Two players, friend and his now ex girlfriend, just had a falling out.

[SowZ]

And yet, as you said, you can't understand beliefs. Basically, you're being a hypocrite here - either you have to accept that you can't actually understand my beliefs or SowZ's beliefs and must admit that it is possible that we think as we claim that we do, or you have to accept that it is actually possible to understand someone's beliefs (and then claim that you understand our beliefs better than we do, which is a stretch). You can't have it both ways.

Basically your statement, as it stands, is equivalent to conceding the debate about whether it is possible to understand the beliefs of another.

Yeah, your position seems logically equivalent to being a moral relativist that claims absolute moralists are wrong. Which you earlier criticized.

[AMFV]

But being straight edge doesn't necessitate thinking that people who drink caffeine or alcohol are bad people. Being anti-war doesn't necessitate thinking soldiers are bad people. Being vegetarian doesn't necessitate thinking meat eaters are bad people. I am sensing an inability to remove bad actions from bad people. What it truly takes to be a bad person is going to be a different line for everybody and very few people draw that line at, 'people who have different beliefs than I do.'

Well where do you draw the line? I mean my beliefs inform everything I do, if treating people equally is your metric, then I'm a terrible person, I don't even try to do that, not even a little bit. I actually try to do the opposite. So if that's your metric I'm a terrible person, absolutely immoral. My advice to the OP in this thread, would be confusing and immoral to a person that believed that.

If you were a pacifist, and I advised using violent means or threats to achieve an objective, then that would be immoral to you, and by definition make me immoral because I believe that this a morally good action.


And yet, as you said, you can't understand beliefs. Basically, you're being a hypocrite here - either you have to accept that you can't actually understand my beliefs or SowZ's beliefs and must admit that it is possible that we think as we claim that we do, or you have to accept that it is actually possible to understand someone's beliefs (and then claim that you understand our beliefs better than we do, which is a stretch). You can't have it both ways.

Basically your statement, as it stands, is equivalent to conceding the debate about whether it is possible to understand the beliefs of another.

For your statements to be correct, your beliefs cannot be beliefs at all. If you don't think that the things you believe are true, then they aren't beliefs, now theoretically you could have no beliefs, but if you don't believe that your opinions then they aren't beliefs. That's the problem. You're not saying, "I'm a moral relativist, so there are no absolute morals," you're saying "I'm a moral relativist, but ... maybe absolute morals," and that's the position of a moral relativist, that's not a belief at all, that's at best a supposition. For it to be a belief you have to espouse its tenants.

I'm saying that you can't have a position and then simultaneously hold the other position, that's not contradictory to the statement, that you can't understand somebody who holds the other position, I'm saying by your statement you don't have a position at all. Which is fine, but then I'd wager you can't really understand people that do. There are people who believe that Chocolate is always superior to Vanilla and those who prefer Vanilla are defective, I wager you can't understand them. Because your opinion isn't really a belief, it's a non-belief, so saying that I'm claiming that I understand your belief is twisting my words considerably.

I'm saying that you have to have a belief first, before you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical.

Edit: I thought of an even better example set, Mac vs. PC, Linux vs. Windows, and XBOX vs. PS4. Yes, these are preferences but you can find people that believe that people that would make the other choices are seriously misinformed and ignorant on either side, now you could be wishy-washy and not claim a side, but then I'd wager that you don't understand the people that do militantly claim a side.


Yeah, your position seems logically equivalent to being a moral relativist that claims absolute moralists are wrong. Which you earlier criticized.

I'm not not a moral relativist, and I don't believe that its possible to understand the beliefs of others, but that doesn't mean that their actions aren't informed by their beliefs.

Further edit: Also on the people with different baselines are likely to judge people, I've been accused of having a hypocritical position and being neurotic in the same set of a page, so I'm pretty sure that counts.

[SowZ]

Well where do you draw the line? I mean my beliefs inform everything I do, if treating people equally is your metric, then I'm a terrible person, I don't even try to do that, not even a little bit. I actually try to do the opposite. So if that's your metric I'm a terrible person, absolutely immoral. My advice to the OP in this thread, would be confusing and immoral to a person that believed that.

If you were a pacifist, and I advised using violent means or threats to achieve an objective, then that would be immoral to you, and by definition make me immoral because I believe that this a morally good action.



For your statements to be correct, your beliefs cannot be beliefs at all. If you don't think that the things you believe are true, then they aren't beliefs, now theoretically you could have no beliefs, but if you don't believe that your opinions then they aren't beliefs. That's the problem. You're not saying, "I'm a moral relativist, so there are no absolute morals," you're saying "I'm a moral relativist, but ... maybe absolute morals," and that's the position of a moral relativist, that's not a belief at all, that's at best a supposition. For it to be a belief you have to espouse its tenants.

I'm saying that you can't have a position and then simultaneously hold the other position, that's not contradictory to the statement, that you can't understand somebody who holds the other position, I'm saying by your statement you don't have a position at all. Which is fine, but then I'd wager you can't really understand people that do. There are people who believe that Chocolate is always superior to Vanilla and those who prefer Vanilla are defective, I wager you can't understand them. Because your opinion isn't really a belief, it's a non-belief, so saying that I'm claiming that I understand your belief is twisting my words considerably.

I'm saying that you have to have a belief first, before you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical.



I'm not not a moral relativist, and I don't believe that its possible to understand the beliefs of others, but that doesn't mean that their actions aren't informed by their beliefs.

But all the implications that you claim are logical imperatives that come from having a belief I don't see as imperatives. A lot of the contradictions you see in having an opinion yet accepting other opinions as valid I don't see as contradictions. You are claiming that I must see them or else I don't have actual beliefs. That seems to conflict with your own statements about understanding being impossible.

I can tell you where my line isn't, and that is that everyone who disagrees with me must be a bad person. I will try not to judge you much, but if I do, it is going to be based on how kind you are to people. Honesty will play a role, too, as will trying to be good to those you care about. I care a lot less your opinions on people and life and such, and more on how you end up treating people.

You can come to the conclusion through religion that you should help people as much as you can. I'll respect that. I'm religious myself. You can also use religion as an excuse to say that some higher power will sort out justice and such and you have no obligation to be helpful or nice to people. You can be a nihilist and use that as an excuse to be an awful, selfish jerk. Or you can use Nihilism to shrug and say, "Well, I may as well help that guy, nothing else will." Which I don't agree with, but if it causes him to be kind to people I'd view him more fondly than someone who shares my religious beliefs but acts hateful or indifferent.

[AMFV]

But all the implications that you claim are logical imperatives that come from having a belief I don't see as imperatives. A lot of the contradictions you see in having an opinion yet accepting other opinions as valid I don't see as contradictions. You are claiming that I must see them or else I don't have actual beliefs. That seems to conflict with your own statements about understanding being impossible.

