08 Emotivism

Hume’s argument for subjectivism is a disjunctive syllogism, so it’s valid (its logic is correct):
Premise 1:
Moral judgments originate either in sensation (impressions with external origin) or feelings (impressions with internal origin).

Premise 2:
They don’t originate in sensation ("Is" does not imply "ought").
Conclusion: Therefore, they originate in feelings.

To this we ad a bit of Alfred Ayer (1910 – 1989):
- begin quote -
Logical positivism proposed that only two types of statements make genuine truth claims (claims that are true or false).

First, there are empirical statements (like “It is snowing outside”); these can in principle be shown by our sense experience to be true, or at least highly probable.

Second, there are analytic statements (like “All bachelors are single”); these are true because of the meaning of words.

Since moral judgments do not fit in either category, they cannot be true or false. Instead of being truth claims, they only express emotions. “This is bad” is much like “Boo on this!”
- quote end -

For logical reasoning we need statements, that are either true or false. Knowledge claims are based on statements being true or false. Now look at our situation regarding moral judgements.

Let's put some more oil on the fire . Ayer: "Moral judgments do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling and do not come under the category of truth and falsehood."

How in the world is there any rational debate on moral judgements possible? John says: "Homosexuality is wrong!" and the Gay Activist says: "Homosexuality is morally acceptable!"

According to Ayer this should be translated in "Homosexuality! Yuck!" or "Homosexuality! Hurray!" or as prescriptive expressions like "Don’t be homosexual." or "Homosexuality: go for it."

As expressions of emotions there is no truth claim here. The speakers are expressing different attitudes toward it, or urging different actions.

Does that mean that we are stuck in opposing opinions? It is my feelings against yours and as we saw already, logic and reason don't apply to feelings.

Ayer: "Ethical philosophy consists simply in saying that ethical concepts are pseudo-concepts and therefore unanalyzable. The further task of describing the different feelings that ethical terms express, and the different reactions that they provoke, is a task for the psychologist.

There cannot be an ethical science, if by ethical science one means the elaboration of a “true” system of morals. As ethical judgments are mere expressions of feeling, there can be no way of determining the validity of any ethical system and no sense in asking whether any such system is true. - quote end -

So a genuine moral disagreement would be something like you feel "Do it!" while I feel "Don't do it!" and there it stops. We seem to be with our back agains the wall.

For, suppose you say : "Homosexuality is wrong even if the Gay Activist expresses approval for it or advocates it." that would mean "Homosexuality! Yuck! /Don’t do it! – even if the Gay Activist expresses approval for it or advocates it."

But that would make little sense, because there is a clear difference of opinion and such an argument would not be acceptable at all for the Gay Activist.

Here again we are victim of that indestructible urge of the human mind to think binary. Emotivism assumes that if a moral judgment expresses my feeling, it can’t also be supported by reason.

either my moral judgment expresses my attitudes OR it is the outcome of a reasoning process, but not both. But why not both?

Suppose you go the your doctor because you have a terrible headache. That is what you feel at least, and you say to the doctor "I have a headache!" The doctor says: " I don't think you have a headache. That is how I feel about it."

Fortunately your doctor wont react in that way. If he would have you would be stunned. You would say something like "Are you out of your mind?"

And all this is created by the initial assumption of Hume and Ayer, that a a statement expresses EITHER a feeling which cant have a truth value OR an empirical fact which is true or false.

What your doctor will do is examining you, in other words examining the factual content of the 'feeling' I have a headache.

And in that sense have moral judgements also a factual content together with an emotional content. So I think that this semantical interpretation of moral judgements is more acceptable than the emotivist point of view.


