[Krystian Galaj]

I'm sorry that this post is so long; I lack the clarity of mind to make it shorter and more concise

I feel that answering to all the posts in the last four pages since I posted would only complicate the discussion. So I'll explain what I mean by reasoning without using the concept of "right" and "wrong".

As has been stated before, one can't reason in void, so one has to have a set of assumptions one believes are true. Descartes and Thomas Aquinas tried to get everything from First Principle, without using knowledge gathered by human civilisation - I don't think this is possible, unless the First Principle is the Unified Field Theory from physics, and we get everything right on the way. I take my assumptions, in order, from following disciplines:

1) Physics. I assume physical experiments will continue to give the same results in the future, so physical theories can be used to determine how everything in the world works. Mathematics can also be used, albeit one has to be careful to make sure it really works like the world does where one applied it - while maths is always correct, using it may give incorrect results otherwise.

2) History - with less certainty, but applicable to societies and human beings more than physics. The more something happens time and again in history, with the same results, the more I can trust it will happen again in the same way. There are disciplines that try to summarize historical results in theories easier to comprehend , like sociology and psychology, but those disciplines are full of contradicting schools and theories, and the concept of "right" and "wrong" is so often used in experiments and by test subjects that I tend to stay away from those, instead concentrating on historical accounts - which I admit I like to read a lot anyway Statistics can be a good source of information, but one needs to be sure how information was gathered before one can trust it - sociological surveys shove millions of variables under the rug (as those can't be accounted for, us being only human) and behave as if their results were as hard a data as data from physics experiments.

Based on only this data, and various summaries of this data I decide to trust less or more (I only have one human life and can't double-check everything) I think I can draw a lot of conclusions, without having to use even once a word like: "good", "bad", "evil", "right", "wrong", "morality" or "ethics".

I can, for example, understand the "free speech" idea by checking with history how it originated, that it basically means that some government or another organisation controlling some place says that it won't oppress people for speaking freely. Then I can check how it really worked in the past, what people could do, what governments did, etc. Nowhere in that reasoning I have to state that "free speech" is a "right", or worse, an "absolute right". Such things don't exist, don't have basis in reality, but it's surely nice to hear your government telling you you have an absolute right to something by virtue of being alive.
Good commercial.

If you happen to live in society that accepts slavery, then it's accepted and normal there - it's a fact of life. Now, you may feel you would feel better in a society where the slavery is not accepted, or that such society would be more efficient, better prepared for the future, or simply more people would be happier (as much as you can perceive their happiness), and thus you can work to steer that society in the desired direction, by changing people's minds about it. But saying the slavery is "bad", because people have a "right" to be free is gibberish. It sounds like speech, it looks like reasoning, but the words don't mean anything, so they mean a different thing to each person saying them or hearing them. Of course, skilled orator or politician can use such sounding words to maximize the number of people that support his ascent to power, but if you try to have a logical discussion with those words, soon you notice that you can prove or disprove everything ,and you're turning in circles instead of getting conclusions everyone can agree with (possibly with reservations), or at worst, getting a conclusion that something can't be proven, disproved or solved.

tompe seems to use moral theories as a basis for reasoning, though complicated ones. I can't say I'm in the same boat - I tried to study various philosophical theories, but usually very close to the beginning of the reasoning I encounter one of those words that don't mean anything, and I don't understand anything they're trying to say from that point on. So I just keep to what I described above.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Sorry but you seem to contradict yourself here.

Firstly, you assume that the "reasoning will be flawed, and usually untrue" without providing any sort of proof of such. Your assumption is based purely on whether or not you personally believe the outcomes are the best that could be achieved and then further assume that an outcome based on reasoning of right and wrong could not possibly come up with that outcome.

