Who hear thinks..........

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not all versions of good and bad, as medical as physical is not the same as mental.

"mental health", is a thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is net well-being and suffering?

So if we kill you and use your organs to safe more than one life, we could increase well-being.

No.
It's funny that you first (incorrectly) yap about how I supposedly ignore mental well-being only to then disregard it yourself.

Living in a society where you can be killed to have your organs harnessed would be detrimental to well-being. Both of the individual as the society as a whole.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"mental health", is a thing.

Yeah, but it is not objective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct, it can't be observed as either good or bad.

So we shouldn't throw murderers in jail? They don't do anything wrong?
They aren't causing suffering?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.
It's funny that you first (incorrectly) yap about how I supposedly ignore mental well-being only to then disregard it yourself.

Living in a society where you can be killed to have your organs harnessed would be detrimental to well-being. Both of the individual as the society as a whole.

So what is net?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, but it is not objective.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, mental coaches, therapists, etc, disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So we shouldn't throw murderers in jail? They don't do anything wrong?
They aren't causing suffering?

You have to explain how you observe it. I don't observe it, I feel it. So if you don't feel it, but observe it, explain what it is you observe?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Psychologists, psychiatrists, mental coaches, therapists, etc, disagree.

Just explain how it is done objectively. I can do it subjectively. Now explain and not just claim how it is done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what is net?

Maximizing overall well being and decreasing overall suffering.

Meaning, that it's not moral to increase well-being of your own tribe at the expense of all others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have to explain how you observe it. I don't observe it, I feel it. So if you don't feel it, but observe it, explain what it is you observe?

So unless you are the one's who's personally hurt, you can't tell if others are hurt?
Is that what you are saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just explain how it is done objectively. I can do it subjectively. Now explain and not just claim how it is done.

You conclude it from the exhibited symptoms.

This is how you tell a depressed person from a happy person.

I feel for you if you are unable to see the difference between happy and sad.
Or between feeling fine and being in physical pain.

And frankly I'm not buying it for a second. You're just being obtuse again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So unless you are the one's who's personally hurt, you can't tell if others are hurt?
Is that what you are saying?

No, I use the subjective ability to use what is called theory of mind, that I have learned how people behave when they report being in pain and that I have empathy, and thus I can inferer that others are hurt.
That is how it is done. You can't observe hurt!!! It has no color, form, taste, sound or any other external sensory property. And it has no global sceintific measurement standard.

It is not objective. It is felt subjectively in a person and some other humans but not all can in effect subjectively infer that a person is hurt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You conclude it from the exhibited symptoms.

This is how you tell a depressed person from a happy person.

I feel for you if you are unable to see the difference between happy and sad.
Or between feeling fine and being in physical pain.

And frankly I'm not buying it for a second. You're just being obtuse again.

Look above.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You conclude it from the exhibited symptoms.

This is how you tell a depressed person from a happy person.

I feel for you if you are unable to see the difference between happy and sad.
Or between feeling fine and being in physical pain.

And frankly I'm not buying it for a second. You're just being obtuse again.

Here is some science for you:
"Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions."

Moral Emotions - Ethics Unwrapped

Moral Emotions are the feelings and intuitions--including shame, disgust, and empathy--that play a major role in most of the ethical judgments and decisions people make.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

I can find more if you need it. But just search yourself and figure out how it is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I use the subjective ability to use what is called theory of mind, that I have learned how people behave when they report being in pain and that I have empathy, and thus I can inferer that others are hurt.
That is how it is done. You can't observe hurt!!! It has no color, form, taste, sound or any other external sensory property. And it has no global sceintific measurement standard.

And yet we have painkillers.

You also seem to imply that unless you experienced it yourself, you can't infer it in others.

Sure, empathy plays a role in it. But that doesn't make recognizing suffering a matter of mere "opinion" - which is what it would be if it were just a matter of subjectivity.
Pain and suffering is a thing. An objective thing, discernable from fine, healthy, happy. Not just a matter of opinion.

Not having a "pain-o-meter" doesn't make suffering a matter of mere opinion.

It is not objective. It is felt subjectively in a person and some other humans but not all can in effect subjectively infer that a person is hurt.

Generally, it's psychopaths / sociopaths who seem unable to infer the suffering of others.
Incidently, these conditions mean that there is something wrong with those people. They are not a confirmation that suffering is just a matter of mere opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is some science for you:
"Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions."

Moral Emotions - Ethics Unwrapped

Moral Emotions are the feelings and intuitions--including shame, disgust, and empathy--that play a major role in most of the ethical judgments and decisions people make.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

What is your point?
Are you under the impression that I would deny the above?

I can find more if you need it.

For what purpose?

But just search yourself and figure out how it is subjective.

None of this makes the difference between well-being and suffering subjective (which is to say: a matter of mere opinion).



Your article deals with why people tend to act morally or immorally (or better said: with what they perceive to be moral or immoral)
It is not dealing with what makes an action moral or immoral.


Earlier I made the distinction between WHY to act morally and HOW to act morally.
Why be moral vs what it means to be moral.

These are not the same thing.


Another way of saying that is why prefer maximizing well-being vs not caring or worse: preferring to maximize suffering

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet we have painkillers.

You also seem to imply that unless you experienced it yourself, you can't infer it in others.

Sure, empathy plays a role in it. But that doesn't make recognizing suffering a matter of mere "opinion" - which is what it would be if it were just a matter of subjectivity.
Pain and suffering is a thing. An objective thing, discernable from fine, healthy, happy. Not just a matter of opinion.

Not having a "pain-o-meter" doesn't make suffering a matter of mere opinion.


Generally, it's psychopaths / sociopaths who seem unable to infer the suffering of others.
Incidently, these conditions mean that there is something wrong with those people. They are not a confirmation that suffering is just a matter of mere opinion.

Well, there are also blind persons and persons on the spectrum to consider.
Now what is your objective observable evidence for something being wrong with another person?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, there are also blind persons and persons on the spectrum to consider.
Now what is your objective observable evidence for something being wrong with another person?

Medical science as a whole would be a good start. That would include both physical as well as mental health, btw

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your point?
Are you under the impression that I would deny the above?



For what purpose?


None of this makes the difference between well-being and suffering subjective (which is to say: a matter of mere opinion).



Your article deals with why people tend to act morally or immorally (or better said: with what they perceive to be moral or immoral)
It is not dealing with what makes an action moral or immoral.


Earlier I made the distinction between WHY to act morally and HOW to act morally.
Why be moral vs what it means to be moral.

These are not the same thing.

Okay, so only with science as objective, why should you be moral?
And how do you act objectively as moral?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Medical science as a whole would be a good start. That would include both physical as well as mental health, btw

No, actual link as per wrong to a science site.