The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: So much on emotivism ㋡
[13:20] herman Bergson: If you have a remark or question...go ahead ㋡
[13:20] BrainCrave OHare: so is it your contention that logic and reasoning don't apply to feelings?
[13:20] herman Bergson: Not mine but that of the emotivist
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate whispers: that must have caused a lot of backlash no?
[13:21] BrainCrave OHare: so you would agree that feelings are both logical and rational, and have a basis as such?
[13:21] herman Bergson: what is 'backlash'?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: many arguments against their ideas
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well Brain ..not exactly in that way...
[13:22] BrainCrave OHare: somewhere in the gray? :)
[13:23] herman Bergson: The problem begins with the dichotomy of feelings - sensations
[13:23] herman Bergson: the ratio controls feelings while feelings influence the ratio...you cant cut them apart
[13:23] Myriam Brianna shakes her head, re-reads a part of herman's text
[13:23] oola Neruda: sometimes decisions must be made... for example the passing of a law... and people argue rational reasons.. but do not agree... and end up deciding according to their feelings... how does this fit
[13:24] herman Bergson: My text even influences a head to shake
[13:24] herman Bergson: why so Myriam
[13:25] Myriam Brianna: because I have the feeling of running up against a wall. Not seeing the sense in the "in that sense" ;)
[13:25] herman Bergson: At this moment an emotivist approach of moral judgements is still alive in the philosophical debate of today
[13:25] Myriam Brianna: there's a leap, but I'm not yet sure where exactly
[13:25] oola Neruda: or perhaps you did explain it... if i apply your comments properly
[13:25] Yejiba Severine: But how does one get away from emotivism, especially in terms of governing. It is used in a sort of propaganda way to get persons on their side on an issue. In fact, is seems to be used in a wide variety of situations including news. (nods to oola)
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: very much so
[13:26] oola Neruda: i agree
[13:26] herman Bergson: The main characteristic is that it puts you in a situation of Opinion against Opinion
[13:27] herman Bergson: and no way to say which opinion is right
[13:27] Yejiba Severine nods.
[13:27] BrainCrave OHare: when you have no standards, what do you expect will happen?
[13:27] herman Bergson: in fact it is a kind of subjectivism
[13:27] BrainCrave OHare: agree
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: there you go that is right
[13:27] Yejiba Severine nods.
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: standards
[13:27] herman Bergson: What I say Brain....you become a supporter of subjectivism
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: don't count on it
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: (couldn't be further from the truth)
[13:28] herman Bergson smiles
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: :)
[13:28] Myriam Brianna: the factual content of moral judgements you have pointed to, Herman, is - as I see it - them being represented as a cognitive state. Which is something no one doubts. The doctor examining you tries to ascertain if you are feeling what you claim you are feeling ... *scratches at the base of her scalp*
[13:28] herman Bergson: I agree Brain
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes Myriam, but that doctor will never see you pain
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: that's to say: I think the simile limps
[13:29] oola Neruda: are you saying the standards are arbitrary.. depending upon whom has the upper hand in the discussion
[13:29] herman Bergson: He might see a high blood pressure ...things like that
[13:29] BrainCrave OHare: there can be no upper hand without standards oola
[13:30] BrainCrave OHare: by definition
[13:30] oola Neruda: stronger personality is perhaps what i should have said
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is the whole point
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: yes, but I also do not "see" the position of someone on, say, homosexuality
[13:31] herman Bergson: No....but when you say Homosexuality is wrong you arent debating about homosexuality
[13:31] BrainCrave OHare: i have a hard time understanding where the challenge is in separating moral standards from personal preferences
[13:31] herman Bergson: You are talking about your feelings
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: yes, exactly
[13:32] Myriam Brianna: and that I have some feeling on (x) no one doubts
[13:32] herman Bergson: That makes it impossible to say "Homosexuality is wrong even when you approve it."
[13:32] oola Neruda: in the creation of the standards... WHO says this is the standard and why... barbie doll has, in it's own way, been a standard
[13:32] herman Bergson: You only can say that when the concept of homosexuality is something factual
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes oola.....who says so...
[13:33] BrainCrave OHare: reason
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is decided on the factual content of moral judgements
[13:33] herman Bergson: Indeed Brain...decided by reason and good argument
[13:34] oola Neruda: in a perfect world... but i guess philosophy does aim at the ideal?
[13:34] herman Bergson: You may observe that worldwide some moral standards are used everywhere
[13:34] BrainCrave OHare: is that the purpose of philosophy? to pursue the ideal? i don't think so
[13:34] herman Bergson: that cant be a coincidence
[13:35] herman Bergson: No...the purpose of philosophy is to clarify
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: but it does not seem to :-)
[13:35] Yejiba Severine: Clarify different states of perception?
[13:35] BrainCrave OHare: i think the purpose of philosophy is to help us live
[13:36] herman Bergson: As Bertrand Russell said: The goal of philosophy is to learn us to live with uncertainty.
[13:36] Yejiba Severine: I thought that was religion.
[13:36] BrainCrave OHare: <-- doesn't agree with bertrand
[13:37] herman Bergson: Religion is certainty, I would say
[13:37] Myriam Brianna: unjustified certainty
[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed Myriam, therfore it is called belief
[13:37] Yejiba Severine: I think it is a cover for uncertainty. Put things is a framework so we are not frightened.
[13:38] BrainCrave OHare: certainty = fact
[13:38] herman Bergson: But the quintessence of the current debate is whether everything we experience, know, feel etc depends solely on the mind, or not everything is mind-dependent.
[13:39] BrainCrave OHare: try to experience something without using the mind
