|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A personal morality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Are you trying to get your brother's account suspended too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ethics  Inactive Member |
This "prophex" character isn't me. He flubbed things up a bit for himself...
I am puzzled to why you hold Leo Strauss so highly. The little of what you know of him was fed to you by Democracy now. See, you don't have to think when you listen to that program. I will bet that you have never read Heidegger and have read little, if anything, of Sartre. You probably haven't read a book since graduation. You shouldn't call anyone an idiot. Can you justify the supposed significance of a Professor from Chicago in regards to Socrates? No, you cannot. What type of knowledge do you have, honestly? Please don't answer that question. Ignatius
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ethics  Inactive Member |
In anticipating your response as a given (Didn't have to think about this): No, neo-conservatism is not important.
I'm done with this joke of a website. Ignatius
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think I was civil enough when I replied to Ignatius' post. Certainly more civil than his tone deserved. And it is true, there was no discussion of "absolutes" in this thread until Ignatius brought it up. If you look at the "Edit" menu on your browser, there is a feature called "Find in this page". I used it to search for the word "absolute". It is true, no one on this thread was claiming that there are no absolutes, in fact, no one was saying anything about "absolutes" at all. So Ignatius' comment was irrelevant to the discussion. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
IIRC, and I will admit that it has been a half century near about since I bothered reading the dialog you referenced, but IIRC it is from Plato's Dialogs, and as everyone knows, Plato was the Jack Chick of Athens, creating silly little pantomimes where the part of Punch is played by Socrates and Punch's foil by someone from Central Casting.
The technique of writing skits where you closely control the dialog was of course not new, and has been used effectively down through the ages. Additional nuances on method were learned based on the short run when the character Simplicio was introduced as foil for Salviati, but it is no doubt that the art form reached its current peak, as can be seen in today's Chick Tracts, only recently. There are a few indications though of where the technique is headed in such monumental works as Sponge Bob Square Pants and the astounding moral epic Hannah Montana. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Ignatius? ethics? Prophex? writes: I'm done with this joke of a website. Done? I'm still trying to find where you began, really I like to learn things from reading the posts on this website. I've read many posts from many people here defending and even advocating different versions of relative morality. Any promotion of absolute morality has never been able to hold up to even a slight amount of scrutiny. You seem to think that there is some form of Absolute Morality, that not only exists, but is also glaringly obvious. I am interested in hearing your view, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I've gone back over your posts, and, well, I can't identify where you actually described this Absolute Morality. There only seems to be hints that one exists and that you believe in it. Can you show it to me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Rob writes: It is really only fear that keeps us in check. Fear of consequence. And rightly so. Just as I fear jumping off tall buildings. Without consequence, or fear of it, all hell would be unleashed. Is this a sane position? Your only reason for not going around pillaging, raping and murdering, is fear of the consequences? For goodness' sake man, how can you live with yourself? What a dreadful state of mind you must be in. And how do you explain all the good things people do? If it is true that people only refrain from doing bad things because they fear the consequences, then they are in no disposition to do good things, wouldn't you think? They would only be inclined to do bad things, and solely kept from doing them because of fear, right? Then why do people do good things? --- "I get my morality from exactly the same source as a Christian does, and it's not the Bible. I can prove that, challenge me." - Parasomnium. Edited by Parasomnium, : Changed my "quote" of myself. (It isn't really a quote, I made it up for this message. But the invitation to challenge me stands.) "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am puzzled to why you hold Leo Strauss so highly. I don't, really. But the degree to which the thought of Strauss has affected the modern American political landscape, particularly modern conservatism, means that it's idiotic to assert that Strauss is some kind of insignificant figure. The only person who would make such a claim would be someone trying to use arrogant condescension to cover a deep ignorance of the subject. It's a technique used, for instance, by the most pretentious rock music critics. You (if you really are a different person and not just a sock-puppet) have simply retreated to playground antics and name-calling. Do you have a reply to my arguments, or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Then why do people do good things? Because it is the right thing to do...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
The concept was in play, and ignatius was correct to use the word absolute to hone in on the 'real issue' (one that so many wish to avoid).
I was glad that you and he brought it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Then why do people do good things?
Because it is the right thing to do...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
so why did you mention that people don't do bad things because of the "fear of consequences"? seems to me you've got two separate answers for the same question.
(unless, of course, you want to argue that there are indeed "nuetral" actions. granted, I don't think such an argument exists, but hey, give it a shot).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Rob writes: Then why do people do good things? Because it is the right thing to do... It may be the right thing to do, but you made it clear that people are not inclined to do the right thing. You said that if it weren't for the fear of the consequences, all hell would break loose, meaning that people would do all kinds of bad things, and no good things. Luckily, you would have it, they fear the consequences of doing bad things, so they don't do them. If they're inclined to do bad things, and no good things, and for some reason, they don't do bad things, what does it all add up to? That people don't do bad things, and don't do good things. Mind you, this is all deduced from your own premise that only fear keeps us in check. If we see people doing good things, which we do, then what should we think of your premise? I think we can safely say that we are dealing with a case of reductio ad absurdum here. Your premise is false. --- "I get my morality from exactly the same source as a Christian does, and it's not the Bible. I can prove that, challenge me." - Parasomnium. Edited by Parasomnium, : Removed extraneous "from" "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I think you boys are missing the point...