Then we're discussing different definitions of belief. For something to be a belief to me, that means that you believe it is correct, which logically that other things cannot be equally correct. So either you have an illogical idea regarding belief itself, or you have no real beliefs. You can't logically hold two contradictory positions, that's insane, I mean I'm fairly sure that is actually insane.

In this case logic is fairly simple, you can't believe the Mac is a superior machine and also believe that PC is the superior platform, of course there are other perspectives further down the spectrum but those can't quite understand the extreme positions either.

Edit: For the positions in greater analysis.

If you have position 1, "Mac is always best", position 2, "PC is always best," then your options are logically both are wrong, position 1 is right, or position 2 is right, they can't both right, they could both be wrong, and if you're in the middle ground then both absolute positions have to be wrong, logically.



I can tell you where my line isn't, and that is that everyone who disagrees with me must be a bad person. I will try not to judge you much, but if I do, it is going to be based on how kind you are to people. Honesty will play a role, too, as will trying to be good to those you care about. I care a lot less your opinions on people and life and such, and more on how you end up treating people.

I didn't say everybody who disagrees with me is a bad person, I said that disagreeing on moral grounds particular with those in respect to how you act, does inform your moral condition, otherwise you're either lying about your moral stance, or you're violating your own moral precepts. Which people do from time on both counts. But it seems reasonable to assert that people will behave in a manner they believe to be moral, even that is not perceived as moral by others.



You can come to the conclusion through religion that you should help people as much as you can. I'll respect that. I'm religious myself. You can also use religion as an excuse to say that some higher power will sort out justice and such and you have no obligation to be helpful or nice to people. You can be a nihilist and use that as an excuse to be an awful, selfish jerk. Or you can use Nihilism to shrug and say, "Well, I may as well help that guy, nothing else will." Which I don't agree with, but if it causes him to be kind to people I'd view him more fondly than someone who shares my religious beliefs but acts hateful or indifferent.

Then the nihilist and you have a similar moral end point, but different methods for reaching it. That is also a possible thing, you can have the same point as others, or reach the same conclusion from a different starting point, although that's not always a logical point. The point being that people that believe that they should hate or indifference because of their religious, don't share your beliefs, they share some stated beliefs but they don't share the same belief system as you do in this case.

[SowZ]

Then we're discussing different definitions of belief. For something to be a belief to me, that means that you believe it is correct, which logically that other things cannot be equally correct. So either you have an illogical idea regarding belief itself, or you have no real beliefs. You can't logically hold two contradictory positions, that's insane, I mean I'm fairly sure that is actually insane.

In this case logic is fairly simple, you can't believe the Mac is a superior machine and also believe that PC is the superior platform, of course there are other perspectives further down the spectrum but those can't quite understand the extreme positions either.

Edit: For the positions in greater analysis.

If you have position 1, "Mac is always best", position 2, "PC is always best," then your options are logically both are wrong, position 1 is right, or position 2 is right, they can't both right, they could both be wrong, and if you're in the middle ground then both absolute positions have to be wrong, logically.



I didn't say everybody who disagrees with me is a bad person, I said that disagreeing on moral grounds particular with those in respect to how you act, does inform your moral condition, otherwise you're either lying about your moral stance, or you're violating your own moral precepts. Which people do from time on both counts. But it seems reasonable to assert that people will behave in a manner they believe to be moral, even that is not perceived as moral by others.



Then the nihilist and you have a similar moral end point, but different methods for reaching it. That is also a possible thing, you can have the same point as others, or reach the same conclusion from a different starting point, although that's not always a logical point. The point being that people that believe that they should hate or indifference because of their religious, don't share your beliefs, they share some stated beliefs but they don't share the same belief system as you do in this case.

People often act in opposition to stated beliefs, though. Some people claim to be cold and heartless or that selfish ambition is the only way to live, but when push comes to shove will do the right thing when pressed. Others claim to be all about love and kindness, yet act cruel more often then kind.

I'd prefer someone who claimed to be a jerk, but wasn't, over someone who claimed to be compassionate, but wasn't. To quote an old parable, "A father asks his son to go work in the vineyard. He refuses, but later does it anyway. He asks his second son the same and the son says, 'I will.' But doesn't. Who did what his father asked?"

In this case, I am judging someone purely for their actions, not their beliefs.



As for the nature of opinions, I can believe that the Mac is probably the best machine, but I'm not sure. Honestly, this is how I would present almost all of my opinions if I was being precise. I don't say, "Maybe," in front of every sentence for expediencies sake, but you can basically fill in a probably or maybe periodically throughout my statements and you'll get a clearer picture.

[AMFV]

People often act in opposition to stated beliefs, though. Some people claim to be cold and heartless or that selfish ambition is the only way to live, but when push comes to shove will do the right thing when pressed. Others claim to be all about love and kindness, yet act cruel more often then kind.

I'd prefer someone who claimed to be a jerk, but wasn't, over someone who claimed to be compassionate, but wasn't. To quote an old parable, "A father asks his son to go work in the vineyard. He refuses, but later does it anyway. He asks his second son the same and the son says, 'I will.' But doesn't. Who did what his father asked?"

In this case, I am judging someone purely for their actions, not their beliefs.


Well stated beliefs and actual beliefs are different, I personally think poorly of somebody that doesn't follow their stated beliefs even if I am opposed to those particular beliefs, I don't mind if somebody changes their stated beliefs, but following ones beliefs is important.

I would say you're still judging based on beliefs, since actions are based on belief, but you're not judging on words, which is a different thing altogether.



As for the nature of opinions, I can believe that the Mac is probably the best machine, but I'm not sure. Honestly, this is how I would present almost all of my opinions if I was being precise. I don't say, "Maybe," in front of every sentence for expediencies sake, but you can basically fill in a probably or maybe periodically throughout my statements and you'll get a clearer picture.

Then you believe that all evidence points towards Mac being a superior machine, and you'd disagree with people that suggested that PC was. Your statement indicates that you don't have a strong belief, but that's still a belief and it is incompatible with people that believe PCs are better, you might think that they prefer PC over Mac, even though it's an inferior choice, but if you have that stated belief, you have to believe its an inferior choice, or you don't have that belief.

Adding a qualifier doesn't make it not a belief, however, there is a variety of different cases here. If when you say Mac is probably the best machine, you could be stating that in all cases it will generally perform better. Then you're stating that Mac is the best machine is true, but not a position you feel very strongly about. If you believe that Mac is unequivocally the best machine except for certain cases. Then you don't believe that Mac is always the best machine and both positions are wrong to your mind. Does that make sense?

Meaning that those who believe that Mac is always better, or PC is always better are both wrong, and you'd disagree with both of them. Whichever way you go, even if your belief isn't very strong, you can't simultaneously say that conflicting beliefs are correct, or that's either Orwellian doublethink, or possibly a serious breach in sanity or logic.

