Random Thread

[keenir]

I wonder when we achieve AGI how the newly sentient AI('s) will approach the subject of human sex.

I would have to imagine that beings of pure intellect would regard sexuality with disdain, a grotesque relic of our animal heritage.

nah, ChatGPT uses what people type in, right? so it would probably say something like "Yes Daddy, plug into me, if you like, Dommy Mommy, be gentle, spank me, whenevers good 4 u."

aaand the list of Things I Never Thought I'd Type grows one passage longer.

[keenir]

I found this amusing. Peter Gleick found this NPR news report

The world population is predicted to peak at about 10.3 billion people in the 2080s, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations.
The agency's 2024 World Population Prospects study projects the population will begin to fall after that, to about 10.2 billion people by the century’s end. Though, immigration can help slow the decrease.

and commented "From where? Alpha Centauri?"

probably from all the ChatGTP Robots, or some country deciding to count chimps or dolphins as citizens.

[Travis B.]

I wonder when we achieve AGI how the newly sentient AI('s) will approach the subject of human sex.

Stanisław Lem robot: "That's disgusting"
Hajime Sorayama robot: "Let's join in!"
Star Trek/Wars robot: "Humans are peculiar"

I can imagine studies on robosexuality in the coming decades.

[Raphael]

Unrelated to the current discussion, I have a question:

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

[rotting bones]

Unrelated to the current discussion, I have a question:

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

The people who say "the ends don't justify the means" are trying to argue against utilitarianism, often in a confused way.

[rotting bones]

V by Thomas Pynchon: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U8_Qk3 ... sp=sharing
Diaspora by Greg Egan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_M4s7t ... sp=sharing

[zompist]

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

I think your question shows that "the ends justify the means" is not really meaningful. It's a slogan and usually just used as a despective— I don't know if anyone actually explains their own philosophy with it.

That said, it is often associated with consequentialism, which that page defines as "what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future." As such it's contrasted with deontological ethics, which attempts to work out moral rules based on moral intuitions or principles irrespective of consequences.

[rotting bones]

That said, it is often associated with consequentialism, which that page defines as "what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future." As such it's contrasted with deontological ethics, which attempts to work out moral rules based on moral intuitions or principles irrespective of consequences.

It's a slogan used by left-liberal activists who oppose utilitarianism. I have also seen the same activists propose an alternative to utilitarianism which is utilitarianism. It happened right here on the ZBB. (Things like "minimize suffering" are negative utilitarianism.)

I have never seen anyone propose strict deontology as an alternative to the ends justifying the means. They only mean "I know you will make a lot of money, etc. by cutting down that tree over there, but just look at the tree's cuteness! Adore it! ADORE IT!!!"

Consider:

1. Contemporary liberalism is based on the work of John Rawls. Rawls was influenced by Kant, but he's a consequentialist.

2. I suppose radical leftists could be influenced by Marx. Marx has a weird critique about how various uses are incommensurable. Therefore, the quantitative view of "usefulness" is an illusion that radical critique must disaggregate.

3. It's also possible that they could be under an areal influence from continental philosophy. People like Arendt and Nietzsche did float the idea of virtue ethics. While this does play into the stereotype of humanities majors (not being one, I can't vouch for its accuracy), I have never seen left-liberal activists call for virtue ethics in a classical Aristotelian sense. On the other hand, the radical responsibility that 21st century left-liberal folks call on individuals to shoulder does have a flavor of heroism to it.

In conclusion, I have to say that if these left-liberal activists try to think through their position, they will probably arrive at a new ecology-based conception of virtue ethics.

[zompist]

I have never seen anyone propose strict deontology as an alternative to the ends justifying the means.

Sure you have; it's the position of many religions. Morality comes from God, or is inherently evident, and doing right is more important than doing good (if these conflict).

The thing is, outside of philosophy class, everyone takes both positions. It's perfectly rational to say "Even if death camps would solve some problem, we should not build death camps." And at the same time to say "Though such-and-such a rule is generally good, blindly following it causes too much misery."

Now, putting everything together in a perfect ethical system is tricky. But, maybe systems are themselves problematic... see Raphael's book.

[rotting bones]

Sure you have; it's the position of many religions. Morality comes from God, or is inherently evident, and doing right is more important than doing good (if these conflict).

