What I find interesting here is that it's because it's popualar and every joe blow around has written an extension for it - unfortunately most of them aren't very good coders. Mathematically speaking, every other programmer is below average...
Their class libraries have become so utterly huge that it becomes damn near impossible for an individual developer to suitably grasp anything more than a small portion of them. Your implicit argument is that the class libraries for a language should be small enough to have "more than a small portion" "grasped" by the average (I assume) "individual developer." This argument is fundamentally flawed for several reasons:
You haven't shown that the language(s) in question don't already have core features and APIs that already allow you to develop what you need without using the extended APIs.
Your proposition of limiting the size of class libraries is an artificial limitation on the functionality that can be exposed in said libraries.
You haven't produced any arguments as to why it is necessary that the class libraries need to be small enough for an individual developer to grasp.
No one is forcing you to use the extended APIs (see bullet #1).
One basic reason large class libraries exist is because they make certain tasks much easier to accomplish rather than having thousands of "individual developers" reinvent the wheel. No one expects you to know the whole of the available APIs for a particular enterprise software language. And what about all the third-party libraries? But I'm sure you know a few websites where you can begin your search.
Perhaps more relevantly, in an enterprise software development environment, developers naturally have different areas of familiarity, both within the language's APIs and third-party APIs. On a team of professional programmers you can often find another developer who has worked in a particular area before and may be familiar with APIs that deal with that area.
Anyway, part of being a professional software developer, and just having a lifetime-learning attitude, is not letting your brain and skills grow stale. Rather than complain about the plethora of APIs from which you can freely pick if you so choose, why not celebrate the possibility of letting someone else making your life easier?
The polarization is caused by the broken voting system. We need something like the Condorcet method where you can actually express what you want, not what you are forced to vote for to make sure the other guy doesn't win: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Counties or states would have to adopt something along these lines first.
If something is a "societal norm," does that make it right? This only seems like it is begging the question if you are framing it in a culturally-relativistic moral framework. Instead, consider it as a question framed in the sense of moral realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism/).
Moral realism posits that there are objective moral truths. This is diametrically opposed to the basis of moral relativism.
But the main point is, how do you know we are not living in such a situation NOW? How do you know that people living 500 years from now will have same norms and sense of justice that we have now? In a framework based on moral realism, morality never changes, despite what society does or says, or how it changes over time.
My argument is that objective moral truth does exist, it is derived from the supernatural world, and moral relativism is incorrect.
In some situations what you are saying does work, as we know. But you're overlooking a serious problem: when two major groups of people disagree. I will use the classic example: the middle east. Who is to decide who is right? The conflict has been going on for thousands of years without resolution. But there is a more insidious problem with catering to the beliefs of the majority. For example, the Jews in 1942 Germany were in the moral minority. How would moral relativism resolve a situation like this? To use your words:
But unless they clash strongly with the beliefs of the majority, it is not commonly a problem. So when they do clash, how is the issue resolved? One side or the other must be wrong... right?
You're right. It's a poorly-worded way of saying that there is an abundance of philosophical research and arguments available for one, but not the other. I used the time component to emphasize the volume of material available in the case of the former. The amount of scholarly research weighs extremely heavily in favor of the former, making these two statements hardly comparable, in terms of legitimacy. For example: you would be hard-pressed to find anyone, I wager, who've devoted their lives to the study of the latter; because it is so obviously not serious. But this is just common sense.
These are some really insightful comments. Thanks.
Alternatively, God might not just be making up rules, but might simply be a far wiser, more intelligent philosopher than us - God is able to work out correctly what rules are best for us to live by, and tells us his findings. But if that's the source of God's rules, then we don't necessarily need God - we can, at least in principle, work out the same rules ourselves. I agree. In this case, we wouldn't need to listen to God because it presumes there is a higher "reference" for morality than God... and that he would be trying to figure out the same things we are. The only answer here that makes sense is that there is no higher moral authority than God and He defines what is good... which addresses your first question:
Even so, how do we know that what God says is good actually is good? In this case, we know only because God tells us declaratively that He is and defines what is good.
If God defines good, then that's objective all right but it's rather arbitrary. Let's refer back to the first scenario: where we suppose there is a higher authority on morality and goodness than God. But in this case, we would be questioning from where this moral authority has come, and how it was derived, and if in fact there was an even higher moral authority from whence it came. Or was it just random? The worst part, in fact, is that if the higher moral authority is not a personal entity (a "super-god," or what have you), then there is no way it can declare to us, authoritatively, that it is the ultimate definition, or definer, of what is good.
So you end up with an ad infinitum argument. It's "turtles all the way down."
That's why the definition of what is good terminates with God. He simply is good, declares himself to us as such, and defines for us what is moral. There is no arbitrariness since "the buck stops here."
What if God orders something we consider abhorrent? If God orders something that we consider abhorrent, but He is the definition of good, what does that make of our impressions about His rules?