[NichG]

I think the conversation has regressed somewhat here. Remember, this isn't about whether or not we think someone else is a bad person. Its about whether or not we can understand someone else (which seems to have a definitional issue in that AMFV is using it in a way that I don't agree is meaningful or for that matter distinguishable).

More practically, I think, is to look at examples where there is a form of understanding going on. Whether AMFV wants to consider that to be 'true' understanding or just some sort of pseudo-understanding that is still functionally useful, the fact remains that it is functionally useful. These very boards work on the idea that even if we disagree on our favorite RPG or even the reason we play RPGs, we can have civil conversations that are mutually beneficial.

So whether you want to consider that 'true' understanding or some sort of flawed simulation, its still useful to focus on learning to reach that point, and in the broader sense to learn how to think about other people who have different axioms, goals, etc. Because even if you think you can't 'truly' understand someone else, the fact remains you have to live with them and interact with them.

To this extent, I think making everything about 'your beliefs', ideological or moral stances, is counter-productive. If you really believe its impossible to understand other people's moralities, its better to look for ways for the topics of discussion to not be about your personal morality at all. If you believe that someone else isn't going to be responsive to 'its just amoral' then that means you have to come up with another way to put it that isn't strongly dependent on personal morality, if you want to have a productive conversation.

[AMFV]

I think the conversation has regressed somewhat here. Remember, this isn't about whether or not we think someone else is a bad person. Its about whether or not we can understand someone else (which seems to have a definitional issue in that AMFV is using it in a way that I don't agree is meaningful or for that matter distinguishable).

More practically, I think, is to look at examples where there is a form of understanding going on. Whether AMFV wants to consider that to be 'true' understanding or just some sort of pseudo-understanding that is still functionally useful, the fact remains that it is functionally useful. These very boards work on the idea that even if we disagree on our favorite RPG or even the reason we play RPGs, we can have civil conversations that are mutually beneficial.

So whether you want to consider that 'true' understanding or some sort of flawed simulation, its still useful to focus on learning to reach that point, and in the broader sense to learn how to think about other people who have different axioms, goals, etc. Because even if you think you can't 'truly' understand someone else, the fact remains you have to live with them and interact with them.

To this extent, I think making everything about 'your beliefs', ideological or moral stances, is counter-productive. If you really believe its impossible to understand other people's moralities, its better to look for ways for the topics of discussion to not be about your personal morality at all. If you believe that someone else isn't going to be responsive to 'its just amoral' then that means you have to come up with another way to put it that isn't strongly dependent on personal morality, if you want to have a productive conversation.

Actually I think acknowledging that you may not understand the other person is fundamental to having a productive discussion, because you admit that you're coming to the discussion with your own preconceptions and that you may not understand the other person's. At least to my thinking that is the best methodology when discussing questions of belief or ethics. In terms of more roleplaying oriented discussion, I tend to be less strong in my beliefs there, but I still can't understand other people's viewpoints, people that play games differently than me and enjoy it, I can't understand it, and so that gives me a handicap in certain discussions with them, and its important that I am aware of that.

It's important to recognize that even if I understand their stated precepts I may not understand their whole position. For example, some people like rules 'lite' systems, I absolutely hate them, with a passion, I can't understand why anybody would play them. Not even a little bit, but it's important to recognize that it's not a lack of information or a point of ignorance that they're arguing from, it's a separate precept. Also this is not a moral issue, so personal judgements aren't valid in that case.

So I think it is more useful to be aware that you may not be able to understand what makes people believe in the fashion that they do, and it may foster a more productive discussion, because you're not going to act in a manner that is going to be derisive or patronizing to them.

Edit: I'm not saying you can't have a productive discussion of somebody else's beliefs or with some of differing belief, but I'm saying that coming into claiming a full understanding of their belief is either patronizing (since you suspect that their axioms or precepts are flawed), or insane (since you're holding two disparate opinions at the same value.

That's why I would suggest being aware that you may not understand all of somebody's values or precepts when you're looking at their perspective, because they might have a system that leads to different logical conclusions than yours.

[SowZ]

Well stated beliefs and actual beliefs are different, I personally think poorly of somebody that doesn't follow their stated beliefs even if I am opposed to those particular beliefs, I don't mind if somebody changes their stated beliefs, but following ones beliefs is important.

I would say you're still judging based on beliefs, since actions are based on belief, but you're not judging on words, which is a different thing altogether.



Then you believe that all evidence points towards Mac being a superior machine, and you'd disagree with people that suggested that PC was. Your statement indicates that you don't have a strong belief, but that's still a belief and it is incompatible with people that believe PCs are better, you might think that they prefer PC over Mac, even though it's an inferior choice, but if you have that stated belief, you have to believe its an inferior choice, or you don't have that belief.

Adding a qualifier doesn't make it not a belief, however, there is a variety of different cases here. If when you say Mac is probably the best machine, you could be stating that in all cases it will generally perform better. Then you're stating that Mac is the best machine is true, but not a position you feel very strongly about. If you believe that Mac is unequivocally the best machine except for certain cases. Then you don't believe that Mac is always the best machine and both positions are wrong to your mind. Does that make sense?

Meaning that those who believe that Mac is always better, or PC is always better are both wrong, and you'd disagree with both of them. Whichever way you go, even if your belief isn't very strong, you can't simultaneously say that conflicting beliefs are correct, or that's either Orwellian doublethink, or possibly a serious breach in sanity or logic.

No, but I can say either belief has equal odds of being correct if both are consistent, or that both are correct according to different standards of correctness. That isn't doublethink.

Anyway, I am absolutely not judging someone for their beliefs. You are reaching harder here then you have anywhere else in the debate so that I fit your paradigm. I am judging them based on their actions and I've said nothing to indicate otherwise. All you are doing is saying, "Well, logically, you should still judge them based on their beliefs because those lead to actions and-" Let me stop you right there. No matter how many logical imperatives you argue that I should judge based on beliefs, it is totally irrelevant.

Even allowing that you are right, it is still beliefs that drive that person so I should judge them based on their beliefs, it doesn't matter. Nothing says I have to judge someone rationally. What I should do is not the same as what I actually do. You've provided no evidence that I do judge based on beliefs, only arguments why it would be logically consistent to do so. I disagree with that logic, but even if I agreed, there is nothing stopping me from saying, "I don't care about logic." And then judge someone based soley on actions and not give a whit if they believe boiling puppies alive and force feeding them to orphans is proper behavior. As long as they don't do that behavior, I am free to say, "Okay, I don't care what you believe, you haven't done it so screw it."

You can argue that I would be very inconsistent and irrational if I judged people that way, but I certainly could no matter how stupid.

Bringing it back to the real world, I judge people based on beliefs a little but actions a lot more. Feel free to argue why that is not rational, but if you try and argue that, no, I do judge based on beliefs is grasping for straws.