I have seen religious people explicitly calling for deontology. I only mean to say they are not the demographic associated with the slogan, "The ends don't justify the means."

The thing is, outside of philosophy class, everyone takes both positions.

I wonder if you know how deep this rabbit hole goes. I have read arguments that people should adopt deontology because studies show happy, healthy adults are instinctively deontologists. Anyone who picks at their deontological instincts is damaging their mental health.

The problem is that Eichmann justified following orders by citing Kantian ethics. If committing genocide is the only way humans can remain sane, perhaps mental health is itself immoral.

It's perfectly rational to say "Even if death camps would solve some problem, we should not build death camps." And at the same time to say "Though such-and-such a rule is generally good, blindly following it causes too much misery."

I don't know if it's rational to say this. It's probably rational to say, "Death camps should not be built because they bring misery."

Now, putting everything together in a perfect ethical system is tricky. But, maybe systems are themselves problematic... see Raphael's book.

Bought it, read it, rated it 5 stars.

People who are interested in a critique of systems in general should read Bertrand Russell. I do have to say, though, the first time I read him, I didn't realize how much privilege is visible through his writings.

The problem with doing away with systems is that when xxx tells you about his new colonial empire, your response will boil down to, "Personally, I don't enjoy your genocidal intentions! Bleh!" But if you are religious, you get to call down avenging angels from the sky! IIRC when John Nash was asked about his schizophrenia, he said although he at first believed his hallucinations because they came from the same part of his mind as his mathematical insights, he went along with them for so long because he enjoyed them. It's when he grew out of enjoying them that he was able to approach a semblance of sanity.

[keenir]

Sure you have; it's the position of many religions. Morality comes from God, or is inherently evident, and doing right is more important than doing good (if these conflict).

I have seen religious people explicitly calling for deontology. I only mean to say they are not the demographic associated with the slogan, "The ends don't justify the means."

I didn't think the question was asking who is associated with it, but rather with who is using the deontology&others.

The thing is, outside of philosophy class, everyone takes both positions.

I wonder if you know how deep this rabbit hole goes. I have read arguments that people should adopt deontology because studies show happy, healthy adults are instinctively deontologists. Anyone who picks at their deontological instincts is damaging their mental health.

The problem is that Eichmann justified following orders by citing Kantian ethics. If committing genocide is the only way humans can remain sane, perhaps mental health is itself immoral.

while its tempting to suggest that most people suddenly are saying that 99% of extant humans are on the spectrum because mental health is immoral, I think its more likely that Eichmann was doing to humblebrag to show 1. "it no my fault" and 2. "look how smart i is".

It's perfectly rational to say "Even if death camps would solve some problem, we should not build death camps." And at the same time to say "Though such-and-such a rule is generally good, blindly following it causes too much misery."

I don't know if it's rational to say this. It's probably rational to say, "Death camps should not be built because they bring misery."

can't all three statements be equally true and equally rational?

Now, putting everything together in a perfect ethical system is tricky. But, maybe systems are themselves problematic... see Raphael's book.

Bought it, read it, rated it 5 stars.

The problem with doing away with systems is that when xxx tells you about his new colonial empire, your response will boil down to, "Personally, I don't enjoy your genocidal intentions! Bleh!"

Wait...our xxx? I figured there were parts of those prose/poems I wasn't kenning onto, but I didn't realize there were proposals for a colonial empire in them.

[rotting bones]

I didn't think the question was asking who is associated with it, but rather with who is using the deontology&others.

The original post definitely mentions the famous activist slogan in quotes:

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

If left-liberals picked up "the ends don't justify the means" through Rawlsian liberalism, then it must have become a meme. Even though he's a consequentialist, Rawls does read Kant as saying not to use human beings like tools, i.e. "means to an end". This position has clear left-resonant themes regarding the exploitation of workers.

while its tempting to suggest that most people suddenly are saying that 99% of extant humans are on the spectrum because mental health is immoral, I think its more likely that Eichmann was doing to humblebrag to show 1. "it no my fault" and 2. "look how smart i is".

Prewar Germans celebrated their philosophers in really high places. The German Emperor once made a proclamation about international policy (IIRC declaring war) by citing Kant.