Well, I'd say this can be neither proved nor disproved. Based on the historical data I believe that social theories that influenced society in the past all had some unforeseen side-effects, or worked against the society. As we now have quite a lot of history behind us to study, and history of societies of all possible sizes, I think that if social theory based on some idealistic concept worked, it would work by pure coincidence. The facts of life seem to be that we're all egoistical herd animals, and though our working brains and memes in them created in the last few thousand years complicate the picture enormously, I think any social theory that has a chance of working, or a proof that no social theory can work should start with those facts.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Secondly, basically you are saying that people should reason based on a set of principles and values that you think are appropriate. Or to put it another way the set of principles and values that you think are "right". Whilst this reasoning may not be based on your concept of "right and wrong" it certainly takes right and wrong into account by suggesting that your way of reasoning is the right way.

Well, yes, as much as you consider physics and history information that I arbitrarily think are appropriate and trustworthy. Since nearly everyone who doesn't ignore those disciplines completely agreed with bulk of information in them, differing only in details, I'd say it's a best set of assumptions one can find. I don't think any of this information is "right" or "wrong", only "true" or "false". But you can say I think it's "right" to base my reasoning on this information, and no other.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I don't see the point in using a mentally unhinged person as an example really. Of course there are always going to mentally ill people, psychopaths etc that make decisions that are questionable based on what they think are right. Arguing that no one should make decisions based on what they think is right or wrong because of it seems rather inane to me.

1. It's easy to say some people have a "personality disorder" and thus you can throw all the rules out the window and apply a new set. I disagree with such distinction - if a human organism is functional enough to fulfill its own basic needs, there's no basis to decide who is "sane" and "stable" and who isn't. Unless of course one applies subjective opinions, saying people one can understand and feel empathy with are sane, and the rest are completely crazy.

2. I 'm not saying no one should make decisions based on incomplete information, or fuzzy, unwieldy representation of information which "right" and "wrong" is. I'm saying you shouldn't trust the conclusions from such reasoning. If someone completely unknown to me attacks my family member, I won't waste time to gather more information, but will jump to the rescue - with hope I'm doing the right thing. But when I have time to think, and a desire to write a philosophical essay, I won't employ such hacky reasoning in it.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Well I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that are now dead because Georgie boy needed to bolster his oil mates bottom line are very glad he was predictable and didn't use nukes!

I must confess I'm not into this conflict as much as many Americans, possibly because I'm from a different country, and not watching TV, and not reading newspapers. I try to read the news if they're 2 weeks old and still there
But when you write about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, I feel compelled to check some facts - and I'm not sure we have enough information to judge. Wikipedia says the "that the total Iraqi violent death toll due to the Iraq War since the US-led invasion is more than 1.2 million (1,220,580)" and later "the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000". Additionally about 4.2 million (16% of population) have become refugees "fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return". However, it's not clear that all those casualties are the effect of war, and it's not known how many people might have died or lost homes, due to moves of Saddam regime, had the invasion not happened. So I generally try to avoid reasoning about current events, as with time more data comes, and it's gathered by less emotionally engaged people. The whole Iraq was, and is a country of fighting clans, there were lots of casualties there before the invasion, most refugees are now afraid of attacks by their own compatriots and not by American soldiers, and I'd argue the more direct cause for the majority of Iraqi deaths in the recent years are the beliefs and ethics (to use the most descriptive word) of the Iraqi societies.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And btw, Georgie boy has gone on record and stated that the USA would use any and all means, including nuclear strikes, to protect the USA so I wouldn't be so sure that all those self interested egotists are predictable and would never launch nuclear weapons.

I'm sure he stated it - after all, words are the tools of politicians - but I doubt that George W. Bush would launch nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

For that matter it was one of those supposedly predictable people who made a very logical decision to drop 2 atomic weapons in the past. Based purely on the numbers of US lives that would be saved of course and had nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to see which design would work better! There was of course a logical and absolute need to drop 2, even though Japan had already sent overtures of peace.

I expect political considerations were taken into account as well, the effect of the strike on Russia, China, the need to remove all doubt whether the first attack was something else, etc. Also, like in case of Iraq, it's possible that if they didn't drop two there, they would have to drop ten later in some major conflict in China or Korea that never happened.

But on that point, you're probably right - there's no telling who might use nuclear weapons, and for what reasons. Even a very practical person might have some illogical but beautiful dream, like destruction of US, that leads this person in life.