[Stephen_E]

There are certain moral views where that is the case. In a non-neurotic way, again if I support sacrificing children to Ba'al, that's going to make me a bad person on many moral systems.

If you support sacrificing children to Ba'al without wanting to do such sacrifices I'd probably think you were a whacko person, not a bad person. Of course the context of the position would influence my view. If you supported it because you had some concrete reason to think half the worlds population would die if they weren't sacrificed, then I wouldn't even consider you whacko. I might still not agree with you.

I will go back to the earlier point I made. I don't think you are speaking the same language as everyone else in this debate. It's a closely related language, and many of the basic words mean the same, but at the lvel of this discussion it's not the same language.:smallwink:

[SowZ]

If you support sacrificing children to Ba'al without wanting to do such sacrifices I'd probably think you were a whacko person, not a bad person. Of course the context of the position would influence my view. If you supported it because you had some concrete reason to think half the worlds population would die if they weren't sacrificed, then I wouldn't even consider you whacko. I might still not agree with you.

I will go back to the earlier point I made. I don't think you are speaking the same language as everyone else in this debate. It's a closely related language, and many of the basic words mean the same, but at the lvel of this discussion it's not the same language.:smallwink:

Some people would say it would be immoral for us in our society, but not immoral for people in that culture. I would disagree with those people, but I've met them and they can be friendly enough folks. My roommate is an anthropologist, and while I think he would consider that wrong behavior, I wouldn't be that surprised if he shrugged and just said it stems from different cultural values and beliefs on gods rather than evil.

[AMFV]

No, but I can say either belief has equal odds of being correct if both are consistent, or that both are correct according to different standards of correctness. That isn't doublethink.

Anyway, I am absolutely not judging someone for their beliefs. You are reaching harder here then you have anywhere else in the debate so that I fit your paradigm. I am judging them based on their actions and I've said nothing to indicate otherwise. All you are doing is saying, "Well, logically, you should still judge them based on their beliefs because those lead to actions and-" Let me stop you right there. No matter how many logical imperatives you argue that I should judge based on beliefs, it is totally irrelevant.

Actions all result from beliefs at some scale. All of them. If I duck, it's because I have a belief that something is about to move towards my head rapidly. If I get an umbrella it's because I believe that it may rain. All actions that are not insane result from a belief. Probably even some of the insane ones. If you judge by actions you are judging based on beliefs, since actions follow beliefs. Now you may not judge on stated beliefs, but that's a whole unrelated thing, if somebody says something and they are being dishonest, then obviously judging them that is poor, but of course I tend to find that dishonesty is a problem also, and I give people the benefit of the doubt in that regard.



Even allowing that you are right, it is still beliefs that drive that person so I should judge them based on their beliefs, it doesn't matter. Nothing says I have to judge someone rationally. What I should do is not the same as what I actually do. You've provided no evidence that I do judge based on beliefs, only arguments why it would be logically consistent to do so. I disagree with that logic, but even if I agreed, there is nothing stopping me from saying, "I don't care about logic." And then judge someone based soley on actions and not give a whit if they believe boiling puppies alive and force feeding them to orphans is proper behavior. As long as they don't do that behavior, I am free to say, "Okay, I don't care what you believe, you haven't done it so screw it."


You've provided that evidence. You said you judge people based on how they act, as I've demonstrated actions follow beliefs. In all cases, you've only demonstrated that you don't judge people on what they say they believe, provided that they are being dishonest, which is a pretty small subset of cases compared to all cases where action results from thought, which requires belief at some level.



You can argue that I would be very inconsistent and irrational if I judged people that way, but I certainly could no matter how stupid.

Bringing it back to the real world, I judge people based on beliefs a little but actions a lot more. Feel free to argue why that is not rational, but if you try and argue that, no, I do judge based on beliefs is grasping for straws.

You're confusing stated beliefs with actual beliefs, actions must follow from beliefs at some level, or at the very least actions follow suppositions. You don't do something for no reason, not even boredom, if you believe that you're bored you take action to remedy that.

All actions result at some level from a mental idea or a belief, so arguing that you judge based on what people do rather than what they believe is a sort of non sequitur. You could, "I judge people on what they do rather than what they say," and that could certainly be true, but you can't judge someone at all if you're excluding belief since actions inherently follow beliefs.

Edit: There is actually an exception if you judge somebody based on how they act while they are having a seizure or are not otherwise in control of their bodily functions, then you are judging outside of beliefs.

[SowZ]

Actions all result from beliefs at some scale. All of them. If I duck, it's because I have a belief that something is about to move towards my head rapidly. If I get an umbrella it's because I believe that it may rain. All actions that are not insane result from a belief. Probably even some of the insane ones. If you judge by actions you are judging based on beliefs, since actions follow beliefs. Now you may not judge on stated beliefs, but that's a whole unrelated thing, if somebody says something and they are being dishonest, then obviously judging them that is poor, but of course I tend to find that dishonesty is a problem also, and I give people the benefit of the doubt in that regard.



You've provided that evidence. You said you judge people based on how they act, as I've demonstrated actions follow beliefs. In all cases, you've only demonstrated that you don't judge people on what they say they believe, provided that they are being dishonest, which is a pretty small subset of cases compared to all cases where action results from thought, which requires belief at some level.



You're confusing stated beliefs with actual beliefs, actions must follow from beliefs at some level, or at the very least actions follow suppositions. You don't do something for no reason, not even boredom, if you believe that you're bored you take action to remedy that.

All actions result at some level from a mental idea or a belief, so arguing that you judge based on what people do rather than what they believe is a sort of non sequitur. You could, "I judge people on what they do rather than what they say," and that could certainly be true, but you can't judge someone at all if you're excluding belief since actions inherently follow beliefs.

Edit: There is actually an exception if you judge somebody based on how they act while they are having a seizure or are not otherwise in control of their bodily functions, then you are judging outside of beliefs.

Saying that by judging someone based on actions, I'm judging something that is the result of their beliefs is nowhere near the same as judging them for their beliefs. They function differently, as I can choose not to judge someone based on what beliefs they haven't acted on as far as I'm aware.

Saying, "Well, those actions would be different had the beliefs been different," is as valuable as saying, "The actions would have been different if the person was missing an arm and a leg." That doesn't mean I am judging someone based on their number of limbs. I could just as easily accuse you of judging someone based on their parents and say, "All beliefs are the result of the parents, either through teaching the child or providing them with an environment where they grew up that lead to where they are now, or through the fact that the DNA and genetic make up would be different if one of the parents had been different."

Technically, none of that persons actions would be the same if their parents didn't conceive them. They wouldn't even be a person if their parents didn't conceive them, at least not the same one, (if you believe a person has a metaphysical soul.)

But it would be silly to accuse you of judging people based on their parents even though the parents are the root cause of said persons existence.

