![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 95. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
that torturing a small child for fun is morally wrong?
or would i be better to say that i believe that torturing a small child for fun is morally wrong?
or would i be better to say that when people torture small children for fun then i feel sad in response?
how about...
the notion that some things are right / wrong
good / bad
just / unjusti mean... talking about specific acts here...
clearly it is controversial...
but how are we supposed to discuss these things?
or...
is the politics board just supposed to be about support.
in which case...
'yes i hear you. that makes sense. mmm hmm.'
what are we doing here?
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:46
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
i mean...
aside from being redirected off admin and social.
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:39:20
In reply to Re: what are we doing here?, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:46
i mean...
politics does tend to revert to namecalling and mudslinging (not on here but irl) even the politicians do that.
i do indeed have sympathy with raising the standard of the debate.
but i'm having a little trouble seeing how to debate too...
i'm having a little trouble.
help.
Posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 20:53:21
In reply to Re: what are we doing here?, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:39:20
yeah me too.
little help...
Posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:27:00
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
> or would i be better to say that when people torture small children for fun then i feel sad in response?
because the trouble is... that's just not right. i mean... not only because i'm having a little trouble naming the relevant emotion here...
but also because I REFUSE TO BE AN EMOTIVIST ABOUT ETHICS dammit.
see... emotivists think moral talk (talk of right / wrong; good / bad; should / shouldn't etc etc) is really just a way of expressing ones feelings of approval / disapproval. well that is an interesting theory but i do not believe it is true...
well... maybe on some theories of emotion but i don't think on mine :-P
so there.
Posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:29:51
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:27:00
and the more i go on the more my point gets lost...
but the trouble is that if you want to do that to ethics (translate it into expression of emotion) then you need a normative theory of emotion (what people should feel in response to various acts). and then... you are in danger of invalidating peoples emotions :-( and so... i don't like that. i'd rather say that ethics isn't dependent on emotion. controversial perhaps...
but i personally think that someone can act morally (actually act from morality rather than just acting in accordance with morality) even if they lack the requisite (on emotivist theories) emotional responses.
because otherwise...
what hope is there for peoples with emotional disorders???
wah!!!
Posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:35:52
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:29:51
sigh.
i think we should be allowed to critique a policy / theory / etc.
but we should have to provide REASONS for our claims. not just name call.
but then... maybe i just shouldn't try and talk politics on a mental health site.
i guess i'm having trouble with how this is supposed to go... with how this board is supposed to be going. you know... if things were just ticking along nicely and peoples weren't getting blocked.
what would people be talking about?
would they just be agreeing?
is there any way to really talk through disagreements on the board?
i'm having trouble with how to do that...
and if we can't... then :-(
:-(
dammit
:-(and 'agreeing to disagree'
sorry but... i do think that is a cop out.
i do.
and bayesian's agree...
though if people don't
i think i should be revising probabilities down...
(in which case i spy a paradox)
:-(
dammit
there has to be a contradiction lurking around here somewhere...:-(
Posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
Well it has been said here that torture is not a black and white case, so it isn't immediately clear to me why torturing children would be different. The smoking gun argument applies to them, and the torture may very well be milder in nature than it would have to be with an adult.
I apologise in advance for that. Look, I didn't realise that this board was for support. I assumed, because I only read the posts, that it was for discussing politics. Anyway can you answer my question above about the arguments in Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech. How can we discuss them here? I think the answer is that we can't and that we shouldn't try. Do you agree?
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on March 18, 2006, at 23:55:21
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
I got a "please be sensitive" for posting a link to the main page of The Progessive Magazine. I wonder if the NY Times would pass muster. So I'm not clear at all about what we're allowed to say.
Warm regards, Jake
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:19:40
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
> Well it has been said here that torture is not a black and white case...
right. it is the 'for fun' clause that is supposed to turn it into a black and white issue. i mean... if you had to choose between torturing one child and torturing 20 children then it is probably acceptable to torture one child. but in that case it isn't (or isn't solely) for fun - it is to prevent the torturing of an additional 19 children.
re: torture... depends on the cost / benefit analysis (perhaps - unless one is Kantian in which case re the children... you are screwed either way).
> Look, I didn't realise that this board was for support.
Ya. Silly me thought it might be for education / discussion...
> Anyway can you answer my question above about the arguments in Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech.
Not really because I don't know what you are talking about...
Sorry.
PS happy canberra day for tomorrow :-)
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:20:34
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by Jakeman on March 18, 2006, at 23:55:21
ya. most politicians are uncivil (gee i hope i'm not being uncivil in saying so)
but then...
so are the majority of clinicians.
sigh.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:21:34
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:20:34
and thus an interesting thought is how civil it is to post a link to an article (for informational purposes) that judges / accuses / puts down people with a certain dx like clinician's tend to do in their academic papers...