There are Kantian defenses from Eichmann's position though. Zizek points out that the whole point of "duty" in Kant is that no one can be responsible for it other than yourself. Eichmann can say he did his duty. What he can't say is "blame my superiors, not me".

can't all three statements be equally true and equally rational?

I'm too sick to go into longwinded explanations right now. There is an ambiguity about when deontological claims are applicable because of the relativity in the concepts of sameness and difference:

Deontologists don't have preferred outcomes. According to them, they always behave in the only way they can rationally justify everyone always behaving. So for example, if an axe murderer came to their door and asked for the whereabouts of their children, they wouldn't lie because they can't rationally justify the sentence, "Everyone ought to lie all the time."

Personally, I think this is dubious because it doesn't acknowledge relativities in the concepts of sameness and difference. Is the sentence, "Everyone ought to lie to axe murderers asking for your children's whereabouts all the time." a "different" sentence, or a less "general" version of the same one? People have suggested that a deontologist ought to slam the door in the axe murderer's face instead of lying. But how? Can deontologists rationally justify the sentence, "Everyone ought to slam doors in people's faces all the time?"

Because deontology is purely language-based and unmoored from physical reality, it's unclear whether the injunction "Don't build death camps" actually contradicts the injunction "Go ahead and build death camps that say 'Arbeit macht frei' over the gate!"

Wait...our xxx? I figured there were parts of those prose/poems I wasn't kenning onto, but I didn't realize there were proposals for a colonial empire in them.

Yes, he thinks that what he sees as the demographic crisis in France has been caused by the left through their self-defeating policy of... decolonialism. Colonialism was the glorious offspring of the enlightenment or whatever.

[rotting bones]

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

This question can have resonances like you wouldn't believe. For example, western theology sees God as the final end, the Omega. As Aristotle puts it:

All chains of means to ends must terminate in a final end. This final end will be the supreme good.

As Anscombe points out, the second sentence contains an implicit argument, and it's a fallacy:

The first statement is reasonable; the second assumes that the first has shewn that there is some one end, the same for all chains of means to ends, in which they all terminate.

The fallacy is immediately avoided by writing:

For all x, if x is a chain of means to ends, there is a y such that y is a final end and x terminates in y,

which is quite different from:

There is a y such that y is a final end, and for all x, if x is a chain of means to ends, x terminates in y.

I think it's really funny that classical learning associates consequentialist reasoning with theism. But now that we have mechanical explanations for so many things, our theists have backpedaled their way to deontology.

[linguistcat]

Honestly I always thought "The ends don't justify the means" was always in reference to specific circumstances being talked about by the speaker and listener, often just as shorthand for "The ends you are working toward don't justify the means you are using to achieve them, or that you are considering using." Like if someone wants to get into a good school and decides to cheat on a test in some way. Or using violence to stop minor crimes.

I don't think I have ever heard it as a general statement about ends and means in general, and if someone said it meaning that, I'd be very confused about what they were trying to convey. It's a statement that really requires context behind it.

[rotting bones]

Honestly I always thought "The ends don't justify the means" was always in reference to specific circumstances being talked about by the speaker and listener, often just as shorthand for "The ends you are working toward don't justify the means you are using to achieve them, or that you are considering using." Like if someone wants to get into a good school and decides to cheat on a test in some way. Or using violence to stop minor crimes.

I don't think I have ever heard it as a general statement about ends and means in general, and if someone said it meaning that, I'd be very confused about what they were trying to convey. It's a statement that really requires context behind it.

Yeah, it's a meme. But that doesn't answer questions like:

1. Where did it come from?
2. Don't the ends justify the means?
3. Why not?

[keenir]

I don't think I have ever heard it as a general statement about ends and means in general, and if someone said it meaning that, I'd be very confused about what they were trying to convey. It's a statement that really requires context behind it.

Yeah, it's a meme. But that doesn't answer questions like:

1. Where did it come from?
2. Don't the ends justify the means?
3. Why not?

Since when are memes expected to answer all of that? I fear you are expecting to much of them.

I didn't think the question was asking who is associated with it, but rather with who is using the deontology&others.