Crude analogy: does a child find the putting-down of a lame horse abhorrent? What is the right thing to do for an animal in pain? What is more important: what the child wants, or what is good?
What if God changes the rules? What if God states that he is unchanging?
Looks to me like there are actually plenty of threads now, with interesting discourse from posters representing moral relativistism, atheism and agnosticism alike. You might want to join them...
...here is the big assumption you have: that there are moral universals. Spot on! Now we're getting somewhere.
If you assume that morality, or good and evil, are absolute and universal, then you could easily come to the conclusion that there must be a god-like absolute moral authority. Yes!
...morality is not universal. Rather it changes with the times and the culture. A.k.a. moral relativism.
It tends to be a majority understanding... A.k.a. cultural relativism.
It is my firm belief that probably most of the dissenters of my posit about spiritual authority in morality are moral relativists at heart.
Here is the problem with moral relativism: there is no true moral authority.
For example, you mentioned cultural relativism, where moral "correctness" is determined by the "majority understanding." You are arguing, then, that whatever is morally acceptable is determined by the common beliefs of a majority of a group of people. If a person acts inline with the beliefs of the majority then, they are behaving morally, and in fact, are pretty much obligated (as morals go!) to behave in accordance with the beliefs of the majority of the population. Am I understanding your argument correctly?
...what's the point of arguing with someone who insists on starting from an absurd premise? Ok, so I will assume that this is your argument: that it is absurd to consider a super-natural world, right? Do you have any explanation for why it would be absurd for a supernatural world to exist?
Looks like your position is somewhere around #411 on that list. While somewhat entertaining, we both can see it is simply a list of fallacious arguments. I'm not interested in childish name-calling and making fun of the person I am trying to engage in reasonable conversation.
That's why I'm not taking you seriously. My argument is simply thus, and I've stated it a few times now, I think:
A consistent and correct moral system cannot exist in a purely physical world. There is no universal moral authority in a purely physical world who can determine what is right and what is wrong.
Since you are so opposed to the concept of a spiritual world, let's take a different tack. For the sake of your argument, let us suppose there is no spiritual world. This sets aside your concerns of absurdity, yes?
Do you believe that in a purely physical world, that a moral system must be universal in order to be correct and consistent?
Well, I have been asking a lot of questions since my first post in this thread (which itself was a question that presented the same axiom: you can't have a moral world without spirituality).
Let us assume that there is no spiritual world from which to draw moral guidance.
This leaves the definitions of good and evil up to us? (feel free to elaborate here if you disagree)
I say A is good. You say A is not good.
Who is to choose who is right?
Without a higher moral authority to arbitrate the moral judgment, there is no way to determine who is right.
I(A) -> G U(~A) -> G
therefore I(A) == U(~A), which is a contradiction; so how can a moral system built only from ourselves be correct?
Not to mention the implied lack of moral authority. Who can authoritatively express moral universals in a purely physical world?
I've asked more questions. I'm not trying to spite your statement about my questioning nature. I'm just trying to understand why so many people believe morality can exist in a non-supernatural world.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying live.com doesn't?
You don't need to say 'NEXT X' since there is only one preceding for loop statement. 'NEXT' will do.
...so that we can actually have an intelligent debate on this subject.
You must be new here.
One basic reason large class libraries exist is because they make certain tasks much easier to accomplish rather than having thousands of "individual developers" reinvent the wheel. No one expects you to know the whole of the available APIs for a particular enterprise software language. And what about all the third-party libraries? But I'm sure you know a few websites where you can begin your search.
Perhaps more relevantly, in an enterprise software development environment, developers naturally have different areas of familiarity, both within the language's APIs and third-party APIs. On a team of professional programmers you can often find another developer who has worked in a particular area before and may be familiar with APIs that deal with that area.
Anyway, part of being a professional software developer, and just having a lifetime-learning attitude, is not letting your brain and skills grow stale. Rather than complain about the plethora of APIs from which you can freely pick if you so choose, why not celebrate the possibility of letting someone else making your life easier?
I wonder if they're doing this as a reaction to the practice of bookmarking Google documents.
Why isn't one of the tags for this article virtuallight?
Maybe he's driving a Canyonero.
The polarization is caused by the broken voting system. We need something like the Condorcet method where you can actually express what you want, not what you are forced to vote for to make sure the other guy doesn't win:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Counties or states would have to adopt something along these lines first.
Come on, it's obvious. Somebody ripped one and they had to surface immediately for fresh air. Stealth be damned.
Moral realism posits that there are objective moral truths. This is diametrically opposed to the basis of moral relativism. But the main point is, how do you know we are not living in such a situation NOW? How do you know that people living 500 years from now will have same norms and sense of justice that we have now? In a framework based on moral realism, morality never changes, despite what society does or says, or how it changes over time.
My argument is that objective moral truth does exist, it is derived from the supernatural world, and moral relativism is incorrect.
