For me this scenario sums up the reason I starting all this self-improvement lark, i.e. I thought my options were limited to the girls I knew.

Anyway, to confront your scenario, I guess you would be back to the old caveman tribe mentality. You would be competing for the best girls available to carry your future generations forward, as would she.

K, whilst ethical dilemmas always prove convoluted it doesn't detract from the fact that they do in fact play out like that. Eg, you should not kill another person, but its ok in self defence etc.

Your argument isn't complete. To say "if you think something is wrong don't do it, don't associate with people who do it and don't assist anyone to do it" is underpinned by thinking something is wrong.

How do we arrive at thinking something is wrong? It is not through the experience of having that wrong done against us? Eg, I've been lied to andit wasn't nice. So it is doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves but with all the caveats and drawn out explanations that go with this basic principle.

I think we are saying the same things actually. No?

And SJ, in that example, no you would not get any pussy so avoid desert islands!!

Yeah, but would you feel bad about taking someone else's girl? Probably not. Maybe with the values that you have right now, but not after being on a desert island for a few years.

I said at the top that I wasn't going to get into that issue and I'm not. Well I might after this one is dealt with. so no my argumetn isn't incomplete you are broadening its scope beyond what it was designed to achieve.

You haven't answered or engaged with my argument about this particular principle so I'm not going to answer or engage with this response. You need to first deal with what I have put forward before introducing your own, potentially competing points (this is what I mean when I often say 'that is a non sequitur', proper philosophical argument has a structure part of that structure is you have to deal with what came before).

So it still stands that the principle you propose is terminally flawed.


Peace,

kowalski

I'm posting off my mobile can you quote the point I didn't address. x

The feeling is mutual

Yes.
I read it already. It is valid, it is good philosophy and it is relevant.
Good boy have three gold stars *** (OK they're yellow stars but enjoy them as if they were gold).

OK this is pretty much beyond what I wanted to discuss as it starts to get us into an extremely complex philosophical discussion and to do that we should really discard all this surface discussion and start at base principles. But seeing as I really like your example I'll throw something down.

NB: This is just me typing as it comes and not the usual pre-meditated stuff I like to write. So it may not be what I really think is going on, but fuck it I'll trust my intuitions and see how it goes.

Well it depends who you are. This is very similar to Kant's axe murderer example (for the record I'm not a Kant fan). I can't actually remember if he came up with it but it is most closely associated with him.

Basically, an axe murderer, complete with satanic grin and blood covered axe if you like, announces to you that he is going to axe murder one of your loved ones and asks you where they are. Do you tell the truth?

Well if your Kant you do, because you're a mental bastard, or more technically because he argues that all that matters is that you don't do wrong. if you do right, i.e. don't lie, then you have done the good and all is fine with you. You are morally good.

If you are not a mental like Kant but a normal person with normal moral intuitions you, naturally, lie to the axe murderer.

How does this work?
Most of our moral decisions are made 'on the fly', with minimal information about the situation and the potentially wide ranging effects of you (in)actions, and so we must trust our 'intuitions' and make a balanced judgement call based on what we know about the situation, what our moral beliefs are and how we think each outcome will make us feel.

So what's with all this philosophical jibber jabber?
well, when you are in the safety and comfort of your big leather philosopher's armchair you think about your feelings, thoughts, words and actions, and try to organise them into a consistent whole. This belief-set then forms most of the basis of your 'intuitions' on which you make judgement calls 'on the fly'.


Like nearly everything I've been thinking about since discovering this groovy little standard, it follows the basic process of performance, feedback, revision.

Back to you desert island thing: I think we already all know what we would do in that situation as genetic survival through replication is probably one of the base-est motivatins that there is. When faced with such a decision to either survive / reproduce or adhere to a social construct there wouldn't be any conflict in a rational and fully functioning human being.

Possibly ...


Peace,

kowalski

Well, all of my post that was in direct response to your post. I don't think any of it was properly addressed.

How about this though: Sometimes people write things on internet forums without a great deal of thought going in to the subject, then feel like they have to defend that point even if they are no longer so sure that it is right. Pretty much like may last post. I won't be defending much of what I wrote there as I just banged it out. So if someone demonstrates the naivety of it, I'll feel enlightened rather than defensive. Aka, let it go. we are largely talking at cross purposes. If you go back through my posts (not necessarily the ones that are predominantely replies like the SJ desert island / axe murderer one) you'll see that I set the limits of what I was arguing for and I stuck within them. Hence my stating my assumptions at the end of my argumetn to be clear what I was taking as given within the confines of the discussion, namely (in short) 1. lying is bad, 2. we want to be good. The argument is not incomplete, there is no argument for everything and there never will be (except maybe 'its all relative' which is just funny more than anything).

If you want to have a second discussion about what counts as good or bad, go ahead. I may or may not get involved.


Peace,

kowalski

Cool as K. Didn't want to short change you that's all. x

Kisses and hugs right back at ya!


Peace,

kowalski

You guys are getting me all misty eyed.