Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    Hi Tal! ... Quoting my previous message:
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Tal!

      On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Tal Kelrich wrote:
      > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
      >
      > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
      > > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
      > > >
      > > > wrote:
      > > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
      > > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
      > > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
      > > > >
      > > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
      > > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
      > > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
      > > >
      > > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
      > > > is a real thing or even possible.
      > >
      > > OK. :-)
      > >
      > > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
      > > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
      > > > >
      > > > > 1. Unbiased.
      > > > >
      > > > > 2. Objective.
      > > > >
      > > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
      > > > > View or NPOV.
      > > > >
      > > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
      > > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
      > > > > objective because it is true.
      > > >
      > > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
      > > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
      > > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
      > >
      > > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
      > > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
      > > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
      > > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
      > > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
      > > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
      >
      > Define "Evil"?

      Quoting my previous message:

      <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
      The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
      done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
      productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
      prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
      destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
      == "bad".

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
      one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
      -- An Israeli Linuxer
    • Nadav Har'El
      ... This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken to me... Is rape filling your own biological needs (and therefore good) or
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
        > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
        > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
        > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
        > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
        > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
        > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
        > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        >
        > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
        > == "bad".

        This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken
        to me...

        Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
        someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills your
        own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you stole
        from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed others
        more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and Roosvelt's
        campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological needs, and
        millions of Germans lost theirs?

        --
        Nadav Har'El | Friday, Mar 30 2007, 11 Nisan 5767
        nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
        Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled
        http://nadav.harel.org.il |up like that? What the ... - a fly.
      • Shlomi Fish
        ... Hi Nadav! Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and integratink what I m writing. kthx, bye. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Friday 30 March 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
          > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
          [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
          > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
          > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
          > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
          > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
          > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
          > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
          > >
          > >
          > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
          > > == "bad".
          >
          > This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely
          > broken to me...
          >
          > Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
          > someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills
          > your own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you
          > stole from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed
          > others more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and
          > Roosvelt's campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological
          > needs, and millions of Germans lost theirs?

          Hi Nadav!

          Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and
          integratink what I'm writing.

          kthx, bye.

          Regards,

          Shlomi Fish

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
          Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

          If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
          one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
          -- An Israeli Linuxer
        • Arik Baratz
          ... Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it s okay and you might agree. I don t. It s using subjective terms in a scientific definition. Nope, I
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
            > > Define "Evil"?
            >
            > Quoting my previous message:
            >
            > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
            > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
            > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
            > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
            > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
            > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
            > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            >
            > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
            > == "bad".

            Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
            might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
            definition. Nope, I don't buy it.

            -- Arik
          • Shlomi Fish
            ... Why? Show me the Proof!!! The burden of proof is on you. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il Homepage:
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 18 11:18 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
              > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
              > > > Define "Evil"?
              > >
              > > Quoting my previous message:
              > >
              > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
              > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
              > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
              > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
              > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
              > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
              > >
              > >
              > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
              > > == "bad".
              >
              > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
              > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
              > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
              >

              Why?

              Show me the Proof!!!

              The burden of proof is on you.

              Regards,

              Shlomi Fish

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
              Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

              If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
              one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
              -- An Israeli Linuxer
            • Nadav Har'El
              ... There are several problems with this definition, and I ll mention one below, but I have to admit it s not very fair that I disprove a definition based on
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 19 1:43 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                > > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                > > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                > > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                > > > == "bad".
                > >
                > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                > >
                >
                > Why?
                >
                > Show me the Proof!!!
                >
                > The burden of proof is on you.

                There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one below,
                but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a definition based
                on your very short and probably not entirely accurate explanation of it - I
                didn't like it when you did that to Kant and Kirkegaard after my explanations,
                and I probably shouldn't be doing this to Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I
                never read anything about "Neo-Tech" except what you said on this list.

                I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?

                Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his intentions).
                The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths (who are unable
                to understand the concept of other human beings having their own lives and
                wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in the eyes of its doer.

                If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care of
                their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and would
                claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros are so
                privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse off. He
                would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners would go
                bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is immoral
                because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.

                A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex. Does this make
                resisting being raped an immoral act? Is stealing food moral because a
                person needs to eat? Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place
                to sleep by charging money? And what about people's non-biological needs,
                like the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored,
                etc. - is it moral to violate these needs? For example, is it moral according
                to your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)? Can this defintion
                explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but not to
                "ordinary" people?