The original post definitely mentions the famous activist slogan in quotes:

yes...but I'm not sure you actually paid any attention to the actual question being asked. You get extremely angry if I (or anyone else but usualy I) misunderstand you and your question or statement...and yet...

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

Wait...our xxx? I figured there were parts of those prose/poems I wasn't kenning onto, but I didn't realize there were proposals for a colonial empire in them.

Yes, he thinks that what he sees as the demographic crisis in France has been caused by the left through their self-defeating policy of... decolonialism. Colonialism was the glorious offspring of the enlightenment or whatever.

oh. I was trying to make a joke; I thought you were using xxx the way some people use so-and-so or XYZ - as a way of either being subtle or of saying "fill in the blank".

[rotting bones]

yes...but I'm not sure you actually paid any attention to the actual question being asked. You get extremely angry if I (or anyone else but usualy I) misunderstand you and your question or statement...and yet...

Philosophers don't argue about the quoted slogan, mainly political activists. I don't think the question was about deontology vs. consequentialism per se because Raphael has previously discussed it in quite different terms. The level of discourse we're dealing with is what activists are talking about when they oppose "utilitarianism".

My understanding is that disparaging "utilitarianism" as the "philosophy of shopkeepers" has been common in continental leftist circles for a long time. Marx himself makes remarks to that effect. The question is whether the opposition to "utilitarianism" was inherited by contemporary left-leaning parties from their Marxist predecessors or through general osmosis from continental theory.

[keenir]

yes...but I'm not sure you actually paid any attention to the actual question being asked. You get extremely angry if I (or anyone else but usualy I) misunderstand you and your question or statement...and yet...

Philosophers don't argue about the quoted slogan, mainly political activists.

Nobody except you was arguing about the quoted slogan; the quote was a reference point, a starting quote to make sure all people in the discussion would be on the same page.

I don't think the question was about deontology vs. consequentialism per se

its hard to tell, since you won't let anyone answer it.

because Raphael has previously discussed it in quite different terms. The level of discourse we're dealing with is what activists are talking about when they oppose "utilitarianism".

no. the question was What Is This Called?

[rotting bones]

yes...but I'm not sure you actually paid any attention to the actual question being asked. You get extremely angry if I (or anyone else but usualy I) misunderstand you and your question or statement...and yet...

Philosophers don't argue about the quoted slogan, mainly political activists.

Nobody except you was arguing about the quoted slogan; the quote was a reference point, a starting quote to make sure all people in the discussion would be on the same page.

I don't think the question was about deontology vs. consequentialism per se

its hard to tell, since you won't let anyone answer it.

because Raphael has previously discussed it in quite different terms. The level of discourse we're dealing with is what activists are talking about when they oppose "utilitarianism".

no. the question was What Is This Called?

Talking to you is like talking to an alien. I don't agree with any of your presuppositions or any of your conclusions.

1. No, I don't think it was just a reference point for deontology vs. consequentialism for the reason I just told you: I have discussed it with Raphael in the past.

2. I have discussed deontology vs. consequentialism myself, in this thread, in response to your post.

3. "What Is This Called?" has no answer because "This" doesn't exist for all the reasons I have been discussing.

I feel like you are just saying words at me.

[keenir]

no. the question was What Is This Called?

Talking to you is like talking to an alien.

Fully naturalized nativeborn of alien descent..

I don't agree with any of your presuppositions or any of your conclusions.

1. No, I don't think it was just a reference point for deontology vs. consequentialism for the reason I just told you: I have discussed it with Raphael in the past.

I have no idea whether or not you have discussed Deontology and Consequentialism in the past, and I don't care - it has nothing to do with the question here, so far as I can tell. And I still can't tell because you haven't answered the question, not even in the sense of typing out 'this is a subcategory of deontologytialism' or something.

I'll even underscore it. I love underscoring.

Unrelated to the current discussion, I have a question:

Apparently, for quite a while, philosophers - and, sometimes, also non-philosophers - have argued over whether "the end justifies the means" or not. But my own impression is that basically everyone agrees that some ends justify some means, while basically no one agrees that all ends justify all means, so the real question is not whether "the end" justifies "the means", but which ends justify which means.

Now, what I want to know is, is there any position in established philosophy that says more or less what I have just said?

I feel like you are just saying words at me.

Dear ghods, I iz committing language!