Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Happens When You Remove Faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 121 of 180 (403836)
06-05-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Jazzns
06-04-2007 4:14 PM


Re: No reason for other reasons
Jazzns writes:
That is why my guess in the OP stated that I feel that in reality the vast majority of religious people would hardly change their effective morality. If X' is their morality after figuring out that god does not exist then X and X' would be very similar.
I agree.
I still think my reasoning for why they think X' would be so different is probable, although I agree that it is also baffling.
But now I'm just talking about why I think other people think how they think. And that's just a bit too far removed for me to continue defending my position.
I still don't think any of the folk who have expressed the sentiment in the OP or agree with it are willing to come into this thread and defend their statements. I think they realize that it makes them look bad and their religion worse.
Yes, too bad they're the exact people we need in order to make any non-speculative progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 06-04-2007 4:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 122 of 180 (403843)
06-05-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jazzns
06-05-2007 1:43 AM


Jazzns writes:
I say so what! It may very well be true that believing in certain fairy tales make some people act in redeeming ways without going through the effort of discovering a rational morality. It should be obvious that this does not lend one ounce of strength to the claims of religion.
I have hardly said a thing about the Bible, zero quotes and verses, no fiery fingers, stone tablets, or God making people act in redeeming ways. I try to have honest discussions that can be understood on a human level, not a doctrinal level. If I fail at the 'understood' part, that is another matter but I am not any kind of preacher, or distracted by any faith, to the degree that I can not philosophize about all things equally.
I think it is almost stupid to discuss whether people are good just because 'God said so'. Some people may be, and that may keep them out of doo-doo, but it is not owning your morality. So guess what? Those people probably are the ones telling you that their morality would evaporate into thin air if they stopped believing.
The issue is not, except by accidental misdirection, one of God telling people what to do. I am so beyond that argument or thought.
It is as you have said. Some people go through the effort of finding a rational basis for redeeming ways. What they have not done is find a rational basis for WHY certain things are redeeming. You can't talk about doing good without God unless you have dealt with and found conclusively what 'good' is. Only then can you determine if we need God in order to perform.
I am also done with the absolute morality thing. All of you are repeating that it does not exist, and all of you are lying. Not ocnsciously or maliciously. The mere claim that how others react to your behaviour is an indication of morality is proof that all of you are living by an absolute standard. Have you made this claim?
I see nothing wrong with using the golden rule as a basis for a rational morality. Christianity certainly does not have a patent out on it.
See, the GR is your absolute standard. The term morality itself has become synonymous with the GR. That is incorrect. Morality is ANY way of life that humans have described as good. It is very important to remember that the Golden Rule is not the basis for morality at all. It is A moral, as in one, single, solitary, moral. It is one thing which we have decided is good. Jesus Himself never said it was the only moral, just the most important.
So, now, what is the rational basis for your embracing the GR as one of your morals?
I am glad you used the word rational. nator and others have been over this topic enough times to know that there ARE rational grounds for doing good to others. One of the most common themes is that helping others benefits survival of the species or of ourselves. While I respect the thought, we are still left in the dark concerning which actions are truly helping. We agree that love is a good moral, but what IS love? How should I love thee? Hm...by treating you with my morals. If I believe it is moral to be fair, I will be fair to you. If I believe lying is immoral, I will be truthful to you. Love of others is nothing but a big stupid circle that proposes to be both the answer and the question.
Stile's starting a topic on it.
Just remember, the GR is not morality. If you use it as the basis for your actions, you are indeed making all acts relative to how they affect others, and making the GR an absolute upon which to determine what is good. That is still a lie, because we do NOT want people to have choice, we want them to follow our morality of loving others. If they fail, we throw them in jail. Doesn't matter if they are good, bad, or indifferent, they have simply failed to live as we want them to. That's a double standard there...preaching choice and not being able to follow thru with it. I don't like that element of uncertainty in my rational thoughts, so therefore I keep faith in my life.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 06-05-2007 1:43 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Jazzns, posted 06-05-2007 4:25 PM anastasia has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 123 of 180 (403850)
06-05-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
05-30-2007 2:18 PM