[13:39] herman Bergson: That means....does my computer still exist when I dont see it and I am in another room
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: impossible
[13:39] herman Bergson: This is not the point Brain
[13:40] herman Bergson: The point is does the mind create our reality (idealism) or is there an interaction between the mind and an external world
[13:40] herman Bergson: which however we only experience with our senses
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: it must have something to sense tho
[13:41] BrainCrave OHare: reality exists, whether we choose to perceive it or not (i.e., regardless of whether we choose to use our minds)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Ok Brain....
[13:41] BrainCrave OHare: your computer exists regardless of whether you think of it, doesn't it?
[13:41] herman Bergson: So it also exists in moral judgements
[13:42] herman Bergson: a moral judgement is in such a context not just my personal feeling
[13:42] BrainCrave OHare: a moral judgment is based on reality, not personal preference, if that's what you're getting at
[13:42] herman Bergson: the judgement is also related with factual things , with parts of reality which is not my mind
[13:42] BrainCrave OHare: or, rather, it should be
[13:43] herman Bergson: the emotivist believes it is a personal thing
[13:43] Daruma Boa: oh must go. sorry.
[13:43] BrainCrave OHare: so the emotivist is wrong
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: daruma
[13:43] Daruma Boa: bye and see u next week
[13:43] BrainCrave OHare: would anyone here disagree?
[13:43] oola Neruda: yes
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: bye Daruma
[13:44] herman Bergson: As you may have noticed...I do not agree with the emotivist point of view ㋡
[13:44] oola Neruda: because you cannot prove the side you take
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: i think it probably is wrong :-)
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: wait, wait - in what way do you think the actual, factual existence of an objective world is of importance to ethics?
[13:44] herman Bergson: especially because I dont agree with the basic assumption that you have feelings on the one hand and sensations (true /false statements) on the other hand
[13:45] BrainCrave OHare: let's put it this way - if you have ethics not based on truth (e.g., facts), what would happen? one opinion against another
[13:45] oola Neruda: i think that is exactly the problem
[13:46] herman Bergson: The objective external world is important to ethics because we live in it...what is happening there affects matters of life and death for instance
[13:46] oola Neruda: just opinion
[13:46] Myriam Brianna: okay, let's put it in another way. I do also assume that there's an objective world. I do think that my judgements relate to actual occurrences in space-time, not to figments of my imagination. But my judgements would be the same in a wholly illusionary environment
[13:46] herman Bergson: Indeed oola, if everything were just opinion, why then not assume that the earth is still flat for instance
[13:47] oola Neruda: probably some people do
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: i am not sure anyone ever did
[13:48] oola Neruda: i had the impression we were separating empiricism and emotivism
[13:48] herman Bergson: You may have a point there Gemma
[13:48] Myriam Brianna: yes, that's the whole point. Ethical questions are on another level than questions about, e.g., the shape of the world or even the existence of it
[13:48] BrainCrave OHare: i disagree with that myriam - truth is truth... A is A
[13:48] Myriam Brianna: you were not attacking emotivism, but an effigy of it
[13:49] oola Neruda: A is A is binary
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam...it is because they are a combination of different aspects of being..feelings, emotions AND empirical experiences
[13:49] BrainCrave OHare: i know - i read the blog - this class doesn't seem to like binary :)
[13:50] herman Bergson: No Brain..only my computer does ㋡
[13:50] BrainCrave OHare: lol
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: liking has little to do with it
[13:50] herman Bergson: No Gemma you are right, I have arguments for that
[13:50] herman Bergson: rational arguments
[13:51] BrainCrave OHare: rational arguments for subjectivism?
[13:51] herman Bergson: and today is a nice example...I simply say "I dont like emotivis" and I tried to give some arguments for that
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:52] herman Bergson: Subjectivism doesn work either Brain
[13:52] BrainCrave OHare: :)
[13:52] BrainCrave OHare: where's ayn rand when you need her? rofl
[13:52] oola Neruda: would you call instinct emotive?
[13:53] herman Bergson: When you study a subject use google and just type "against emotivism"
[13:53] Myriam Brianna: the wrong ones, I think
[13:53] herman Bergson: or things like that
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ah good idea
[13:53] herman Bergson: Works fine...google on whole statements..
[13:54] herman Bergson: Is instinct emotive?
[13:54] oola Neruda: is it?
[13:54] herman Bergson: I would say no
[13:55] herman Bergson: Instinct is an innate pattern in the nature of an organism, that is not what is meant with emotive
[13:55] herman Bergson: Instinct is not equal to emotion
[13:55] oola Neruda: for example, a fear reaction ..
[13:56] oola Neruda: to falling for example
[13:56] herman Bergson: Instinct reaction amy cause emotions
[13:56] herman Bergson: may
[13:56] oola Neruda: nods... that makes sense
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: what was the url again, for the blog?
[13:57] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com?
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: hahaha bye berg
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: ah, yes
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: cya Bergfrau
[13:57] herman Bergson: Well...this was not a simple discussion.....
[13:58] BrainCrave OHare: depends on your perspective :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: The more questions you have left the more succesfull we were today ㋡
[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Brain...some have that lucky perspective....I am the more troublesome kind ㋡
[13:59] BrainCrave OHare: luck favors the prepared? :)
[13:59] BrainCrave OHare: (sorry)
[13:59] BrainCrave OHare: (meant only in jest, of course)
[13:59] herman Bergson smiles
[14:00] oola Neruda: as a teacher...that is part of why i assigned homework
[14:00] herman Bergson: I thank you for you participation again ...
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: LOL
[14:00] BrainCrave OHare: thank you herman
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to go now
[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ... ㋡