                --
                Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Apr 19 2007, 1 Iyyar 5767
                nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is
                http://nadav.harel.org.il |a fine for doing well.
              • Arik Baratz
                ... No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I don t. We don t have
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 20 1:22 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                  > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:

                  > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                  > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                  > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                  >
                  > Why?
                  >
                  > Show me the Proof!!!
                  >
                  > The burden of proof is on you.

                  No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                  this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                  don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                  different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                  -- Arik
                • Shlomi Fish
                  ... OK. ... Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60 million
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 20 11:46 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thursday 19 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                    > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
                    [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                    > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                    > > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                    > > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                    > > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and
                    > > > > moral (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is
                    > > > > consciously done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological
                    > > > > needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics
                    > > > > and neocheaters).
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context
                    > > > > "evil" == "bad".
                    > > >
                    > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                    > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                    > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                    > >
                    > > Why?
                    > >
                    > > Show me the Proof!!!
                    > >
                    > > The burden of proof is on you.
                    >
                    > There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one
                    > below, but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a
                    > definition based on your very short and probably not entirely accurate
                    > explanation of it - I didn't like it when you did that to Kant and
                    > Kirkegaard after my explanations, and I probably shouldn't be doing this to
                    > Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I never read anything about "Neo-Tech"
                    > except what you said on this list.
                    >

                    OK.

                    > I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                    > this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                    > other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                    > based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                    > (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?
                    >
                    > Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                    > a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                    > consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                    > sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his
                    > intentions). The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths
                    > (who are unable to understand the concept of other human beings having
                    > their own lives and wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in
                    > the eyes of its doer.

                    Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are
                    destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60
                    million of his own people, it was not for survival.

                    In any case, there are several ways to look at this definition. One way is to
                    say that the intention is irrelevant, and that any action that ends up as
                    fullfilling human biological needs is good and moral, while any action that
                    ends up detracting from human biological needs is bad and immoral.

                    >
                    > If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                    > slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care
                    > of their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and
                    > would claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros
                    > are so privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse
                    > off. He would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners
                    > would go bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is
                    > immoral because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.
                    >
                    > A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                    > itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                    > discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                    > obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex.

                    I don't think so. A person has a biological desire to have sex, but it's not a
                    need. A person can go on not having sex for decades on end.

                    > Does this
                    > make resisting being raped an immoral act?

                    No, because a person has a need for the completeness of his body. As such, he
                    or she has a right to resist being raped.

                    > Is stealing food moral because a
                    > person needs to eat?

                    It depends. By stealing you detract from the food owned by the other. However,
                    you might need to do that if you are being exploited (e.g: Robin Hood who
                    stole from the exploiters and gave to the exploited.).

                    > Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                    > because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place to
                    > sleep by charging money?



                    > And what about people's non-biological needs, like
                    > the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored, etc. -
                    > is it moral to violate these needs?

                    These all descend from the biological needs or otherwise are ammoral action.
                    If I insulted a person by accident, and made him unhappy, then I may have
                    caused him to be able to less focus on work, and thus detract from his
                    biological needs. However, this action is not unethical, and as such should
                    be legal:

                    http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage83.html

                    > For example, is it moral according to
                    > your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                    > biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)?

                    Well, that in turn will cause other people to have to support this (benevolent
                    I assume) person, instead of this person being able to support himself. So
                    it's immoral.

                    > Can this
                    > defintion explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but
                    > not to "ordinary" people?

                    Actually, according to Neo-Tech, prisons are not a good way of punishment, as
                    it is a huge strain on society to maintain all the prisoners.

                    Regards,

                    Shlomi Fish

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                    Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                    If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                    one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                    -- An Israeli Linuxer
                  • Shlomi Fish
                    Hi Arik! ... If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any reasoning. So you might have well not said it. Thanks for playing!
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 20 11:48 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Arik!

                      On Friday 20 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                      > On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                      > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                      > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                      > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                      > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                      > >
                      > > Why?
                      > >
                      > > Show me the Proof!!!
                      > >
                      > > The burden of proof is on you.
                      >
                      > No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                      > this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                      > don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                      > different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                      If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any
                      reasoning. So you might have well not said it.

                      Thanks for playing!

                      Regards,

                      Shlomi Fish

                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                      If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                      one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                      -- An Israeli Linuxer
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.