One of the reasons that my morality hinges on my belief in god is that without god, I see humans as 'just another animal'. One of the reasons that I desire to be good to people is that I think they are special, because of god. I don't really care about the other animals that much.
do you spend your weekends beating puppies and drowning kittens? i can't see otherwise how humans being "just another animal" would change how you treat them? just because humans are just animals doesn't make them any less like you or any less deserving of the same deference you show yourself. love your neighbor as yourself doesn't need a god to enforce it. it's just a good thing to do.
Without god, and any real meaning to our existence, none of this shit really matters. Selfishness isn't 'wrong', it just isn't good for everyone. But that doesn't matter either OTOH, selfishness is good for me, so there is a benefit to it.
but selfishness isn't good for you. it reduces your public standing and can result in criminal sanctions. it can seriously harm YOU. and who cares if this shit really matters? how you deal with those around you affects you and affects the world your children will live in.
I'd still care about my family and friends even without god's existence. I don't think my apathy could go that far.
then maybe your problem isn't that if you stopped believing in god you'd think there's less meaning, it's that you already think your responsibility only extends to those you are imediately in contact with. but jesus said that our "neighbors" are anyone in the world who needs our help. your responsibility with or without god is to everyone. everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-30-2007 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 124 of 180 (403851)
06-05-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Inner and Outer reality
Without god, do you think that a tiger would torture you? (and lets not get into defining ”torture’, I’m just using the same word you used. You could replace it with ”maim’ if you want)
with od, tigers tend to maim things. why are we talking about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 125 of 180 (403852)
06-05-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 11:44 AM


Or how about Mardi Gras or a riot? People go balls to the walls when there’s no penalties for their behavior.
um. in mardi gras and riots, there are penalties for the associated behaviors. people are often arrested for public nudity and riot looting etc. the problem here is mass hysteria, also known as extreme herd behavior. this is not an excuse for behavior, but an explaination why ordinary people do crazy things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 2:32 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 126 of 180 (403856)
06-05-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
05-29-2007 12:16 PM


i'd like to share with you a little story. where i'm from there's a huge christian academic environment. pensacola christian college (etc). the educational opportunities go from infant day care all the way to graduate school (WARNING: PCC is not an accredited institution).
now. this institution is very strict. students of any age are not permitted to be alone with anyone of the opposite sex, regardless of relationship (this may or may not include family members, i'm not sure). students are not permitted to listen to any radio station other than the one put out by the school (including other christian stations in town). students are not permitted to view movies rated above G. students are not permitted to listen to unaproved recorded music. students who go on dates must have an approved chaperone who ensures that the daters do not come within fourteen inches of each other (including hand-holding). women must wear skirts past the knee only and must dress to other specific modesty standards. students are encouraged to and rewarded for spying and reporting on other students to enforce the policies. students who break the policies are expelled (there may be a three strike rule for lesser offenses or a warning system).
students leave this institution at various times for various reasons. generally (there are exceptions to every rule), leaving results in massive lifestyle changes. because of the strict environment, students have been unable to develop their own system of personal boundaries. as such, many students, particularly with those who leave for middle or high school, are easily tempted into heavy partying or substance abuse and an expediated sexual experience. i think this is one potential outcome of a realization that god doesn't exist, but i think it would only result from the loss of strict behavioral controls, and not a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 05-29-2007 12:16 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2007 12:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 180 (403859)
06-05-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by macaroniandcheese
06-05-2007 1:30 PM


Wow, I feel special, being all singled out n’stuff
i can't see otherwise how humans being "just another animal" would change how you treat them?
Not so much adding negative treatment as much as removing positive treatment...
but selfishness isn't good for you.
It is immediately good for me although, admittedly, can have negative side effects in the long run.
then maybe your problem isn't that if you stopped believing in god you'd think there's less meaning, it's that you already think your responsibility only extends to those you are immediately in contact with.
No, its that I think my responsibility extends to nobody. They aren’t worth a shit anyways . People, in general, don’t deserve to be treated in any particular way. They’re just another animal. They’ll stab me in the back for my apple just the same. It just so happens that I care about my family and friends, because I’ve been close to them my whole life.
but jesus said that our "neighbors" are anyone in the world who needs our help. your responsibility with or without god is to everyone. everyone.
There's no sense in preaching Jesus-stuff under the premise that god doesn't exist.
Without god, do you think that a tiger would torture you? (and lets not get into defining ”torture’, I’m just using the same word you used. You could replace it with ”maim’ if you want)
with od, tigers tend to maim things. why are we talking about this?
It goes with the question “Without god, would you torture kill a kitten?”. Well, there’s cats out there that would have no problem torturingkilling me. (Maybe I should have used the word kill instead because it doesn’t carry the weight of the malicious intent that torture does, but I hope you get the point and don’t harp on it.) Why should I feel bad about killing them?
Now, without god, and seeing humans as just another animal, why would it be wrong to kill other humans? They’d kill me all the same.
Or how about Mardi Gras or a riot? People go balls to the walls when there’s no penalties for their behavior.
um. in mardi gras and riots, there are penalties for the associated behaviors. people are often arrested for public nudity and riot looting etc. the problem here is mass hysteria, also known as extreme herd behavior. this is not an excuse for behavior, but an explaination why ordinary people do crazy things.
Ok, maybe it was a bad example. The point was that people are bad and do bad things. If you give them penalties for the bad behavior they stop doing them. Without the penalties, as we've seen in the far past, people are bad (and act in a way much closer to animals). {{an off topic point: I think this is kinda what was hinted at with The Fall, that poeple left their place within nature to be in the place they are today}}
God’s penalties are just another set, and without them, there’s less reasons to not be bad.
I guess I just see 'bad' as the default.
Lets raise a couple wild-men away from civilization and see what their behavior is like. Do you think they would be "good"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-05-2007 1:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 131 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-05-2007 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 180 (403860)
06-05-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
06-02-2007 7:45 PM


nevermind
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : content removed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 06-02-2007 7:45 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 129 of 180 (403869)
06-05-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 2:32 PM


Why should I feel bad about killing them?
Why should you feel bad about killing them if God existed? I don't remember the Abrahamic God giving a crap about animals. Most people feel worse when the animal they kill is cute or pretty. This may have roots in paternal/maternal instincts. I don't feel bad about killing a cow for my shoes but I do feel bad about killing my cat. My cat is part of my family and I am responsible for taking care of it. It has a role similar to a child and it should be obvious why an animal would care and protect such a creature.
Now, without god, and seeing humans as just another animal, why would it be wrong to kill other humans? They’d kill me all the same.
Why would they kill you all the same? It would be against their instincts in general to kill you without reason (it is dangerous physically and socially). Some people might decide to kill you - but that happens anyway (either with or without a god) - why? Because occasionally it is advantageous to kill a potential competitor - there is probably some kind of equilibrium level of betrayers versus cooperators with most people being cooperators.
This kind of thing gets studied in game theory - see iterated prisoner dilemma for more information.
Lets raise a couple wild-men away from civilization and see what their behavior is like. Do you think they would be "good"?
Even better, let's raise a family of about 80-120 wild-people away from civilization, and see if they are bad to one another or if they are good to one another. We have done this (see native tribes throughout the world), and we've learned that they are good to each other and bad to others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 180 (403872)
06-05-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Modulous
06-05-2007 2:59 PM


Why should you feel bad about killing them if God existed?
I don't know. No reason, I guess. Same for people too, eh?
Why would they kill you all the same? It would be against their instincts in general to kill you without reason (it is dangerous physically and socially).
I was assuming they had a reason to kill me.
there is probably some kind of equilibrium level of betrayers versus cooperators with most people being cooperators.
Most people are 'followers', and just do what the rest of the group tells them to do.
This kind of thing gets studied in game theory - see iterated prisoner dilemma for more information.
I'll check it out, thanks.
We have done this (see native tribes throughout the world), and we've learned that they are good to each other and bad to others.
So, when you go meet that tribe, are you going to take Stile and Schraff's approach, or are you going to keep your dukes up?
Stile and Schraff would get killed and robbed in a second with their approach. That's why I think its bollocks (

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 2:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 142 by nator, posted 06-05-2007 11:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 11:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 131 of 180 (403873)
06-05-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 2:32 PM


Wow, I feel special, being all singled out n’stuff
or maybe i just responded to you like i responded to other people.
There's no sense in preaching Jesus-stuff under the premise that god doesn't exist.
i was talking about what your problem is currently, not what your problem might be if there were no god.
Lets raise a couple wild-men away from civilization and see what their behavior is like. Do you think they would be "good"?
they certainly wouldn't be "civilized," but it seems that there have been plenty of occasions in which people were raised outside of society. would they be "good"? i dunno. but i entirely doubt they'd get involved with people and then abandon them or work for their own benefit to the detriment of others.
but then i don't necessarily agree with either of the basic assumptions purported here. i think that people have the essence of the "universal fuzzy" whatever that may be, but at the same time, i know that people are flawed and often struggle greatly with selfishness. so betwixt this, we have people who are basically torn and whose problems can be aided by guidelines. but your discussion of raising someone out in the woods has nothing to do with failing to keep to a religious standard. if morality can exist purely and appropriately in a combination of primitive altruism and community standards, then that is a fine alternative to god. ditching community standards doesn't help you answer the god question. you can only test one thing at a time. if i stop using acne cream to see if just washing my face is sufficient, i'm not going to stop washing my face as though my skin is somehow magically capable of being bacteria free on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 132 of 180 (403875)
06-05-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 3:14 PM


