You: Ok, I'll go back to that.

You: My justification is that I was born into good circumstance

Stranger: Nihilism is only a criticism of subjectivist epistemologies

You: sorry, that's more of a tangent

Stranger: Okay. Continue, and I'll follow

You: What? That's it: circumstance.

You: I have to do some things before sleeping for work tomorrow

Stranger: How does it follow from your good circumstance that all life is valuable?

You: It doesn't those are two separate ideas =)