07 Moral anti-realism / Moral Realism

Slowly but surely, the contours of the contemporary debate on ethics become clearer. Because I awoke from a philosophical hibernation of almost 20 years, it is more or less new to me.

I mean I lectured 10 years on philosophy professionally in RL and then moved on to teaching computer classes at an Academy of fine Arts.

Philosophy never leaves you, but reading the complicated and detailed argumentations again, it feels like updating my Operating system, somehow like updating Windows 3.1 straight to Windows Vista.

But the contours of the current philosophical discourse on ethics become clear now. I obtained the insight with help of reading Ayer on his Emotivism and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

In the superb article "Moral Anti-Realism", which is related to Ayer and his emotivism, I found a paragraph which in fact describes what I said in my lecture "04 Moral subjectivism( and your own Philosophical Program" . For your information: today is lecture 07 of this project.

Or said in other words, this paragraph put my personal position, I then explained, in the wider perspective of the current philosophical debate on ethics.

- quote begin -
In short, attempts to establish the burden of proof are as slippery and indecisive in the debate between the moral realist and the moral anti-realist as they tend to be generally in philosophy.

The matter is complicated by the fact that there are two kinds of burden-of-proof case that can be pressed, and here they tend to pull against each other.

On the one hand, moral realists face a cluster of explanatory challenges concerning the nature of moral facts (how they relate to naturalistic facts, how we have access to them, why they have practical importance)—challenges that simply don't arise for either the noncognitivist or the error theorist.

On the other hand, it is widely assumed that intuitions strongly favor the moral realist. This tension between what is considered to be the intuitive position and what is considered to be the empirically, metaphysically, and epistemologically defensible position, motivates and animates much of the debate between the moral realist and moral anti-realist.
- quote end -

What struck me in this paragraph was "that intuitions strongly favor the moral realist". It made me think of my words in relation to your own personal philosophical program:

-quote begin -
"To define you personal philosophical program, your way of philosophical dealing with for instance moral judgements, you may discover that you feel more attracted to certain arguments and more in disagreement with other arguments, even tho you may not yet have a good explanation for your preferences."
- quote end -

In other words, take a stand and don't ask "why do I support these axioms, basic ideas, point of view?", but put them to the test. Join the debate and use rational argumentation and logic as your tools.

