Vegetarian Discussion: Moral Impartiality

Moral Impartiality
Posts: 26

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-08-30 21:16:58 EST
Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
"better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
"better" without respect to any entity's interests.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/


Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.

Rupert
2013-08-31 02:00:58 EST
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:16:58 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
>
> "better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
>
> of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
>
> allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
>
> "better" without respect to any entity's interests.
>
>
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/
>
>
>
>
>
> Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.

My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means. It is based on the non-identity problem, which I have explained to you, and which you can also read about in Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons", Part IV, and on Google. For some reason you seem to be having trouble grasping it.

If I have made some kind of mistaken claim about what "impartiality" means then no doubt you can point out what it is.

George Plimpton
2013-08-31 11:24:26 EST
On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:16:58 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
>>
>> "better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
>>
>> of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
>>
>> allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
>>
>> "better" without respect to any entity's interests.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.
>
> My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means.

First, your claim is wrong. Second, you have *explicitly* offered the
"impartial-reason-implying sense" horseshit as your *reason* for
believing that something can be "better" without it being "better" for
*ANY* entity.

Your position is incoherent bullshit that reveals you don't know what
you're talking about. You are in far over your depth.


George Plimpton
2013-08-31 11:24:52 EST
On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:16:58 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
>>
>> "better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
>>
>> of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
>>
>> allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
>>
>> "better" without respect to any entity's interests.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.
>
> My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means. It is based on the non-identity problem, which

Which is more bullshit you don't understand.


Rupert
2013-08-31 11:29:19 EST
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:26 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:16:58 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
>
> >>
>
> >> "better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
>
> >>
>
> >> of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
>
> >>
>
> >> allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
>
> >>
>
> >> "better" without respect to any entity's interests.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.
>
> >
>
> > My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means.
>
>
>
> First, your claim is wrong.

Well, I've presented an argument for it, which you haven't engaged with in any meaningful way.

> Second, you have *explicitly* offered the
>
> "impartial-reason-implying sense" horseshit as your *reason* for
>
> believing that something can be "better" without it being "better" for
>
> *ANY* entity.
>

Oh, really? When did I do that?

>
>
> Your position is incoherent bullshit that reveals you don't know what
>
> you're talking about. You are in far over your depth.

You think you understand these things better than me, do you?

Rupert
2013-08-31 11:30:19 EST
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:52 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means. It is based on the non-identity problem, which
>
>
>
> Which is more bullshit you don't understand.

And what exactly led you to this conclusion?

George Plimpton
2013-08-31 11:45:13 EST
On 8/31/2013 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:26 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:16:58 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> Moral impartiality does not in any way mean that an outcome can be
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "better" without it being better *for* some entity. No careful reading
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of the long Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic could
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> allow a reasonable person to come away believing that an outcome can be
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "better" without respect to any entity's interests.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Rupert is simply wrong about what impartiality means and implies.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, your claim is wrong.
>
> Well, I've presented an argument for it, which you haven't engaged with in any meaningful way.

I have engaged with it as meaningfully as possible. It's a bullshit claim.


>
>> Second, you have *explicitly* offered the
>>
>> "impartial-reason-implying sense" horseshit as your *reason* for
>>
>> believing that something can be "better" without it being "better" for
>>
>> *ANY* entity.
>>
>
> Oh, really? When did I do that?

Me: Better for whom, or for what?

You: I think I've already made it clear in this thread that the
quotation doesn't reflect my current views. At the time I would
say I was using some kind of notion of "better in the impartial-
reason-implying sense" along the lines outlined in Derek Parfit's
book.


You deny that in order for something to be "better" it must be "better"
for *some* entity's interest. Then you say that "better in the
impartial-reason-implying sense" is the rationale for the denial.

You are wrong. You have understood *NEITHER* moral impartiality *NOR*
the so-called "non-identity problem."




>>
>> Your position is incoherent bullshit that reveals you don't know what
>>
>> you're talking about. You are in far over your depth.
>
> You think you understand these things better than me, do you?

It's obvious I understand them better than you. Also, you should have
written "understand these things better than *I*".


George Plimpton
2013-08-31 11:45:52 EST
On 8/31/2013 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:52 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/30/2013 11:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> My claim that it is possible for an outcome to be better without being better for any specific organism is not based on any particular view about what "impartiality" means. It is based on the non-identity problem, which
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is more bullshit you don't understand.
>
> And what exactly led you to this conclusion?