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 6:47:44
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:21:34
Dr Bob read this post and redirected it to Politics - its sitting in the archives only from a couple of months ago - and was deemed civil...
> The biggest reason pot won't be prescribed any time soon -- besides the idiot in office here in the states -- is that it's smoked...
>Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding pot being prescribed to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/594060.html
>Thanks,
>Bob
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051231/msgs/594063.html
>besides the idiot in office here in the states
Besides the word idiot, what other words can we use?
Racer, hope you don't mind me quoting your post, but it was already there in the archives anyway :-)
~
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).
I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?
I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently. And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.
I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.
Now that would be an interesting experiment. Take people who are either self defined, or defined by external factors, as either conservative or liberal. And give them questionnaires that are neutral and not leading, but designed to assess their views on various human traits, strengths, and weaknesses, as they believe the human race as a whole exhibits.
Of course, I also believe that most productive dialog begins with an acknowledgement of shared values and goals.
For example, a discussion on the criminal justice system that begins "I know that we all want policies that enable us to live in harmony with a maximum of respect for the rights of others, and a minimum of violence in our society. And I know that we have differences in how we believe that ideal is best achieved. Now, my belief is that those goals are best met by..... And I'm very interested in how you think the goals are best met, so I'll let you describe those yourself. We can study the evidence, and the probably contradictory studies. And perhaps we can each contribute something that the other can endorse. If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now." would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".
Sorry if that was uncivil Dr. Bob. I left the auto asterisking on and even spaced out the ... from the word.
Posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:27:00
> > or would i be better to say that when people torture small children for fun then i feel sad in response?
>
> because the trouble is... that's just not right. i mean... not only because i'm having a little trouble naming the relevant emotion here...
>
> but also because I REFUSE TO BE AN EMOTIVIST ABOUT ETHICS dammit.
>
> see... emotivists think moral talk (talk of right / wrong; good / bad; should / shouldn't etc etc) is really just a way of expressing ones feelings of approval / disapproval. well that is an interesting theory but i do not believe it is true...Here's where I fall into a well of confusion -- morality and ethics are culturally defined. So, saying that something *is* morally right or wrong runs the risk of offending someone whose cultural norms are different. And to make it so much more difficult, we're not always aware of how deeply we are acculturated to those moral structures.
I agree, saying, "Torturing small children for fun makes me sad" doesn't exactly satisfy what I would want to communicate, either. But I think there are ways to say it within the guidelines for civility on this site. I'm with Dinah, I think there's something between "that makes me sad" and "Jane you ignorant s**t" (<I put the asterisks in, since the autoasterisking didn't seem to want to...)
Politics is a hard topic to discuss. And as someone who gets rather heated about it, and does get very pigheaded about it, I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting. (I've got a request in to Dinah that I think she's forgotten, because I don't trust myself to walk that fine line between acceptable, and getting blocked for a year.)
On the other hand, part of me really appreciates the civility guidelines, because it forces me to think about how I express my views. If those guidelines weren't in place, I would blow up on a topic, and I'd be in trouble with other people here. Either I'd have hurt someone's feelings, or lost their respect, neither of which I would want to do.
So, it's a very mixed bag. Good and bad. It's what we've got, so we better learn to live with it -- until one of us starts our own politics board -- and it does have its up side.
And Sobriquet Style? I did cringe a bit over what I wrote, I can't believe that go through. But of course it's your right to link to it, because I did write it, even if it embarrasses me know. (which is different from saying that it's not my belief, of course...)
Posted by Declan on March 19, 2006, at 14:43:59
In reply to Your allowed to say..., posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 6:47:44
Tell me though, how can we convert that into an I statement?? The Administration has made me feel more stupid, or the Administration has made me feel more intelligent??
Declan
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 14:54:29
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
There was a period of time where I was actually being productive at work, and let my emails slide.
Could you ask me again?
I promise I didn't forget on purpose.
Posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:29:10
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
>>> Politics is a hard topic to discuss. And as someone who gets rather heated about it, and does get very pigheaded about it, I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting. (I've got a request in to Dinah that I think she's forgotten, because I don't trust myself to walk that fine line between acceptable, and getting blocked for a year.)<<<
strongly doubt your record is approaching a year in any way, shape or form....(archives show several PBCs in a three month period in 2005 followed by a one week block the next month) you'd have to work very hard to expand that week up to three, then nine then twenty seven and then your maximum of a year. just thought it prudent to counter the "year fear" block as highly likely for those not yet afoul of the civility rules.
if your record differed then perhaps a year time out would be possible..............as it stands now you'd really have to put forth much effort to rack up the PBCs and subsequent blocks.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:20:48
In reply to Re: I don't know... » Racer, posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:29:10
> as it stands now you'd really have to put forth much effort to rack up the PBCs and subsequent blocks.
