Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

southsidemessenger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#121

Post by User23 »

stkdump wrote: post #112
User23 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is virtuous and what is moral for the atheist? Is it more than the bits of the religious morality his ancestors believed that doesn't contradict his present desires? That question seriously troubled me for some time. Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Logically, evolutionary science lets us conclude that it increases individual fitness by increasing…

> Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Rape is wrong, because it induces bodily and emotional harm. You can deduce your whole ethics and morals from the 'reduce the suffering you cause' view. You don't need religion for that.

That’s begging the question. Why is harming another human being wrong? It could be the benefit to yourself and others is greater than the harm caused. The children born of that rape may well think that their being alive is a net good. In fact, it’s statistically certain that all of us have at least one rape victim somewhere in our ancestry and thus wouldn't otherwise be alive.

Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#122

Post by paulryanrogers »

User23 wrote: post #121
stkdump wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Rape is wrong, because it induces bodily and emotional harm. You can deduce your whole ethics and morals from the 'reduce the suffering you cause' view. You don't need religion for that.

That’s begging the question. Why is harming another human being wrong? It could be the benefit to yourself and others is greater than the harm caused. The children born of that rape may well think that their being alive is a net good. In fact, it’s statistically certain that all of us have at least one rape victim somewhere in our ancestry and thus wouldn't otherwise be alive. Just because you personally think harmin…

> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient.

What is insufficient about it?

That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm?

> What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?

Society has to negotiate values together. The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.

After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#123

Post by pkphilip »

mbrodersen wrote: post #101
Mitzz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (as I understand him) would undoubtedly say that Jesus Christ is both perfect God and perfect Man, and therefore Jesus Christ is what there is to worship. Based upon my understanding of him, his allegiance to Jesus Christ is what motivated his actions that resulted in his death at the hands of the Nazis. edit: typo

My argument was that I (for one) doesn’t worship Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Ra the sun god, humans, myself or anything else. So the argument that we all worship something is false. Dietrich might have been worshipping a god or humans but that is besides the point.

The term "worship" isn't limited to the worship of any deity alone - as the quote itself indicates. It includes worship of things such as beauty, youthfulness, fame, wealth... or whatever that consumes your thinking

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#124

Post by paulryanrogers »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #39
preach wrote: post #2

> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity. Do you agree?

Tolkein said that it didn't pay to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you happened to live near one. In the same way, it's a good idea to think very carefully about how God affects you, if you happen to live in a universe where He exists. So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not? Not "would you prefer Him to exist, or not?" Not "Does your culture say He exists?" But does…

> So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not?

If one cannot falsify a god's existence then can it be proven to exist?

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#125

Post by User23 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #122
User23 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s begging the question. Why is harming another human being wrong? It could be the benefit to yourself and others is greater than the harm caused. The children born of that rape may well think that their being alive is a net good. In fact, it’s statistically certain that all of us have at least one rape victim somewhere in our ancestry and thus wouldn't otherwise be alive. Just because you personally think harmin…

> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What is insufficient about it? That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm? > What gives you the authority to impose that value on others? Society has to negotiate values together. The rule…

> What is insufficient about it?

Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative?

> Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time?

Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t prevent some greater evil. You can’t know that the child of that rape won’t cure cancer. The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.

> The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.

Once again this is begging the question. You’re trying to slip in the premise that minimal imposition is moral without any basis.

> After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.

This betrays philosophical immaturity, which is of course fine. Most religious organizations do a very poor job with that aspect of formation, likely because those teaching are themselves philosophically immature. But this discussion isn’t about religion, faith, or your subjective experiences, it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation. If your anti-theism clouds your reasoning, feel free to instead pretend that we live in an advanced simulation and its authors defined human life as having inherent dignity. In that scenario ethics has a firm foundation. Now imagine the same scenario but without such a definition.

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#126

Post by ladon86 »

groby_b wrote: post #55
ladon86 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, but I would say that on an axis of: Stupidity Silliness …Dummheit leans slightly more towards silliness than pure stupidity does in English. I think Dummheit can be both an adjective and a noun, right? The latter, “eine Dummheit”, sounds more like a silly mistake to me (like “I did a stupid” in internet-speak). A word like “nonsense” might be a good parallel? In English that word can cover serious, trivial, an…

As a German: It depends on the context. If you use it as a noun, referring to an individual act, it is used to refer to a mistake. But even then, not a silly one. It refers to a lapse in judgment, to a lack of proper reasoning. If it doesn't refer to an individual act, but to a trait, it's meant as an incapability to reason properly, often painfully so. It's used as a derogative, not to mark a silly mistake. The most…

Thank you for the full explanation! I could tell that there was a difference between the noun and adjective usage, and I now have a much better understanding of what it is.

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#127

Post by dragonwriter »

User23 wrote: post #125
paulryanrogers wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What is insufficient about it? That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm? > What gives you the authority to impose that value on others? Society has to negotiate values together. The rule…

> What is insufficient about it? Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative? > Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t p…

> Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise.

Then there are no valid ethical premises, because all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference.

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#128

Post by User23 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #127
User23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is insufficient about it? Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative? > Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t p…

> Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. Then there are no valid ethical premises, because all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference.

> all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference

You haven't shown this, so you're just sneaking in the premise that ethics has no objective foundation, which is the very question under consideration. I could just as easily baldly assert "all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon objective foundations," but I'm not because it would be philosophically uninteresting.

I accept that there are no valid ethical premises is a valid conclusion from the absence of an objective ethical authority. I can only abductively conclude the existence of such an authority because it appears to me that ethics is not in fact a degenerate science that can produce any result whatsoever.

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#129

Post by [deleted] »

User23 wrote: post #128
dragonwriter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. Then there are no valid ethical premises, because all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference.

> all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference You haven't shown this, so you're just sneaking in the premise that ethics has no objective foundation, which is the very question under consideration. I could just as easily baldly assert "all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon objective foundations," but I'm not because it would be philosophicall…

[deleted]

Re: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity

#130

Post by paulryanrogers »

User23 wrote: post #125
paulryanrogers wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What is insufficient about it? That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm? > What gives you the authority to impose that value on others? Society has to negotiate values together. The rule…

> What is insufficient about it? Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative? > Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t p…

> But this discussion ... it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation

What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence?

> The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.

So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?

Post reply on HN