The second thing that excited me in this paragraph was the observation that "moral realists face a cluster of explanatory challenges concerning the nature of moral facts…"

That is my philosophical challenge for the next 10 years indeed. This is The Philosophy Class in Second Life. A real class not only for you, but absolutely also for me. We are exploring new sims here. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I appreciate your motivating support and participation.



The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you ㋡
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..feel free
[13:22] herman Bergson: So good to see you thinking ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: there are many challenges to maintain a philosophy
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: a personal one i mean
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma, and I formulated mine ;)
[13:23] oola Neruda: i am having a problem with there seeming to be a need for a yes/no .. either/or answer... and yet, i feel it is really shades of grey
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: good :-)
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i agree oola
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: from the first i have felt that way
[13:23] herman Bergson: It is not about a yes or no oola....
[13:24] herman Bergson: it is that you take a stand....and then put it to the test
[13:24] oola Neruda: they seem to defend positions so strongly... look at it THIS WAY
[13:24] herman Bergson: that doesnt mean your ideas are confirmed or rejected...
[13:24] herman Bergson: it means that you begin a development...
[13:25] herman Bergson: ideas change, are modified...and so on
[13:25] herman Bergson: A number of times I have pointed at that binary thinking....it is a fallacy..
[13:26] Myriam Brianna: btw, not everything can be shades of grey. Either Mohammed was a historical person, an actual human, or he was not. What in-between can there be?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Like the "You are with me or against me" stand
[13:26] herman Bergson: I agree Myriam....
[13:26] oola Neruda: true Myriam
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is why I refered to rational arguments and logic as your tools
[13:27] Myriam Brianna sighs - gotta go again. Cya, all
[13:27] herman Bergson: Like in our present discourse...
[13:27] Daruma Boa: bye myriam
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:28] oola Neruda: baiee
[13:29] herman Bergson: Next lecture you'll meet Alfred Ayer...
[13:29] Daruma Boa: who is that
[13:29] herman Bergson: a man of great influence philosophically who declares moral concepts as meaningless
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: did we not discuss him in the first session??
[13:29] herman Bergson: A British philosopher..declared logical positivist..
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: year + age?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Book: Languege Truth and Logic ...1936
[13:30] herman Bergson: Then he was 24!
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:30] Daruma Boa: oh thats young
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes but the book had a major impact
[13:31] Daruma Boa: well some r young, but their mind is old^^
[13:32] herman Bergson: our most important question is are moral judgements factual statements which can be true or false or are they not facual statements
[13:32] herman Bergson: if they are factual then there is something mind-independent that can be observed
[13:32] Frederick Hansome: Doesn't it depend on the situation?
[13:33] herman Bergson: if they are not factual..then you cant deduce empirical statements from a moral judgement...
[13:33] herman Bergson: No Frederick...
[13:33] Frederick Hansome: Read a book years ago called "Situational Ethics"
[13:33] herman Bergson: this is really a fundamental issue...
[13:34] herman Bergson: no grey area here...
[13:34] Frederick Hansome: that is puzzling to me
[13:35] herman Bergson: At the end of this project you may have a clear understanding of the meaning of this 'choice'
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Frederick, I agree...
[13:35] Frederick Hansome: between....??
[13:36] herman Bergson: But the point is....is morality as it were incorporated in reality as an independent property of being
[13:36] herman Bergson: or is it just something we make up in our mind
[13:36] herman Bergson: for instance....
[13:37] herman Bergson: is morality...the capacity to know the difference between good and bad innate in our DNA or is it just our mind that cooks such a thing up
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: good question
[13:38] herman Bergson: do we 'create' morality...ethics..or do we gradually discover ethics?
[13:38] oola Neruda: i think i mentioned instinct last time... motherhood for examples... even animals have that need to care for the young
[13:39] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: interesting, have animals also ethics?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: that has been part of the discussion too reise
[13:39] herman Bergson: No..animals have no ethics....that is the whole point...
[13:39] herman Bergson: The instincts oola refers to control the behavior of animals..
[13:40] herman Bergson: we as conscious beings, can choose to be a good or a bad mother