((((zen))))
it is easier than it might seem to get blocks stacking up for lengthy periods of time.
i'm sorry you have been hurt :-(
Posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 17:26:53
In reply to Re: I don't know... » zenhussy, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:20:48
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09
> I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children.
yup. but... legality is different from morality... (it is illegal to drive on the right side of the road - but not immoral; it is immoral to lie (mostly) - but it is not illegal unless it is done in a court of law).
> Or that you do not endorse torturing small children.
but my claim was stronger than that... besides which: FOR FUN. that bit is really very important.
> Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured.
no... i don't think thats quite it either...
> Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
tag 'for fun' on the end of that and i think you will find... that that is pan-cultural. that is as close to universal as you are going to find (closer than incest would you believe). that is not to say it is universal in the sense that EVERYBODY explicitly believes it is morally wrong... but it is to say that the majority of individuals in every known culture believe it is wrong to torture an innocent child for fun. those who disagree... tend to be the individuals who we regard to be 'lacking' a moral sensibility...
> You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).torturing innocent children for fun is wrong is a moral fact.
see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable... but i think you will find that torturing an innocent child for fun is morally wrong is not something that is seriously debated...
> I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?
ah... interesting :-)
a 'shared ranking of values'... well... you would need to discuss values and the thought is that in discussing ranking of values... over time... rational people should converge. how do ya mean 'shared belief system about unprovables?'
there might be convergance in the belief that: 'there is .5 probability that phi is finite and a .5 probability that phi is infinite' (not that that is necessarily unprovable... but you get what i mean)
> I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently.well... don't you think the ranking of values could be something that rational people could converge on?
> And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.
right. and that is where everybody has something to offer :-) because these rational people who converge... the thought is they get there by sharing their initial knowledge and so they have the same starting base and then they reason from there...
> I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.hmm. but should be be optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature (or even the same ones)? that would be worth discussing... i guess there may be a difference between the ideal govt given real world constraints on the people who are currently in power (so someone might say taxes should be lowered because they believe current admin doesn't spend it widely) and the ideal govt (so there is no contradiction in that same person saying they believe taxes should be raised and spent on cleaning up the environment and health and welfare etc).
> If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now."yes.
> would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".
?
i don't do this... do i?
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:49:36
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
> Here's where I fall into a well of confusion -- morality and ethics are culturally defined.
? how do you mean?
> So, saying that something *is* morally right or wrong runs the risk of offending someone whose cultural norms are different.
depends on how abstractly you define the moral laws... lets take one version of utilitarianism as a candidate moral law 'it is morally right to do that which promotes happiness (or greatest utility) for the greatest number of people (or minimises harm for the greatest number of people).
that allows that in different societies / cultures... different acts will hurt and different acts will harm as a function from moral law to culture to mapping a moral tick of approval or moral cross of disapproval onto any token act.
i'm just saying that you can believe in universal moral laws... you can believe in moral facts... and you can be culturally sensitive at the same time.
besides which... there is such a thing as being too culturally sensitive - isn't there?
it was morally wrong for Hitler to attempt to annihilate the Jews.
Despite what he (and the Nazi's) may have thought at the time. It is true some people don't agree... But we tend to say they are lacking moral sensibility (or have come to believe some funny things in their background knowledge)
> I'm with Dinah, I think there's something between "that makes me sad" and "Jane you ignorant s**t"
Yeah, I agree with that too. But it is finding that middle ground. I'd like to try... And... I haven't been resorting to the latter - have I?
> ... I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting.
yeah. i think we need to work this out if this board is going to work...
> If those guidelines weren't in place, I would blow up on a topic, and I'd be in trouble with other people here. Either I'd have hurt someone's feelings, or lost their respect, neither of which I would want to do.
Yes. I don't want to hurt people either :-( But finding the middle ground is hard...
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 19:48:23
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
no, no. of course i wasn't being personal.
i was just commenting generally on civility in political discourse.
Posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 1:32:31
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 19:48:23
do i spy convergence???
'there must be a middle way'
:-)
maybe it is just about figuring it out a little more...
:-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2006, at 2:21:18
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
> I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
>
> DinahYes, or that you believe it would be immoral for you yourself to do whatever.
> see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable...
>
> special_kIf it's tricky, it might be best not to try it here...
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.