I said, that 'people don't do bad things because of the consequences'. This is not just in relation to some eternal damnation. There are many who could care less about eternal damnation. Their own immediate happiness and peace of mind is their biggest treasure. That describes me too BTW. But... there are still the immediate political consequences. People wish to avoid the unpleasantries (in the here and now) of their actions. So for example, an affair is done in secret. Money is kept in a Swiss account, and other vices are done in secret, and the mask of 'goodness' is worn with subconscious habit. Do you see the difference. It's a matter of getting away with the sin... As for goodness... A person may do good for the immediate political benefits (socially) which can be quite enjoyable, and only for that reason. I think that is the most common. It pumps us up to be seen and imagine in our minds all the good things people say about us. That is the one I am most readily tempted by. Putting on the mask. Also, we reap the long term benefits of genuine community. We can get both out of doing good. And a third benefit is, that sometimes the right thing to do is take your kids fishing... and it is enjoyable in all three ways. But doing good, is not necessarily something that feels good. There are many responsibilities that do not feel good. The long term genuine rewards come later. They are not selfishly motivated but simply dutiful and disciplined. This is my biggest struggle. For example, sometimes the right thing to do is stop what I am doing and discipline my kids. They get out of control very quickly. But it does not feel good and is a distraction and pain in the rear. I'd rather be typing a response to some jerk at EVC and imagining how smart they all think I am. So I don't do it because it feels good, but because it is my duty as a father. As for being a miserable person... more than I desire. I have to struggle against my own desire and I hate it. But what has happiness (in the momentary sense) got to do with anything? Shall I remain a slave to my feelings of 'happiness'? For how long? An hour? A day? A month? Ten years? What if the only way to freedom is suffering for a while? Pay now and play later... Shall I play now and deny having to pay later? If so, would remain a slave to doing whatever I feel like doing at the moment. The 'moment' is always 'now'... And that is what destroys community, communication, and peace. It is sin's enslavement of me... This is autobiographical... So, I don't expect you to understand it. I don't think you can. You don't have these struggles. You have already accepted the notion that you are 'good' because you do things for selfish reasons. And your scientific worldview reinforces that fact. And you've never really taken the time to seriously question otherwise. I mean, 'what's in it for you?' You don't think, because it hurts your feelings to think. And as such, you remain a slave to your feelings, not understanding or asking why you do what you do, and endlessly seeking to keep the ball of happiness rolling to escape the pain. For you, thinking is painful. Why ruin a good mood? To understand why, you'd have to ask that question to the liar, murderer, adulterer, and thief... But you are none of those things right?... so why bother? Just have fun man... don't worry about this stuff. If you keep trying to bury me, your going to become very bitter and mean. Just do what you think is right, and I'll do the same. That's what you believe right? The only catch is... that I believe doing the right thing is reminding you of these things so that is what I must do. So you Party On, Wayne... I'll be the party pooper! You decide which of us is full of hate for the other...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
No, "absolutes" were never part of the conversation. Thinking otherwise is, I guess, consistent with your general tendency to avoid discussing the topic that everyone else is discussing and going off on your own tangents. This is from Neutralmind's OP:
-
Okay, just recently I realised that with evolution comes a presumption of relative morality... Okay, right off, this is incorrect. -
...and I've always thought about morality being objective. Neutralmind's previous assumption was incorrect as well, so he is on the verge of coming to a correct conclusion but for the wrong reason. -
...the proof can be seen around the world with different cultures ascribing different things as moral and immoral. And even individuals in the same culture. Now this part is correct, but it has nothing to do with evolution. -
I've never really believed in a god, but I've always believed in an objective morality. Again, we are talking about whether or not there is an objective standard for morality. -
I have a fear, no... I know that if I KNEW for sure, that there was absolutely no doubt that relative morality is correct I'd become one of the most immoral guys in this planet.... I KNOW I would become like that and I have no idea why I wouldn't want to be like that, now that I know (not KNOW) that relative morality is in fact correct. Now Neutralmind is claiming that if there is no objective standard for morality, he would do things that he would not want to do. As crashfrog points out, this makes no sense. What would he do things that he doesn't want to do depending on whether there is or is not an objective standard? -
So, should I hold onto my illusionary belief of absolute morality or will someone here help me find ways to deal with knowing the truth and still not turning "immoral"? Again, this makes no sense. Neutralmind is asking whether he should continue "believing" in something that he knows is not true, just to avoid doing stuff he doesn't want to do. Hell, the question here isn't even whether or not there is an objective standard for morality. The question here concerns some sloppy thinking on Neutralmind's part. (Not that this is meant to be a criticism -- when one begins to think about a deep topic for the first time, the initial thought processes are bound to be "sloppy" -- it takes time and effort (and further discussion) to clarify what one believes about it. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024