[13:40] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: really, whats about the ape groups, that support each other
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is the whole point Reise....
[13:41] herman Bergson: In all social animals we see traits which we recognize as social even altruistic behavior, but it is controled by instinct
[13:41] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: i think we can not know this really today
[13:41] herman Bergson: due to our consciousness our position is way more complex
[13:41] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: dolphins are also a example
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: oh but science has proven that i think
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: at least to my mind
[13:42] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: they support a dying dolphin. is this only instinct?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: yes actually
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes....because animals work on a stimulus response model
[13:43] herman Bergson: we however can choose...
[13:44] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: thats the science now. ok, i accept it. ;-)
[13:44] herman Bergson: An animal is not aware of evil
[13:44] herman Bergson: we are
[13:45] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: how good :-)
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting tho reise that spain has passed an animal rights law
[13:45] herman Bergson: an animal is aware of danger...
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: putting apes on par with humans almost
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are aware of evil....and have to explain it, justify it...
[13:46] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: But i remember, that i have read somewhere, that apes can reflect themselves
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes...even en elephant seems to have so kind of self awareness
[13:47] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: i am sorry, i forgot, where the research was...
[13:47] herman Bergson: recognizes itself as individual in a mirror
[13:47] herman Bergson: but the situation is almost biblical...
[13:48] herman Bergson: mankind became aware of evil, wrong doing......
[13:48] herman Bergson: That was Adam and Eve
[13:48] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: May be also apes in history *smile*
[13:48] herman Bergson: From the very beginning we have been aware of our situatioon...
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: would you agree that
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: morality is a behavior
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: which requires conscious thought
[13:49] SOLOGO Hoxley: you were comparing animals and humans - i would like to know if there is an opposite in morals between human and avatars
[13:50] herman Bergson smiles
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: thererfore it must be constructed in the mind, and not hardwired
[13:50] herman Bergson: Good question SOLOGO
[13:50] herman Bergson: My answer is YES...
[13:50] SOLOGO Hoxley: herman explain a little
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: GOSH I think it is similar
[13:50] herman Bergson: Avatars have other moral standards than humans...not all but a lot have
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:50] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: avatars are real humans, but they can be here be incognito. Thats a difference
[13:51] Daruma Boa: yes its a human on the keys
[13:51] Daruma Boa: but its a part of yourself
[13:51] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: Incognito they make things, which they will never do in real
[13:51] herman Bergson: the ladies in this class can confirm that I guess, regarding male avatars
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:51] Violette McMinnar: lol
[13:51] oola Neruda: hmmmm yes
[13:52] Daruma Boa: but beeing incognito is also a part of yourself. i am, the one u r incognito^^
[13:52] herman Bergson: In the years passed by I have learnt to qualify a number of mainly male avatars as two pixel brains for instance.
[13:52] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:52] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: its not easy to be a female avatar on some sims. I studied it also with another avatar
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:52] herman Bergson: in pixel one you find "WANNA" and in pixel two you find "FUCK"
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:52] Daruma Boa: well, being a female is never easy..
[13:53] herman Bergson: is a typical moral incompletenes of the avatar...
[13:53] Violette McMinnar: I have no problem to ay F off to a wanna ****
[13:53] herman Bergson: not of all, but a reasonable number it seems
[13:53] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: May be some men in SL think, they can do all here
[13:53] Daruma Boa: yes
[13:53] Daruma Boa: aloha rod
[13:53] herman Bergson: I think that that is the simple case indeed...
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Daruma
[13:54] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: But there are also some women like this...
[13:54] herman Bergson: Welcome rodney..you are in time today ㋡
[13:54] Daruma Boa: hihi
