Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
And you, then, assume that since you wouldn’t know, no one could possibly do.
Moreover, you insist that everyone who thinks in more complex terms than just pleasure and pain is mistaken in their beliefs and really wants just pleasure and nothing but pleasure.
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully. Moreover, it’s not a matter of me not knowing, it’s a matter of someone who says “This is good even though it’s not pleasurable” doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification. They just are.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
Of course, I can’t say that I’ve read absolutely everything that has ever been written on the subject, but I’ve read enough to identify certain families of arguments, and find none of them persuasive.
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification.
True, but when you’re doing something instrumental, you should be sure that what you’re doing is justified by your terminal values, and people can be mistaken about whether what they do has the effects they prefer.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
I don’t believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
No insult intended. My skepticism means “I don’t believe you are as insane as you claim you are.”
You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”. FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”.
You aren’t set up. To the extent that it would be difficult to repute by counterexample I consider the lack of a counter-example to be overwhelmingly weak evidence. I’m not entitled to that particular proof.
FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
No reason and no capability. FWIW I do believe you might be inclined to self modifying into a being with your expressed preferences if given that opportunity.
And how do you know that?
Human range of emotional states is considerably more complicated than a single pain—pleasure axis.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
And you, then, assume that since you wouldn’t know, no one could possibly do.
Moreover, you insist that everyone who thinks in more complex terms than just pleasure and pain is mistaken in their beliefs and really wants just pleasure and nothing but pleasure.
Correct?
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully. Moreover, it’s not a matter of me not knowing, it’s a matter of someone who says “This is good even though it’s not pleasurable” doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification. They just are.
Of course, I can’t say that I’ve read absolutely everything that has ever been written on the subject, but I’ve read enough to identify certain families of arguments, and find none of them persuasive.
True, but when you’re doing something instrumental, you should be sure that what you’re doing is justified by your terminal values, and people can be mistaken about whether what they do has the effects they prefer.
I don’t believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
No insult intended. My skepticism means “I don’t believe you are as insane as you claim you are.”
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”. FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
You aren’t set up. To the extent that it would be difficult to repute by counterexample I consider the lack of a counter-example to be overwhelmingly weak evidence. I’m not entitled to that particular proof.
No reason and no capability. FWIW I do believe you might be inclined to self modifying into a being with your expressed preferences if given that opportunity.