In the same way, saying, "You judge based on actions, but actions come from beliefs, ergo you are judging by beliefs!" is flawed logic. It does nothing but confuse communication, too, since saying, "He judges people off their beliefs," will tell people I judge people based on what they think regardless of their actions. But if you say, "He judges people based on actions," it communicates what is actually happening, that I judge people based on what they do. The person can then infer that I'm judging stuff that is the result of someone's beliefs, but that is a totally different thing.

[AMFV]

Saying that by judging someone based on actions, I'm judging something that is the result of their beliefs is nowhere near the same as judging them for their beliefs. They function differently, as I can choose not to judge someone based on what beliefs they haven't acted on as far as I'm aware.

So you don't judge people based on what they say... That's not really relevant here. Stated beliefs are not necessarily beliefs.



Saying, "Well, those actions would be different had the beliefs been different," is as valuable as saying, "The actions would have been different if the person was missing an arm and a leg." That doesn't mean I am judging someone based on their number of limbs. I could just as easily accuse you of judging someone based on their parents and say, "All beliefs are the result of the parents, either through teaching the child or providing them with an environment where they grew up that lead to where they are now, or through the fact that the DNA and genetic make up would be different if one of the parents had been different."

I'm not sure how that follows, I'm actually not sure exactly what you're going for here. Now Parents do have some responsibility for the makeup of their child, certainly genetics play a role, although judging someone based on genetics is difficult, judging somebody based on beliefs is less difficult, especially if you use actions to gauge possible beliefs.



Technically, none of that persons actions would be the same if their parents didn't conceive them. They wouldn't even be a person if their parents didn't conceive them, at least not the same one, (if you believe a person has a metaphysical soul.)

True, my your definitions I concede I judge people based on their parents. Since I judge people based on how they act which results from their genetics and their education. But I still hold that I judge people based on their beliefs, as do you, if you judge them at all. Unless you judge them based on something outside their control. For example if you judge people who are red-headed differently, then that would be a non-belief based judgement.



But it would be silly to accuse you of judging people based on their parents even though the parents are the root cause of said persons existence.

It wouldn't. I concede the point, I'm judging people based on their parents.



In the same way, saying, "You judge based on actions, but actions come from beliefs, ergo you are judging by beliefs!" is flawed logic. It does nothing but confuse communication, too, since saying, "He judges people off their beliefs," will tell people I judge people based on what they think regardless of their actions. But if you say, "He judges people based on actions," it communicates what is actually happening, that I judge people based on what they do. The person can then infer that I'm judging stuff that is the result of someone's beliefs, but that is a totally different thing.

Beliefs inform actions, all actions result from beliefs. That's not a difficult concept, if you say I judge somebody based on their beliefs, that may not mean to everybody that you judge them based on their actions, but it does have that meaning. If I believe that I have the right to punch people in the street as they walk by, and I do that, you're judging me based on a belief.

The point is that it's not as confusing to communication as you imagine, since you're only stating that you don't judge people based on false beliefs, or beliefs that are overriden by other things, which means that you judge them only those beliefs that they act on, which are beliefs nevertheless.

[SowZ]

So you don't judge people based on what they say... That's not really relevant here. Stated beliefs are not necessarily beliefs.



I'm not sure how that follows, I'm actually not sure exactly what you're going for here. Now Parents do have some responsibility for the makeup of their child, certainly genetics play a role, although judging someone based on genetics is difficult, judging somebody based on beliefs is less difficult, especially if you use actions to gauge possible beliefs.



True, my your definitions I concede I judge people based on their parents. Since I judge people based on how they act which results from their genetics and their education. But I still hold that I judge people based on their beliefs, as do you, if you judge them at all. Unless you judge them based on something outside their control. For example if you judge people who are red-headed differently, then that would be a non-belief based judgement.



It wouldn't. I concede the point, I'm judging people based on their parents.



Beliefs inform actions, all actions result from beliefs. That's not a difficult concept, if you say I judge somebody based on their beliefs, that may not mean to everybody that you judge them based on their actions, but it does have that meaning. If I believe that I have the right to punch people in the street as they walk by, and I do that, you're judging me based on a belief.

The point is that it's not as confusing to communication as you imagine, since you're only stating that you don't judge people based on false beliefs, or beliefs that are overriden by other things, which means that you judge them only those beliefs that they act on, which are beliefs nevertheless.

It's the actions I'm judging, not the beliefs, no matter how much those actions are informed by beliefs. Maybe I should accept that the beliefs cause the actions. But I don't have to. I can just refuse to accept it, and I am without a doubt not judging beliefs at that point but may be judging things based off of beliefs, which isn't the same.

If you are right, and it is the same, then you judge people based on the fact that George Washington was president since surely their actions would be different had that never happened. You judge people based on the fact that some guy named Charles burned down a church five hundred years ago because via the butterfly effect that not happening would have changed the course of history.

You are creating standards that don't communicate anything and serve absolutely no function. I judge people based on their actions. That's it. You say, "Well, those actions only happen because of beliefs, so you judge them based on beliefs." If that's true, those beliefs only happened as a result of X, which only happened as a result of Y, which only happened as a result of Z, and so on and so forth until we get to the first event ever and we are saying, "Actually, you judge people based on the initial singularity since that is what ultimately caused the actions and beliefs to happen."

It's nonsense and communicates nothing. It is worthless to even say.

[AMFV]

It's the actions I'm judging, not the beliefs. If you are right, then you judge people based on the fact that George Washington was president since surely their actions would be different had that never happened. You judge people based on the fact that some guy named Charles burned down a church five hundred years ago because via the butterfly effect that not happening would have changed the course of history.

You are creating standards that don't communicate anything and serve absolutely no function. I judge people based on their actions. That's it. You say, "Well, those actions only happen because of beliefs, so you judge them based on beliefs." If that's true, those beliefs only happened as a result of X, which only happened as a result of Y, which only happened as a result of Z, and so on and so forth until we get to the first event ever and we are saying, "Actually, you judge people based on the initial singularity since that is what ultimately caused the actions and beliefs to happen."

It's nonsense and communicates nothing. It is completely worthless to even say.

They do serve a function, furthermore nobody should judge somebody based on a belief that's not strong enough for them to act on it, judging somebody based on their armchair philosophy, preposterous.

I do assume that if somebody communicates a belief to me, that they would act on it, because I assume people tend to be honest, and that they tend have self integrity in general. But I guess if you don't believe that people would be honest or have integrity to their beliefs that your stance makes sense.

If you don't judge people based on what they believe, you can't judge them at all, which is okay, that's certainly a stance you could take, my point is that separating out action from belief is impossible, so when you say "I judge based on action not belief," that has no meaning, it's like saying, "I judge people based on how they act, not their genetic makeup," because you can't separate the two, that is either true, or meaningless, if you don't judge people based on their beliefs you can't judge them at all, well I guess you could judge them outside of their words or actions, but most of those judgements are pretty poor to begin with.