You and your incoherent bullshit.


Rupert
2013-08-31 12:07:07 EST
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:45:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/31/2013 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:26 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> I have engaged with it as meaningfully as possible. It's a bullshit claim.
>

I have no memory of your engaging with the non-identity problem in any meaningful way.

> >> Second, you have *explicitly* offered the
> >> "impartial-reason-implying sense" horseshit as your *reason* for
> >> believing that something can be "better" without it being "better" for
> >> *ANY* entity.
>
> > Oh, really? When did I do that?
>
> Me: Better for whom, or for what?
>
> You: I think I've already made it clear in this thread that the
> quotation doesn't reflect my current views. At the time I would
> say I was using some kind of notion of "better in the impartial-
> reason-implying sense" along the lines outlined in Derek Parfit's
> book.
>
> You deny that in order for something to be "better" it must be "better"
> for *some* entity's interest. Then you say that "better in the
> impartial-reason-implying sense" is the rationale for the denial.
>

No, I didn't. I never said any such thing, and this quote doesn't show me saying any such thing. The reason for the denial is the argument based on the non-identity problem.

> You are wrong. You have understood *NEITHER* moral impartiality *NOR*
> the so-called "non-identity problem."
>

Much joy may this belief bring you.

> >> Your position is incoherent bullshit that reveals you don't know what
> >> you're talking about. You are in far over your depth.
>
> > You think you understand these things better than me, do you?
>
> It's obvious I understand them better than you.

I really find that statement very amusing.

> Also, you should have
> written "understand these things better than *I*".

Thanks.

George Plimpton
2013-08-31 12:43:07 EST
On 8/31/2013 9:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:45:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/31/2013 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:24:26 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>> I have engaged with it as meaningfully as possible. It's a bullshit claim.
>>
>
> I have no memory of your engaging with the non-identity problem in any meaningful way.

You're a little young to be developing Alzheimer's or some other form of
dementia, but it can't be ruled out.

I explicitly told you that just because you can't *identify* the entity
for which some outcome is "better" doesn't mean there isn't *SOME* such
entity. In fact, *necessarily*, there is some such entity.

You have known all along, you sleazy fuck, that when I ask you "for whom
or what" some outcome is "better", I am not asking you to identify
specific, unique individual entities. In the example of your stupid and
puerile argument with Fuckwit, in which you have said it might be
"better" if some cattle or broiler chickens or some other livestock are
born and "get to experience life", and I asked you "better for whom or
what," I was not asking you to identify specific entities, and you know
it. I wanted you to identify a class or generalized group of entities.
You know this. But you insisted that it could be "better" without
being better for *any* entities at all, and to justify that claim, you
offered bullshit about "impartial-reason-implying sense."

Very clearly, you are confused about moral impartiality and identity.
Your answers absolutely show that you are.



>
>>>> Second, you have *explicitly* offered the
>>>> "impartial-reason-implying sense" horseshit as your *reason* for
>>>> believing that something can be "better" without it being "better" for
>>>> *ANY* entity.
>>
>>> Oh, really? When did I do that?
>>
>> Me: Better for whom, or for what?
>>
>> You: I think I've already made it clear in this thread that the
>> quotation doesn't reflect my current views. At the time I would
>> say I was using some kind of notion of "better in the impartial-
>> reason-implying sense" along the lines outlined in Derek Parfit's
>> book.
>>
>> You deny that in order for something to be "better" it must be "better"
>> for *some* entity's interest. Then you say that "better in the
>> impartial-reason-implying sense" is the rationale for the denial.
>>
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.


>> You are wrong. You have understood *NEITHER* moral impartiality *NOR*
>> the so-called "non-identity problem."
>>
>
> Much joy may this belief bring you.

It is a fact.


>>>> Your position is incoherent bullshit that reveals you don't know what
>>>> you're talking about. You are in far over your depth.
>>
>>> You think you understand these things better than me, do you?
>>
>> It's obvious I understand them better than you.
>
> I really find that statement very amusing.

Uh-huh - sure you do.

It happens to be true. You have an utterly sophomoric understanding of
them.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron