Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalism: a paper tiger?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 106 of 125 (434503)
11-16-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
11-15-2007 10:40 PM


Re: A clarification.
quote:
No, I was using labels I did understand, but was perhaps not using a term broad enough in the spectrum because it encompassed more than just Rationalists and Postmodernists.
So you were just using the terms as if they were interchangeable, without explaining the relevance of either - or even explaining what you meant by "rationalists" just to fool us into thinking that you didn't know what or who you were talking about ?
Come off it.
quote:
That would be great, but its unfeasible, so, no, that's not what I'm after.
OK, so your big problem is something that can't be solved.
quote:
've stated, in no uncertain terms, that I should have used a term more broad than just Rationalists and Postmodernists. You seem bent on keeping the argument at the level of definitions. What is left, presumably, is mowing down the strawman.
A strawman s a deliberate misrepresentation. It is not an honest attempt to understand your confused writing. There is no strawman here.
quote:
Chesterton's piece is not about postmodernism. However, I couldn't help noticing the parallels between Chesterton's contemporaries juxtaposed by mine. When I read it, I just had to laugh aloud. I thought I would share the irony.
What exactly is the message of propaganda that you presuppose for Chesterton?
Orthodox Christianity (as he defines it) is good. All rival viewpoints are bad. He attacks all rival viewpoints with the caricatures that you claim match your experiences (although you haven't produced even one real example). THen he goes on to present a rosy view of Orthodox Christianity which is no more realisitc. Of course it is propaganda ! What else could you call something so one-sided and distorted !
quote:
The popularity of something is not a determining factor alone. And I have presented a treatise, on numerous occasions, about why I believe it is immoral
I am not arguing that popularity is a determining factor. I am pointing out the FACT that many people have moral views without ANY good arguments for their truth. And last I saw you arguing about homosexuality you were mainly concerned with arguing for bestiality - dismissing the points actually raised against it without real argument.
quote:
Yours, I suppose, are exculpated?
I didn't say or imply any such thing. You were the one who made that implication.
quote:
If there was no practicality in it, there would be no need to espouse it in the first place.
That doesn't change the fact that in practical terms there is no absolute morality. You say that that means that there is - so far as we can tell or should care - no morality.
quote:
Please explain this since you are in essence saying that opposites are synonymous.
Of course it isn't contradictory. There is no contradiction in saying that people claim to believe something that they do not. But the fact is that I have quite often seen people who claim to believe in an absolute morality arguing against the existence of morality as you have done.
quote:
Whoa, hang on a minute. I am not denying that relative morals exist. I say homosexuality is wrong. You say homosexuality is right. Therein lies moral relativity. The problem is, absolute morals must exist, not only from a philosophical point of view, but in a much more tangible way. The only difference being that one is not provable by nature. But that certainly doesn't negate the truth.
The problem is that it is completely false. There is no sound argument that absolute morals MUST exist. There are arguments that it would be nice if they did but that is not the same thing at all.
quote:
What?!?!? Its not? So you are only concerned with the possible risk of health? You see nothing morally wrong with female circumcision from a moral point of view?
You mean that there is a moral issue completely unrelated to the fact that it is unnecessary (and likely painful surgery) on a child and on the effects it will have on her body ? Aren't those issues the only real and valid basis for any moral outrage ?
quote:
Secondly, I don't believe that. By concerning yourself for the safety of a human being, you are in essence espousing a moral in itself-- that its righteous to care about the well-being of others, and wicked to place them in undue danger.
Well first you assert that I saying that there is no moral issue and then you assert the opposite. That should clue you in to the fact that one of your statements - at least - is likely to be wrong.
quote:
Listening to what God has instructed. Period. But you won't bring yourself to even entertaining the notion, so that in your ambivalence, you can try and remain justified.
So your "better" system is that we should accept the views of people you happen to agree with as "absolute morality" because they claim to have a Big Bully in the Sky who beats up anyone who goes against them. That's obviously not a viable system.
quote:
What?!?!?! What in the holy heck do you call laws? Did you make those laws? Did you have a say in those laws? People-- people other than yourself, make subjective moral views objective all the time.
Laws are very often more practical than moral - and never claim to be absolute moral truths in themselves. The most that can be said is that some people enact their moral views into laws - but the moral views precede the laws and - in a free society = other people are free to campaign to change them.
Looks like a free society is the best system available. Much better than the tyrannical theocracy you would seem to prefer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2007 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 10:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 125 (434660)
11-16-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Modulous
11-15-2007 11:51 AM


Re: A clarification.
If there is no absolute humour, then there is no humour whatsoever.
If there is no absolute beauty, then there is no beauty whatsoever.
You present a false dichotomy here. You make allusions as if the world is totally objective.
If the world is totally objective, then nothing is subjective.
Isn't that the same kind of false dichotomy that you present?
Morals are just agreements people come to in order to live peacefully with one another.
Who agrees? Who asks? When a kid sees someone slain in the streets, no one conferred with the lad to see if he approved. He intrinsically knew it was abhorrent.
What you describe is some type of communal agreement where everyone votes democratically about what morals should be fixed, and which should be jettisoned.
It does not work that way. So where do our sense of morals derive?
They are just methods for structuring and regulating human interactions with one another.
Yes, but who or what is structuring it?
In some systems, one person or group of people gets more say in what should be regulated and what should be considered immoral in the society. This is unfair, and democracy is the best way we have of trying to combat this tendency...it is evidently unfair to allow a unrepresentative group of people tell everyone else what is right and wrong in their social interactions.
Is unfair, or is it your opinion that its unfair? Does fairness even make sense in a relative way?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2007 11:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2007 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 125 (434665)
11-16-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 6:57 PM


Re: A clarification.
If the world is totally objective, then nothing is subjective.
Isn't that the same kind of false dichotomy that you present?
No. What I was saying is that if a subjective thing exists, it exists even if there exists no absolute variant thereof. There is no absolute humour, yet humour exists.
Who agrees? Who asks? When a kid sees someone slain in the streets, no one conferred with the lad to see if he approved. He intrinsically knew it was abhorrent.
He doesn't intrinsically know it was abhorrent. If the person who was killed and is a criminal - the kid might not think it is abhorrent. If they are any member of outgroup it is conceivable that lad doesn't have a problem with it.
If he does have a problem with it, it's because he came to that conclusion either through a reasoned argument or more commonly because of the community standards.
It does not work that way. So where do our sense of morals derive?
We innately try and avoid doing wrong things and try and do right things. That's just a consequence of being a highly social ape. Not all people have this same sense, but in general it is the common tactic, with a few 'cheaters' in the mix.
Where do we get what is a wrong thing and a right thing? That depends on the social environment we find ourselves in. If you have grown up to know that killing a disabled child is the way your society deals with disabilities, you may well agree that doing it is right and letting the child grow to adulthood is wrong.
Yes, but who or what is structuring it?
Normally, it's a free market of ideas - but there are usually at least few people that try and actively restructure the current culture. The freer the culture, the more people can take part in this. Otherwise, it is structured passively - people largely take the lessons they learned from adults they grew up with with some personal modifications here and there.
Is unfair, or is it your opinion that its unfair? Does fairness even make sense in a relative way?
Unfair as in unequal as in - all views don't have equal voice. Fairness can be an absolute concept, and it was how I was applying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 6:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 125 (434703)
11-16-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
11-16-2007 2:34 AM


Re: A clarification.
So you were just using the terms as if they were interchangeable, without explaining the relevance of either - or even explaining what you meant by "rationalists" just to fool us into thinking that you didn't know what or who you were talking about ?
For the very last time: Those who call themselves Rationalists and Postmodernists, or even those who don't call themselves either, but possess these certain traits/characteristics, tend to be of the same ilk.
I agreed with you that I should have been more broad, since part of my motive for starting the thread was a way of exposing the anemia of relativism.
I then explained it, in detail, but to no avail. You have now gone on for several pages, blathering on and on about something I conceded to a long, long time ago.
What more would you like me to do for you, Paul? Shall I slash my wrists next to show my deference?
OK, so your big problem is something that can't be solved.
It can be solved. But it requires everyone to hear a distinct popping sound-- the sound of them pulling their heads from where the sun don't shine.
A strawman s a deliberate misrepresentation. It is not an honest attempt to understand your confused writing. There is no strawman here.
After the first three times I've explained it, you must then be doing it to derail my thread. Sure, it was an honest inquiry in the beginning. The second, for crystal clear clarification. The third time? You're using it as a strawman. You are trying to paint a picture about me that does not exist.
I hope the fifth time is a charm, because I'm not going over it again.
Orthodox Christianity (as he defines it) is good. All rival viewpoints are bad. He attacks all rival viewpoints with the caricatures that you claim match your experiences (although you haven't produced even one real example).
He gave the examples! They are a perfect illustration. Apparently, 1909, 2007, it doesn't matter. The same kind of senseless harangue exists today.
THen he goes on to present a rosy view of Orthodox Christianity which is no more realisitc. Of course it is propaganda ! What else could you call something so one-sided and distorted !
His opinion, all of which you have as well, is propaganda? What is this slandering session then-- a frolic in a bed of roses?
I am pointing out the FACT that many people have moral views without ANY good arguments for their truth. And last I saw you arguing about homosexuality you were mainly concerned with arguing for bestiality - dismissing the points actually raised against it without real argument.
There were no points beyond, if it feels good do it. The other little hypocritical tidbit was the fact that upon asking why beastiality is an affront, but homosexuality is not from a moral perspective, that using such illustrations should be stricken. The reason why was because people said that animal sexuality is not interchangeable or compatible with animal sexuality. And then they turn around and give supposed examples of "gay" animals! Wait a minute... I thought such illustrations were stricken because they don't coincide?
There is no contradiction in saying that people claim to believe something that they do not. But the fact is that I have quite often seen people who claim to believe in an absolute morality arguing against the existence of morality as you have done.
Arguing against the existence of morality, and maintaining a belief that absolute morals exist? How does that work? And how is that relevant to me since I obviously don't ascribe to such a notion?
There is no sound argument that absolute morals MUST exist. There are arguments that it would be nice if they did but that is not the same thing at all.
As Dostoyevsky says, [i]"If there is no God, then everything is permissible."[/qs]
There is no up. There is no down. There is no light. There is no dark. There is no good. There is no bad. There is no truth. There is no falsehood. You can't live in a world like this, because its so subjective, that anyone could justify anything, for any reason. Think about it.
You mean that there is a moral issue completely unrelated to the fact that it is unnecessary (and likely painful surgery) on a child and on the effects it will have on her body ? Aren't those issues the only real and valid basis for any moral outrage ?
You don't get it, obviously. What difference does it make if she is in pain? Is it wrong to inflict pain upon her, or you, or some guy walking across the street? If so, why?
If we are just highly intelligent apes, why wouldn't survival of the fittest apply to us as well? Who is to say that philanthropy is to be honored, but not bashing in someone's brain for no apparent reason?
It leaves you in an indefensible position. You have to give up one position in order to justify the other. You can't coherently occupy both positions simultaneously because one will cancel out the other.
Well first you assert that I saying that there is no moral issue and then you assert the opposite. That should clue you in to the fact that one of your statements - at least - is likely to be wrong.
How exactly did I do that?
So your "better" system is that we should accept the views of people you happen to agree with as "absolute morality" because they claim to have a Big Bully in the Sky who beats up anyone who goes against them. That's obviously not a viable system.
You first have to examine your own conscience, and think honestly about how such a thing could derive through gradual mutations-- an absurd theory. Then you have to ask yourself how survival of the fittest and philanthropy can co-exist, since there is no reason, from a purely natural perspective, to help the old lady across the street. Why not just kill her because she is breathing your air? It has the same moral equivalence under a relative system.
Laws are very often more practical than moral - and never claim to be absolute moral truths in themselves.
It seems pretty absolute when the judge sentences you to life in prison.
Looks like a free society is the best system available. Much better than the tyrannical theocracy you would seem to prefer.
I agree that it is, which is why I don't advocate a theocracy, and neither does God. Your freewill is testament to that.
Your version of freedom may actually entail total anarchy, which, arguably is the most free-- that all depending upon your notion of what freedom actually entails. You are only free to do things in the confines of what grants that freedom.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2007 2:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2007 5:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 110 of 125 (434746)
11-17-2007 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 10:32 PM


Re: A clarification.
quote:
For the very last time: Those who call themselves Rationalists and Postmodernists, or even those who don't call themselves either, but possess these certain traits/characteristics, tend to be of the same ilk.
And I still don't have a clear explanation of who you mean.
quote:
I then explained it, in detail, but to no avail. You have now gone on for several pages, blathering on and on about something I conceded to a long, long time ago.
What more would you like me to do for you, Paul? Shall I slash my wrists next to show my deference?
OK,. You'd rather slash your wrists than clearly explain what you mean, or accept responsibility for your lack of clarity. What a horrid position.
quote:
After the first three times I've explained it, you must then be doing it to derail my thread. Sure, it was an honest inquiry in the beginning. The second, for crystal clear clarification. The third time? You're using it as a strawman. You are trying to paint a picture about me that does not exist.
I hope the fifth time is a charm, because I'm not going over it again.
You haven't explained your "strawman" accusation even once. Sorry if I am "derailing" your attempt to cover over your own responsibility for any misunderstanding by making false and baseless accusations against others.
quote:
He gave the examples! They are a perfect illustration. Apparently, 1909, 2007, it doesn't matter. The same kind of senseless harangue exists today.
In other words you expect me to unquestioningly believe Chesterton's propaganda. But you weren't alive then You didn't even see one of those. Whatever Chesterton saw is it not the same thing you saw. So how about giving a REAL example ? Something that YOU have actually SEEN. Ideally something that can be checked.
quote:
His opinion, all of which you have as well, is propaganda? What is this slandering session then-- a frolic in a bed of roses?
Slandering ? Why is it slander ? Look, just because stuff is propaganda for your side doesn't make it any less propaganda. Nor is it automatically slander to criticise someone on your side (any more tha it is automatically NOT slander when your side makes false and baseless accusations against an opponent).
quote:
There were no points beyond, if it feels good do it.
Now you are engaging in building strawmen and not even bothering to read what I said. You really think that anyone raised "if it feels good do it" as an argument AGAINST bestiality ?
quote:
Arguing against the existence of morality, and maintaining a belief that absolute morals exist? How does that work? And how is that relevant to me since I obviously don't ascribe to such a notion?
You'd have to ask them - maybe they don't really beleive in an absolute morality. As you've just admitted that you don't.
quote:
As Dostoyevsky says, [i]"If there is no God, then everything is permissible."[/qs]
There is no up. There is no down. There is no light. There is no dark. There is no good. There is no bad. There is no truth. There is no falsehood. You can't live in a world like this, because its so subjective, that anyone could justify anything, for any reason. Think about it.
Strictly speaking, Dostoyevski did not say that. The rest of your claims are nonsense. Up and down, darkness and light - to use just two examples can exist as thet are, no God required. And nobody has any good argument why God is required for morality either.
The notion of God is a boon to the self-righteous who want to excuse their own behaviour. They can say it is "God's Will" and do what they like. Or simply pride themselves on being "saved" while paying no attention to their conscience.
quote:
You don't get it, obviously. What difference does it make if she is in pain? Is it wrong to inflict pain upon her, or you, or some guy walking across the street? If so, why?
You don't feel that those are valid reasons for abhorrence ? You have no empathy, no conscience, no moral instincts ? If so it's not hard to see why you take the position you do - someonne who has no true morality might indeed be attracted to morality as a set of meaningless and arbitrary rules imposed by a "Higher Authority".
quote:
If we are just highly intelligent apes, why wouldn't survival of the fittest apply to us as well? Who is to say that philanthropy is to be honored, but not bashing in someone's brain for no apparent reason?
Survival of the fittest DOES apply to us. But it is not any sort of behavioural rule, just a fact. Your argument makes as much sense as someone protesting air travel because it is in defiance of the Law of Gravity. And in earlier threads I have explained what morality really is and why it applies. Too bad you've ignored all of that. You might have learned something.
quote:
It leaves you in an indefensible position. You have to give up one position in order to justify the other. You can't coherently occupy both positions simultaneously because one will cancel out the other.
Then I guess that you have got to go picketing airports. Since you're the one who thinks that a simplistic and superficial understanding of a natural fact should be taken as a rule to govern human behaviour. I don't and so there is no contradiction on my part.
quote:
How exactly did I do that?
When you said that I was denying that there was any moral issue in FGM and then when you said that I was invoking a moral issue. Can't you see that there is a contradiction there ?
quote:
You first have to examine your own conscience, and think honestly about how such a thing could derive through gradual mutations-- an absurd theory. Then you have to ask yourself how survival of the fittest and philanthropy can co-exist, since there is no reason, from a purely natural perspective, to help the old lady across the street. Why not just kill her because she is breathing your air? It has the same moral equivalence under a relative system.
I don't claim to understand the evolution of instincts and thought. That is a problem which requires understanding and knowledge that human science is still trying to discover. But the rest is rubbish. Philanthropy offers an ADVANTAGE to fitness - haven't you even heard of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene ?
And I note that yet again you are DENYING the existence of the subjective moral systems that we do have. You really are determined to deny the existence of any morality that we actually have. Your nihilism is showing again.
quote:
It seems pretty absolute when the judge sentences you to life in prison.
Nevertheless even that is not absolute. The sentence can be appealed. The law might be changed. The law never claims to be an absolute moral fact, simply a rule that society - or the authorties in control of that society - have laid down and the penalties for breaking it.
quote:
I agree that it is, which is why I don't advocate a theocracy, and neither does God. Your freewill is testament to that.
I see you just think that everybody should freely consnet to a tyrannical theocracy. Because you want your religious beliefs to be acknowledged as the one sole force of moral auithority - and therefore to dictate all the laws. If that is not theocracy, what is ?
Of course it isn't practical for other people to give up their religion, to stop "listening to God" in THEIR way. To stop claiming divine sanction for THEIR moral beliefs - just as you do.
You have no practical way to achieve your desired solution other than force. No other solution to the "problem" that you claim to "see".
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 10:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 111 of 125 (435018)
11-18-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-15-2007 8:32 PM


Re: A clarification.
Is intruding in their moral code itself either moral or immoral? Which would make you more immoral: Stepping in and supplanting their view on morality, or letting them butcher the child because it respecting other people's morals is moral?
I see morality outside a good/bad perspective, I believe in virtue descriptive ethics, so your question is somewhat moot as stated.
However you are right to a proscriptive moralist there would be this problem, and I am put in a bind as to which virtue I find more important to myself in that situation.
To answer the question, it would tend to depend on the very specific situation, but likely if I was a foreigner in a foreign land I would watch them kill the kid (or turn away) and do nothing. Intrusion would defy my own concept of individual rights which argues that they should not intrude on my ways when they are where I live. It is both tolerance, consistency, and one other virtue whose name I'm blanking on at this moment.
Admittedly, the act (of inaction) might be cruel (or at any rate not altruistic) and depending on the specific situation somewhat unjust.
That is a pickle of a situation. I don't see winners there.
Obviously this presents a problem for atheists because they don't believe in God, then by what measure is something objectively good or bad? Its almost as if they would have to default to relativity. Its either that or concede that some kind of Higher Power/Authority exists.
I would agree with your argument to a very large extent. Without an ultimate creator or creators who can tell us what purpose THEY had, and so rules we MUST follow, I see no rational basis for an absolute morality. Of course even then someone could pull a Satan and decide that just because they were created, that doesn't make God's rules the only ones possible.
is there any justification in your mind, or any circumstance that would allow FGM to not be wrong?
Quite frankly I don't believe it is wrong, period. To my mind, it is cruel, unjust, and ignorant. It is also against the concept of individual rights as I would maintain for myself within WC. That doesn't make it wrong, no matter how much I don't like it, viscerally and intellectually.
No, because some things obviously are subjective. Using that as a clever way of getting around a moral principle is an underhanded tactic. Couldn't I just as easily say that unless flavor is subjective, then it doesn't exist otherwise?
I'm not sure I followed that last sentence. As for the first, I would ask how you determine something is obviously subjective? What would be the test?
At the same time, can you honestly sit there and explain why you are innately appalled by the butchered baby?
Yes, actually I can explain why their butchering a baby would appall me, but it would likely make no sense to them... if that is really an ingrained part of their culture.
Now I could try and make emotional appeals to certain virtues they might hold which would hint at an inconsistency between their personal feelings and their moral system (no one is 100% in line with any tradition), or try to point out any inconsistencies within their moral system itself (but that would require some amount of knowledge I might not have), and lastly I could make practical appeals.
But that's likely the only headway I could make to stop them from doing it. To simply argue that "here is an objective truth that it is wrong" is likely to fall flat. Don't they have the objective truth?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2007 8:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 12:01 AM Silent H has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 112 of 125 (435083)
11-19-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Silent H
11-18-2007 3:22 PM