Actions aren't the butterfly effect of belief, it's a direct causal actions, all actions are immediately and directly caused by a belief. While the belief may be non-real or mistaken, all actions that are done cogently have a belief behind, ALL actions, meaning that your statement that has no bearing or any actual meaning. It's not my actions are caused by a belief through the years as much as my genetics, it is my directions are directly and with immediacy caused by a belief. Do you dispute that all actions taken with thought immediately result from a belief?

[SowZ]

They do serve a function, furthermore nobody should judge somebody based on a belief that's not strong enough for them to act on it, judging somebody based on their armchair philosophy, preposterous.

I do assume that if somebody communicates a belief to me, that they would act on it, because I assume people tend to be honest, and that they tend have self integrity in general. But I guess if you don't believe that people would be honest or have integrity to their beliefs that your stance makes sense.

If you don't judge people based on what they believe, you can't judge them at all, which is okay, that's certainly a stance you could take, my point is that separating out action from belief is impossible, so when you say "I judge based on action not belief," that has no meaning, it's like saying, "I judge people based on how they act, not their genetic makeup," because you can't separate the two, that is either true, or meaningless, if you don't judge people based on their beliefs you can't judge them at all, well I guess you could judge them outside of their words or actions, but most of those judgements are pretty poor to begin with.


Actions aren't the butterfly effect of belief, it's a direct causal actions, all actions are immediately and directly caused by a belief. While the belief may be non-real or mistaken, all actions that are done cogently have a belief behind, ALL actions, meaning that your statement that has no bearing or any actual meaning. It's not my actions are caused by a belief through the years as much as my genetics, it is my directions are directly and with immediacy caused by a belief. Do you dispute that all actions taken with thought immediately result from a belief?

If you equate a belief with a desire or an impulse. You could define that as a type of belief if you wanted. But that obscures the meaning of belief, as it isn't the typical usage of the word. Yes, you could say, "I believe following this impulse will sate my urges." and that could be a type of belief, but that's not what most people mean when they say belief.

Anyway, a lot of people believe that, say, a people who commit X crime deserve to die. A lot of them would not be able to pull a trigger if given a gun. I've met people who sincerely believe they are loyal people and think that loyalty and honesty are important, yet they've abandoned me and others and I've watched them lie to loved ones for selfish gain.

There are people who think that given the chance, they'd step up and be a hero. But when danger strikes, they cower like everyone else. Some people believe they would never compromise a given moral if asked to, yet when the choice actually comes they do it anyway.

Some people believe that members of a certain ethnic or political group deserve to be mistreated and put in their place, but when one of those people is right in front of their face social embarrassment and empathy cause them to be polite and hide their prejudice.

I don't think I can predict someone's actions very well based on knowing their beliefs. People are too fickle and inconsistent and too good at self deception for me to trust even their own perception of themselves. I think lots of things inspire action, and belief is one of those, but people betray their own principles all the time so it isn't a sure fire way to predict behavior.

[NichG]

Why is judging relevant to the original point, which had to do with understanding? I would maintain that you can think someone is a good person, bad person, have no opinion about them, etc, without that being relevant to actually predicting how they will respond to something. If anything, judgement gets in the way of understanding (in the predictive sense) since it imparts a tendency towards dismissiveness - 'they do X because they are bad', rather than 'they do X because of their beliefs, and I believe X is bad'.

Judging really has nothing to do with it, aside from interfering with the process. And if you want to argue 'you can't help but judge', I will say 'that is what impartiality and objectivity is about - learning to separate the part of yourself that wishes to judge from the part of yourself that seeks to explain/understand/predict as much as you can'.

[SowZ]

Why is judging relevant to the original point, which had to do with understanding? I would maintain that you can think someone is a good person, bad person, have no opinion about them, etc, without that being relevant to actually predicting how they will respond to something. If anything, judgement gets in the way of understanding (in the predictive sense) since it imparts a tendency towards dismissiveness - 'they do X because they are bad', rather than 'they do X because of their beliefs, and I believe X is bad'.

Judging really has nothing to do with it, aside from interfering with the process. And if you want to argue 'you can't help but judge', I will say 'that is what impartiality and objectivity is about - learning to separate the part of yourself that wishes to judge from the part of yourself that seeks to explain/understand/predict as much as you can'.

Because AMFV explained why, even though he didn't believe understanding possible, he still engages in debates when people say they disagree with his moral system. He said that them saying they think that moral is wrong is equivalent to saying he is a bad person. I found that assumption illogical at best and neurotic at worse, AMFV thought it a natural progression that if ones moral beliefs are wrong, that makes them immoral. That's how it shifted if I remember correctly.

[AMFV]

If you equate a belief with a desire or an impulse. You could define that as a type of belief if you wanted. But that obscures the meaning of belief, as it isn't the typical usage of the word. Yes, you could say, "I believe following this impulse will sate my urges." and that could be a type of belief, but that's not what most people mean when they say belief.

Isn't it? Have you ever heard someone say, "I believe it's going to rain today?", or "I believe the meeting was at 2 O'Clock," or "I believe it's supposed to be cold weather I'd better take my sweater," those are common use phrases, although the last one's a tad awkward, but certainly in the common use for belief. Just because you choose to define it more strenuously doesn't mean that it is. To be honest I checked the OED and it's even less strenuous than I would be, and I'm far less rigorous than you in my definition.


be·lief
noun \bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone


The Oxford is even less than that, although the formatting was worse, it seems your definition is not the common use definition.



Anyway, a lot of people believe that, say, a people who commit X crime deserve to die. A lot of them would not be able to pull a trigger if given a gun. I've met people who sincerely believe they are loyal people and think that loyalty and honesty are important, yet they've abandoned me and others and I've watched them lie to loved ones for selfish gain.

That's not really not following through on the belief. That's more a case of having not a strong enough belief to kill them themselves. Of course that sort of belief could be manifested in all sorts of ways, a belief in capital punishment is not equivalent to a belief in vigilante murder. Of course, if they believe in capital punishment but are unwilling to work towards, then it's not really a belief so much as a kind of theoretical exercise.

I've been around enough to know that if you don't work towards your ideals, they're not really ideals to you, just nice things to say, and lies for that matter, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it.



There are people who think that given the chance, they'd step up and be a hero. But when danger strikes, they cower like everyone else. Some people believe they would never compromise a given moral if asked to, yet when the choice actually comes they do it anyway.

Well that's kind of life, although to be fair, those who believe one way are much more likely to act along the lines of their belief. In this case one belief wins out, for example, "I could be a hero," loses to "Oh my god, I could get killed," both beliefs but in some cases the survival instinct winds up being the stronger belief, it's not that the belief doesn't exist just that the other belief is stronger.



Some people believe that members of a certain ethnic or political group deserve to be mistreated and put in their place, but when one of those people is right in front of their face social embarrassment and empathy cause them to be polite and hide their prejudice.