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:54] SOLOGO Hoxley: so the discussion now is about good and bad
[13:54] herman Bergson: So yes..SOLOGO ..there is a difference in ethics between humans and avatars
[13:55] Daruma Boa: but most ppl learn, that this digital world isnt so easy and "making dreams come true" as they think.
[13:55] Daruma Boa: it has its own rules
[13:55] Violette McMinnar: but doing it all in SL shows the need in men to be like that, don't you think, so it is good they can try t here in sl and see how it works
[13:55] herman Bergson: Oh my Violette....
[13:55] herman Bergson: I wouldnt hope so...
[13:55] Violette McMinnar: lol yes?
[13:56] Violette McMinnar: why not
[13:56] SOLOGO Hoxley: violette, doing what? trying to be free? do avatars have the chance to make a choice
[13:56] Violette McMinnar: a negative or bad experience is still an experience, still teaches something
[13:56] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: and there is a avatar development
[13:57] herman Bergson: When some people behave in RL as they behave in SL because it worked there..I would be worried
[13:57] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: Reisekaufmann is my second avatar. The first was for fun and playing. I dont use him now
[13:57] Violette McMinnar: so they will burn their finger and understand
[13:57] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: Reisekaufmann is more my real self
[13:57] Rodney Handrick: an alter ego reis?
[13:57] herman Bergson: I think it is the other way around Violette...
[13:57] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: i have 4 alts. hahaha
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: wow....
[13:58] Violette McMinnar: mmm then they will burn their finger over and over if they are that stupid
[13:58] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: but also for research, i made a asian avatar to explore asian mentality
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ahha
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: saw you lol
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: Hi Gemma
[13:59] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: thats secret, hahaha
[13:59] herman Bergson: Ok....
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: rodney
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: hihi
[13:59] herman Bergson: I think we are drifting away from the subject
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: well time
[13:59] herman Bergson: so ..let's refocus
[13:59] Daruma Boa: its intersting to see here how avatars are styled. cause thats the fanatsy of the "owner";-))
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:59] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: take us back, Herman
[14:00] SOLOGO Hoxley: question about moral other way round: does the experience as an avatar change moral in rl?
[14:00] Daruma Boa: guess no.
[14:00] Violette McMinnar: it can
[14:00] SOLOGO Hoxley: which way?
[14:00] herman Bergson: Wait...!
[14:00] Violette McMinnar: both ways;p
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go
[14:00] Daruma Boa: well most get tired of this world here
[14:00] herman Bergson: I think we have to make a difference here...
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[14:00] Daruma Boa: and the ones who stay, understand after a while
[14:00] SOLOGO Hoxley: bye
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: c y Gemma
[14:01] Rodney Handrick: Bye Gemma
[14:01] herman Bergson: SOLOGO is more refering to a psychological change than to a philosophical issue
[14:01] Daruma Boa: bye gemma
[14:01] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: nein, derjenige lebt seine fantasien nur damit aus. Sologo. Aber dafür ist eine virtuelle Welt unter anderem auch da.
[14:01] SOLOGO Hoxley: no - i am talking of moral
[14:01] herman Bergson: SL is used for behavior modification
[14:01] Violette McMinnar: my sl xperiences influenced my rl in several areas
[14:01] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: This happens also in other virtual worlds
[14:01] Daruma Boa: yes also good 2 talk about your probs with that incognito face
[14:02] herman Bergson: Yes but that is in the realm of psychology
[14:02] Daruma Boa: for some
[14:02] herman Bergson: Philosophically we only dela with justification of moral judgements for instance, or the meaning of concepts..
[14:02] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: look at twinity or others
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: I have to go... see you all next time :D
[14:03] Frederick Hansome: Philosophy is impoverished without psychology
[14:03] Daruma Boa: bye abraxas
[14:03] herman Bergson: bye Abraxas
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[14:03] Rodney Handrick: Bye Abraxas
[14:03] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: ciao
[14:03] Violette McMinnar: time to go fo me, thanks and see you all next time\
[14:03] Frederick Hansome: good evenitn, all
[14:03] herman Bergson: We are overdue even.....time to dismiss class
[14:03] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: But Sologos questions were interesting
[14:04] Daruma Boa: pffft
[14:04] herman Bergson: and a late welcome to Yejiba.. :-)
[14:04] Rodney Handrick: Bye Violette
[14:04] herman Bergson: Dint see you come in Yejiba ㋡
[14:04] Daruma Boa: hey brain
[14:04] Daruma Boa: so, i have to go;-))
[14:04] BrainCrave OHare: hello - very sorry to have missed this