But there is a more insidious problem with catering to the beliefs of the majority. For example, the Jews in 1942 Germany were in the moral minority. How would moral relativism resolve a situation like this? To use your words: But unless they clash strongly with the beliefs of the majority, it is not commonly a problem. So when they do clash, how is the issue resolved? One side or the other must be wrong... right?
You're right. It's a poorly-worded way of saying that there is an abundance of philosophical research and arguments available for one, but not the other. I used the time component to emphasize the volume of material available in the case of the former. The amount of scholarly research weighs extremely heavily in favor of the former, making these two statements hardly comparable, in terms of legitimacy.
For example: you would be hard-pressed to find anyone, I wager, who've devoted their lives to the study of the latter; because it is so obviously not serious. But this is just common sense.
So you end up with an ad infinitum argument. It's "turtles all the way down."
That's why the definition of what is good terminates with God. He simply is good, declares himself to us as such, and defines for us what is moral. There is no arbitrariness since "the buck stops here." What if God orders something we consider abhorrent? If God orders something that we consider abhorrent, but He is the definition of good, what does that make of our impressions about His rules?
Crude analogy: does a child find the putting-down of a lame horse abhorrent? What is the right thing to do for an animal in pain? What is more important: what the child wants, or what is good? What if God changes the rules? What if God states that he is unchanging?
Looks to me like there are actually plenty of threads now, with interesting discourse from posters representing moral relativistism, atheism and agnosticism alike. You might want to join them...
Interesting. So if the majority of our population now agreed with the concept of slavery, you would then support the notion that slavery is moral?
How about if the majority of our population thought Jews should be put to death?
You are proposing that these were moral decisions, in the "right" place at the "right" time?
Understood. So if I say A is moral and you say ~A is moral, then who is right?
...here is the big assumption you have: that there are moral universals. Spot on! Now we're getting somewhere. If you assume that morality, or good and evil, are absolute and universal, then you could easily come to the conclusion that there must be a god-like absolute moral authority. Yes!
...morality is not universal. Rather it changes with the times and the culture. A.k.a. moral relativism. It tends to be a majority understanding... A.k.a. cultural relativism.It is my firm belief that probably most of the dissenters of my posit about spiritual authority in morality are moral relativists at heart.
Here is the problem with moral relativism: there is no true moral authority.
For example, you mentioned cultural relativism, where moral "correctness" is determined by the "majority understanding." You are arguing, then, that whatever is morally acceptable is determined by the common beliefs of a majority of a group of people. If a person acts inline with the beliefs of the majority then, they are behaving morally, and in fact, are pretty much obligated (as morals go!) to behave in accordance with the beliefs of the majority of the population. Am I understanding your argument correctly?
...what's the point of arguing with someone who insists on starting from an absurd premise? Ok, so I will assume that this is your argument: that it is absurd to consider a super-natural world, right? Do you have any explanation for why it would be absurd for a supernatural world to exist? Looks like your position is somewhere around #411 on that list. While somewhat entertaining, we both can see it is simply a list of fallacious arguments. I'm not interested in childish name-calling and making fun of the person I am trying to engage in reasonable conversation. That's why I'm not taking you seriously. My argument is simply thus, and I've stated it a few times now, I think:A consistent and correct moral system cannot exist in a purely physical world. There is no universal moral authority in a purely physical world who can determine what is right and what is wrong.
Since you are so opposed to the concept of a spiritual world, let's take a different tack. For the sake of your argument, let us suppose there is no spiritual world. This sets aside your concerns of absurdity, yes?
Do you believe that in a purely physical world, that a moral system must be universal in order to be correct and consistent?
Nor do I... so how about we reason about it?
I know that you are capable of a more well-formed argument than simple name-calling.
Am I being unreasonable?
Your argument assumes that a person does not have a component of the spiritual world as a part of their makeup, right?
So are you claiming that moral authority is derived from consent of the majority?
If something is a "societal norm," does that make it right?
Ok, but my question still holds. What if my sense of the good life is incompatible with yours? Whose good life takes precedence?
Well, I have been asking a lot of questions since my first post in this thread (which itself was a question that presented the same axiom: you can't have a moral world without spirituality).
Let us assume that there is no spiritual world from which to draw moral guidance.
This leaves the definitions of good and evil up to us? (feel free to elaborate here if you disagree)
I say A is good. You say A is not good.
Who is to choose who is right?
Without a higher moral authority to arbitrate the moral judgment, there is no way to determine who is right.
I(A) -> G
U(~A) -> G
therefore I(A) == U(~A), which is a contradiction; so how can a moral system built only from ourselves be correct?
Not to mention the implied lack of moral authority. Who can authoritatively express moral universals in a purely physical world?
I've asked more questions. I'm not trying to spite your statement about my questioning nature. I'm just trying to understand why so many people believe morality can exist in a non-supernatural world.