Do they take action towards that belief in other ways though. Do they only associate with people of a certain race, do they make hiring decisions based on it, if they thought they could get away with it would they mistreat them? Social stigma is powerful, but it is more fickle than people, there's a reason that when people say they would mistreat a social group if it was permitted you should be attentive, because it could be permitted, just ask the Jewish population of Germany in 1932, Germany was actually more tolerant in many respects than the other countries of Europe, and it was probably frowned on to be anti-Semitic, but once it became allowed people acted on those beliefs, that's why you can't just judge somebody on how they act when the peer pressure is against them, because it might not always be that way.



I don't think I can predict someone's actions very well based on knowing their beliefs. People are too fickle and inconsistent and too good at self deception for me to trust even their own perception of themselves. I think lots of things inspire action, and belief is one of those, but people betray their own principles all the time so it isn't a sure fire way to predict behavior.

You can't predict people's actions based on what they say, no. But what they believe probably, if you knew what they believe, which you really can't, as I've been saying. You can know what they say, maybe even what they think they believe, but when it comes down it to it, belief is more complex than that, and that's why you can't understand somebody else's belief.

[SowZ]

Isn't it? Have you ever heard someone say, "I believe it's going to rain today?", or "I believe the meeting was at 2 O'Clock," or "I believe it's supposed to be cold weather I'd better take my sweater," those are common use phrases, although the last one's a tad awkward, but certainly in the common use for belief. Just because you choose to define it more strenuously doesn't mean that it is. To be honest I checked the OED and it's even less strenuous than I would be, and I'm far less rigorous than you in my definition.



The Oxford is even less than that, although the formatting was worse, it seems your definition is not the common use definition.



That's not really not following through on the belief. That's more a case of having not a strong enough belief to kill them themselves. Of course that sort of belief could be manifested in all sorts of ways, a belief in capital punishment is not equivalent to a belief in vigilante murder. Of course, if they believe in capital punishment but are unwilling to work towards, then it's not really a belief so much as a kind of theoretical exercise.

I've been around enough to know that if you don't work towards your ideals, they're not really ideals to you, just nice things to say, and lies for that matter, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it.



Well that's kind of life, although to be fair, those who believe one way are much more likely to act along the lines of their belief. In this case one belief wins out, for example, "I could be a hero," loses to "Oh my god, I could get killed," both beliefs but in some cases the survival instinct winds up being the stronger belief, it's not that the belief doesn't exist just that the other belief is stronger.



Do they take action towards that belief in other ways though. Do they only associate with people of a certain race, do they make hiring decisions based on it, if they thought they could get away with it would they mistreat them? Social stigma is powerful, but it is more fickle than people, there's a reason that when people say they would mistreat a social group if it was permitted you should be attentive, because it could be permitted, just ask the Jewish population of Germany in 1932, Germany was actually more tolerant in many respects than the other countries of Europe, and it was probably frowned on to be anti-Semitic, but once it became allowed people acted on those beliefs, that's why you can't just judge somebody on how they act when the peer pressure is against them, because it might not always be that way.



You can't predict people's actions based on what they say, no. But what they believe probably, if you knew what they believe, which you really can't, as I've been saying. You can know what they say, maybe even what they think they believe, but when it comes down it to it, belief is more complex than that, and that's why you can't understand somebody else's belief.

But someone can fully believe in loyalty and kindness and all these things, think they are really great and espouse them when possible, even act on them when it is easy, but then go act really treacherously and selfishly when faced with a decision. Then they can deceive themselves and truly believe they act in accordance with their value system. If you got in their head, you wouldn't know that they didn't keep to their own morals because they haven't admitted it to themselves. Beliefs can be misleading.

[AMFV]

But someone can fully believe in loyalty and kindness and all these things, think they are really great and espouse them when possible, even act on them when it is easy, but then go act really treacherously and selfishly when faced with a decision. Then they can deceive themselves and truly believe they act in accordance with their value system. If you got in their head, you wouldn't know that they didn't keep to their own morals because they haven't admitted it to themselves. Beliefs can be misleading.

Beliefs can be overridden by stronger beliefs, yes. And stated beliefs are certainly misleading, self-deception is possible, but that doesn't change the fact that if you judge someone's actions, you are judging the result of their beliefs, in fact even more so, because you're judging the beliefs that they have chosen to act on. The other beliefs are clearly not held as strongly.


Why is judging relevant to the original point, which had to do with understanding? I would maintain that you can think someone is a good person, bad person, have no opinion about them, etc, without that being relevant to actually predicting how they will respond to something. If anything, judgement gets in the way of understanding (in the predictive sense) since it imparts a tendency towards dismissiveness - 'they do X because they are bad', rather than 'they do X because of their beliefs, and I believe X is bad'.

I'm not actually sure when that shift happened. However prediction of individuals is almost impossible, especially on any real scale of accuracy.

I don't think dismissiveness follows as you suggest it would, actually that'd be a failure of prediction in my opinion. I've been most interested in studying the opinions and stated beliefs of people that I believed were evil or bad, I've read Mein Kampf, for Christ's sake, and that takes some serious slogging through, mostly because at the time I was trying to understand what could make person believe those things.

Finally I realize that you can't understand what would make a person believe those things, you can recognize factors, but you can't really predict human beings.



Judging really has nothing to do with it, aside from interfering with the process. And if you want to argue 'you can't help but judge', I will say 'that is what impartiality and objectivity is about - learning to separate the part of yourself that wishes to judge from the part of yourself that seeks to explain/understand/predict as much as you can'.

I don't think impartiality is easy, or really attainable, you can strive for it, but your own preconceptions are still going to be there, no matter how much you try to remove them, another advantage of recognizing that understanding another person completely is impossible, is understanding that you can never really be in a position where you are truly impartial. Objectivity and impartiality are not realistically attainable.

[SowZ]

Beliefs can be overridden by stronger beliefs, yes. And stated beliefs are certainly misleading, self-deception is possible, but that doesn't change the fact that if you judge someone's actions, you are judging the result of their beliefs, in fact even more so, because you're judging the beliefs that they have chosen to act on. The other beliefs are clearly not held as strongly.

No, see, I disagree there. People act on instinct, too, which overrides beliefs sometimes. And people can believe something strongly, but when faced with a choice they aren't prepared for they can flex their morals and do something unexpected. That doesn't mean the belief was weak. I also think desire isn't necessarily the same as belief. You can believe that you don't desire something bad for you as much as you want away from that thing, but you might be wrong. Desire might win out, even though you believe it is a bad decision. People can make choices believing and knowing full well they are going to regret it.

Whenever the whole spectrum of human emotion and decision making is boiled down to one thing such as it all stems from belief or it all stems from either fear or love, etc. etc. I find it to be an oversimplification.

