Blood upon the Risers: Droopy and Evil

[_stemelbow]

Perhaps DJ being much more intelligent then you piles

pep pep..

[_brade]

Hmmm, stak, I've been going through the argument and I'm not sure it does follow that Droopy’s ontology and attempted LDS themed theodicy will inevitably lead to the contradiction that a neutral act is both good and evil. Give me some more time to think this through. I'll post about it later.

Is it impossible to find oneself in the complete neutral realm? Either whatever you do is at least somewhat evil or is it somewhat good? Does it lean more to the good, even if it appears evil?

That's one possible way out of the argument - claim that there aren't any neutral acts. But then you've got to explain why acts that seem perfectly neutral (not bad or good) are actually bad or good. That's highly counterintuitive and I'm not sure it's an intuitive we ought to be willing to give up so easily. Also, you still need to address the vicious circle and tautology problems.

But, never mind all that, because what I'm saying is that I think there's a problem in the argument itself that would stop us from getting to any of its possible conclusions by way of that particular argument. I'll post about it as soon as I've checked it over. Maybe I'm wrong.

[_brade]

Actually, stak, when you get a chance, will you clarify for me what N is a stand in for? For G, from what you've said here

If Good, then not Good, on the surface, (P1) looks like a contradiction, but you should understand it just to mean that if something Good is taking place at location X, then something not Good is taking place at location Y. In Droopy‘s post, you need the not Good to be able to understand the Good.

if I were to simply assert G I would be asserting something like "something good is taking place at location X" or, perhaps, "there is at least one good act". Just to drop talk of locations and things, we might interpret G -> ~G as:

If there is at least one good act, then there is at least one not good act.

Or something like that. But to N. Should I understand N as I understand G? So, if I were to simply assert N would I be saying something like "there is at least one neutral act"?

[_stemelbow]

That's one possible way out of the argument - claim that there aren't any neutral acts. But then you've got to explain why acts that seem perfectly neutral (not bad or good) are actually bad or good. That's highly counterintuitive and I'm not sure it's an intuitive we ought to be willing to give up so easily. Also, you still need to address the vicious circle and tautology problems.

But, never mind all that, because what I'm saying is that I think there's a problem in the argument itself that would stop us from getting to any of its possible conclusions by way of that particular argument. I'll post about it as soon as I've checked it over. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm looking forward to it. I agree I don't think it'd be useful to try and argue that there is no neutral action, but its a possibility (a perfect balance between good and evil would be tough to maintain as possible too)

[_Darth J]

Perhaps DJ being much more intelligent then you piles

pep pep..

YOU are making fun of someone else misspelling a word?

You?

[_stemelbow]

YOU are making fun of someone else misspelling a word?

You?

No, you hostile goofball. I"m teasing him for boasting about your level of intelligence when he used the wrong word. Its ironic. Don't worry Themis can take a little razzing. He doesn't need you to make some fuss out of nothing in the big brother type of way.

[_Darth J]

So, do you believe there are no neutral acts?

nah...I just saw the OP and spotted a reference to DJ and thought I'd give a poke. I love how upset he gets. Sometimes I can't help myself.

Everyone already knew that it is in your nature to be a troll.

And you are most certainly upsetting me, Stemelbow. It's not at all that I find your unintentional campaign to remove the superfluous second "m" from "Mormon" to be like staring at a car accident, but funny. No, I must needs be upset, for the wicked take the words of the functionally illiterate---whoops, I meant righteous---as hard.

Your insistence that whatever Joseph Smith did, he was still a prophet (we're not a cult!) says pretty much everything that anyone needs to know about your metaethics.

[_Darth J]

YOU are making fun of someone else misspelling a word?

You?

No, you hostile goofball. I"m teasing him for boasting about your level of intelligence when he used the wrong word. Its ironic. Don't worry Themis can take a little razzing. He doesn't need you to make some fuss out of nothing in the big brother type of way.

Much like you frame everything in emotional terms, in a little sister type of way.

[_stemelbow]

Your insistence that whatever Joseph Smith did, he was still a prophet (we're not a cult!) says pretty much everything that anyone needs to know about your metaethics.

The most adorable part of your trollish game, DJ, is you continue to make up claims attribute them to me and whimper and whine about me for these strawmen. Oh yes, even the hostile can be adorable.

[_brade]

That's one possible way out of the argument - claim that there aren't any neutral acts. But then you've got to explain why acts that seem perfectly neutral (not bad or good) are actually bad or good. That's highly counterintuitive and I'm not sure it's an intuitive we ought to be willing to give up so easily. Also, you still need to address the vicious circle and tautology problems.

But, never mind all that, because what I'm saying is that I think there's a problem in the argument itself that would stop us from getting to any of its possible conclusions by way of that particular argument. I'll post about it as soon as I've checked it over. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm looking forward to it. I agree I don't think it'd be useful to try and argue that there is no neutral action, but its a possibility (a perfect balance between good and evil would be tough to maintain as possible too)

Ok, but so what? If it's not useful to argue that, or you sincerely don't think it's true, then, in a case like this, what does it matter that it's a possibility? It's a possibility that lots of very crazy and unintuitive things are true. There are possible worlds where I am at this moment riding a velociraptor to a chemistry class.