Re: A clarification.
Obviously this presents a problem for atheists because they don't believe in God, then by what measure is something objectively good or bad? Its almost as if they would have to default to relativity. Its either that or concede that some kind of Higher Power/Authority exists.
I would agree with your argument to a very large extent. Without an ultimate creator or creators who can tell us what purpose THEY had, and so rules we MUST follow, I see no rational basis for an absolute morality. Of course even then someone could pull a Satan and decide that just because they were created, that doesn't make God's rules the only ones possible.
my views of morality come from a mixture of logic & modifications of Hammurabi's code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 3:22 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 12:36 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 125 (435092)
11-19-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by bluescat48
11-19-2007 12:01 AM


Hello, that's an interesting combo. I wasn't sure exactly what that meant in answer to my post.
Are you saying that you feel yours IS an absolute morality (sans gods)?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 12:01 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 7:51 AM Silent H has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 114 of 125 (435120)
11-19-2007 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
11-19-2007 12:36 AM


Absolute morality?
Basically morality in my view:
1. All Humans are of the same species, therefore doing any harm to another assumes that they are not.
2. Given that basic laws against another predates the Biblical "10 commandments" yet says basically the same thing about how one treats another, thus making it immoral to commit such crimes as murder, robbery, false witness, adultry etc.
the only difference is in religious laws which do not apply to someone of another faith or no faith.
Also, one does not have to believe in a deity to follow the philosophical teachings of a particular deity's followers, when such
teaching bears the same logical views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 12:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 6:41 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 125 (435197)
11-19-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by bluescat48
11-19-2007 7:51 AM


Hello...
1) Animals in other species do harm to each other all the time, so why would it be different for humans?
2) Why should illegal mean immoral? Or vice versa?
I'm not arguing you can't hold such a morality, or that your morality is worthless, just that I personally don't understand it. I'm still not sure if you are suggesting it is absolute... which means the one "true" morality everyone should be following.
I only ask about that because your first response to me quoted my position against absolute morality coming from anything other than Gods.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 7:51 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 7:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 116 of 125 (435207)
11-19-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Silent H
11-19-2007 6:41 PM


It is not absolute. Most things are not absolute. As for illegal vs immoral. Most things that are illegal are so because they are immoral.
Each person has his own morals. I've stated mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 6:41 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 9:15 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 125 (435218)
11-19-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by bluescat48
11-19-2007 7:42 PM


Well I'd debate whether legality should be derived from morals at all, but I grant that many laws do get made that way... usually the ones I hate.
I also agree that people have their own moral systems. To my mind each person has their own, and while any one system may be flawed with inconsistencies I'd never call it wrong per se.
Yours looks interesting.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2007 7:42 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 125 (435372)
11-20-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 12:17 AM


Re: The catch-22
You do realize that Petrophysics accuses nearly all liberals of being irrational, while also claiming to be able to read minds, don't you?
Yes, but he can only read minds with those who also possess "The Shining." If you had The Shining, you could do it too. If you can't read minds, it means you don't have The Shining.
NJ,
You are not completely correct here.
But close enough.
It shows me you are quite a perceptive/looking individual.
KEEP.......Looking/searching/watching/asking
It will serve you well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 12:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 11:19 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 125 (436648)
11-26-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by petrophysics1
11-20-2007 3:00 PM


Re: The catch-22
It shows me you are quite a perceptive/looking individual.
KEEP.......Looking/searching/watching/asking
It will serve you well.
It seems most people have scorned you over your alleged gift. They are basing their opinion on complete incredulity alone and an apparent ignorance. Since I cannot honestly say whether or not you possess such a gift, or whether such a gift even exists, I will sit back and listen to what you have to say about it rather than treat you like a child.
I'm not going to flame you like they are.
In your opinion then, what makes this perception so? Can anyone do it, or is it something borne within someone innately?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 11-20-2007 3:00 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2007 11:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 125 (436650)
11-26-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 11:19 PM


Re: The catch-22
Since I cannot honestly say whether or not you possess such a gift, or whether such a gift even exists, I will sit back and listen to what you have to say about it rather than treat you like a child.
Good luck with that.
No, really, seriously. Everybody should investigate these claims with an open mind, at least once. Ask probative questions. Investigate mundane alternatives. Understand that people often convince themselves first, and that therefore sincerity isn't an indicator of veracity.
Remember that if PP is right, we'll need to rewrite everything we know about neuroscience. But understand that we'd love nothing more than to do just that (that's what it means to be science-minded), and so our incredulity is not personal, it's professional. We'd love to overturn everything we know about the brain. Don't you think we deserve a little more than his say-so before we start?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2007 12:08 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024