[AMFV]

No, see, I disagree there. People act on instinct, too, which overrides beliefs sometimes. And people can believe something strongly, but when faced with a choice they aren't prepared for they can flex their morals and do something unexpected. That doesn't mean the belief was weak. I also think desire isn't necessarily the same as belief. You can believe that you don't desire something bad for you as much as you want away from that thing, but you might be wrong. Desire might win out, even though you believe it is a bad decision. People can make choices believing and knowing full well they are going to regret it.

Whenever the whole spectrum of human emotion and decision making is boiled down to one thing such as it all stems from belief or it all stems from either fear or love, etc. etc. I find it to be an oversimplification.

And those instincts are motivate by? My instincts respond to visual stimulus in and of itself a product of belief. Instincts also influence beliefs. I feel very strongly that if you can't act on a belief its weak, it absolutely is, beliefs can't be judged simply by how strongly their stated but by actual conviction.

Furthermore judging somebody based on a reaction purely driven by instinct is probably a bad choice, since they have very little control over that, but very few reactions are instinct to that point. Fear isn't really usually instinctual, unless you're talking fear of spiders.

[Lorsa]

Sorry to have been silent, I've been a bit busy. I'm hoping that in time I will have come up with some scenarios for your AMFV, that I can PM you and so we can continue the discussion.

As for understanding, I think I can usually understand people. Understanding is based on having an answer to the question "why?", a question I am very fond of. Some people might not understand themselves why they hold a certain position or opinion and thus will not be able to communicate it. It's quite possible they haven't really given it any thought.

While I might not believe the same thing as another person, once a proper why has been explained, in most cases I can understand as I most often have similar experiences, thoughts and feelings to draw upon.

If someone says they like the colour blue because it gives them a nice feeling when looking at it, I can understand that since red gives me a nice feeling when looking at it and as such I can understand why someone would base a preference for a certain colour based purely on an emotion.

I might not understand why it is that I have this feeling for red and someone else for blue, but that's a lack of understanding of the world, not of the person.

I can never know, truly, what it is like to be someone else, but that isn't necessary for basic understanding. All you need is an answer to "why?". Sometimes it will be hard or even impossible to relate to this why, but that's certainly not the case always.

Believes are a tricky thing, and I too don't think people always act on their believes. I believe that killing is wrong, yet there may be situations where I would perform such an act. That doesn't change my belief, because if asked I would admit that my action was wrong or immoral, and that I wasn't strong enough to hold to it under that circumstance.

Holding to your ideals under pressure is a virtue the greek invented and that we call Fortitude. Lacking fortitude doesn't mean you lack ideals, just the strength to see them through.

Also, I find it curious that you say you judge people and their beliefs solely on their actions, when before you stated that in morality, intent matters. Shouldn't that mean that you should judge people based on their intent rather than their actions?

And going back to the emotions are a mitigating factor (again something I find curious since you also said you don't care about emotions in others), what does it tell you about a persons beliefs if they hit their wife while angry? What about if they hit their wife while not angry? Or someone who comes home from work annoyed and take that annoyance out by yelling at their partner? What would you judge their beliefs to be?

[AMFV]

Sorry to have been silent, I've been a bit busy. I'm hoping that in time I will have come up with some scenarios for your AMFV, that I can PM you and so we can continue the discussion.

Sure.



As for understanding, I think I can usually understand people. Understanding is based on having an answer to the question "why?", a question I am very fond of. Some people might not understand themselves why they hold a certain position or opinion and thus will not be able to communicate it. It's quite possible they haven't really given it any thought.

I don't think you can understand the why's of a person holding a belief. At least not in any serious or real way. You can simulate an understanding but actual understanding is very difficult to have in those cases, I think it's actually impossible.



While I might not believe the same thing as another person, once a proper why has been explained, in most cases I can understand as I most often have similar experiences, thoughts and feelings to draw upon.

Well but those aren't the same feelings you're simulating an understanding, it's a model, but not an exact model.



If someone says they like the colour blue because it gives them a nice feeling when looking at it, I can understand that since red gives me a nice feeling when looking at it and as such I can understand why someone would base a preference for a certain colour based purely on an emotion.

But you can't understand what it's actually like to have a feeling even a similar for a different color than you are liking.



I might not understand why it is that I have this feeling for red and someone else for blue, but that's a lack of understanding of the world, not of the person.

I think it is a lack of understanding of people, you can't really understand anyone else other than yourself. I mean you can simulate an understanding, and get along with other people but real understanding is impossible.



I can never know, truly, what it is like to be someone else, but that isn't necessary for basic understanding. All you need is an answer to "why?". Sometimes it will be hard or even impossible to relate to this why, but that's certainly not the case always.


But the whys are different for each different person. Furthermore you can have the same scenario and have different people come up with very different solutions even using similar precepts.



Believes are a tricky thing, and I too don't think people always act on their believes. I believe that killing is wrong, yet there may be situations where I would perform such an act. That doesn't change my belief, because if asked I would admit that my action was wrong or immoral, and that I wasn't strong enough to hold to it under that circumstance.

Well then that's not a belief is wrong under all circumstances, it's a belief that killing without sufficient reason is wrong, a much more complex belief.



Holding to your ideals under pressure is a virtue the greek invented and that we call Fortitude. Lacking fortitude doesn't mean you lack ideals, just the strength to see them through.

But it does mean that you lack the real meat of belief. Ideals are great, and words are great, but without the wherewithal and strength of character to see them through, it's just words. Integrity is essential.



Also, I find it curious that you say you judge people and their beliefs solely on their actions, when before you stated that in morality, intent matters. Shouldn't that mean that you should judge peopel based on their intent rather than their actions?

That wasn't actually me, I said I judge people on their words and their actions. I was saying that actions reflect beliefs, and that is was impossible to judge people only on their actions because there's no way to separate belief from action.



And going back to the emotions are a mitigating factor (again something I find curious since you also said you don't care about emotions in others), what does it tell you about a persons beliefs if they hit their wife while angry? What about if they hit their wife while not angry? Or someone who comes home from work annoyed and take that annoyance out by yelling at their partner? What would you judge their believes to be?

Nothing, it tells me absolutely nothing. There are too many different factors that could lead to that scenario. Which is why I don't deal with beliefs, since I can't understand them. I could ask them about it, and then maybe I'd have some light on it. Although I think that that sort of behavior is always wrong. But I do think that while angry is a different scenario, not good, but different and slightly less a negative reflection on somebody's character.

For example. I recently hit my girlfriend. I was playing with her puppy, and it bit my hand and it jerked, and I accidentally hit her. Now if mitigating factors aren't a thing, that amounts to abuse, but if they are a thing then it amounts to much less than abuse, it's an accident, while getting angry and hurting someone isn't as small as an accident, it's more of a spectrum than it is a blanket yes or no thing.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review. Real world politics and religion are inappropriate topics on this Forum, that is true even when they intersect gaming or other topics.