I'm still reading...
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile and Schraff would get killed and robbed in a second with their approach.
Is that so? What exactly do you think my approach is?
What I've been talking about so far is "How to be a Good Person". Not "How to Approach a Potentially Dangerous Tribe".
However, if you'd like to discuss that, I'm sure you can start a new thread. I really don't think you meant to do that though, so next time just try to think about what you're saying before you jam your foot in your mouth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 4:14 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 180 (403878)
06-05-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Stile
06-05-2007 3:35 PM


Re: I'm still reading...
What exactly do you think my approach is?
Greedless goodness.
What I've been talking about so far is "How to be a Good Person". Not "How to Approach a Potentially Dangerous Tribe".
If we were to remove all penalties for people's actions, then I think we could refer to people as a "Potentially Dangerous Tribe", hell, we can still refer to much of them that way even with penalties for their actions. Besides, I thought you were typing, generally, about how you approach life and behave.
If all penalties were removed from people's actions, would you behave any differently? Why or why not?
so next time just try to think about what you're saying before you jam your foot in your mouth
Yeah, I doubt that is going to happen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 3:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 134 of 180 (403882)
06-05-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by anastasia
06-05-2007 12:55 PM


I have hardly said a thing about the Bible, zero quotes and verses, no fiery fingers, stone tablets, or God making people act in redeeming ways. I try to have honest discussions that can be understood on a human level, not a doctrinal level. If I fail at the 'understood' part, that is another matter but I am not any kind of preacher, or distracted by any faith, to the degree that I can not philosophize about all things equally.
I don't see why it is so difficult to pin down the basis of this discussion. If you are not making the claim that your absolute morality is religious based then I have to beef with you concerning the OP.
It is as you have said. Some people go through the effort of finding a rational basis for redeeming ways. What they have not done is find a rational basis for WHY certain things are redeeming.
I do not understand how you could have read my reply to you, understood it, and still make this claim. Just because the "why" is not in some circumstances well-defined does not mean it does not exist. I would argue that relative and rational justifications are in a lot of ways better because they can chance to meet the needs of the given situation.
You can't talk about doing good without God unless you have dealt with and found conclusively what 'good' is.
That is just rediculous. In a rational morality 'good' is defined by many metrics that don't necessarily require a supernatural foundation. A lot of them are exactly what people have been explaining to you. I have to ask, given the depth of the conversation in this thread in an attempt to describe a relative morality, can you possible imagine that you just simply are not getting what some of us mean when we say relative morality? Really because it just looks like you are either intentionally equivocating or honestly have not grasped what people have been communicating.
The other thing to notice is that God does not define what is good either! What is good to God seems to change at about the same rate as humans change their relative morality. That is besides the point that God never really lays down any criteria for how we should determine what is good in circumstances that are not directly proscribed. God's approval or disapproval of certain ancedotal events seems to change with realtive philosophies of the era in which his word is written down.
If anyone claims that we get our morality (not necessarily absolute) from God, I would claim that even if it was true it is painfully obvious that God has a relative morality. Not necessarily rational, but very evidently relative.
Only then can you determine if we need God in order to perform.
Actually, even people who believe in God and claim that God is the source of morals have some relative morals that are built both without reference to God and often in direct contradiction to their proclaimed morals. Examples of that are brought up all the time. If there really was such a thing as an absolute morality, the behavior of those who claim to have it should tend toward that morality and instead what we see is exactly what would be expected if morality was fluid.
I am also done with the absolute morality thing. All of you are repeating that it does not exist, and all of you are lying.
I said very explicitly in my last post that I was NOT making the claim that an absolute morality does not exist! I am making the claim that if it does exist that it is currently not defined. I also made the claim that if an absolute morality does exist it will not ever be found in Christianity, Islam, or Judiasm.
You see, we can easily tell where an absolute morality DOES NOT exist. An absolute morality does not exist in a moral framework that directly contradicts itself. That is an important point for you to realize and I would have hoped you would have picked that part of my previous post to respond to.
The mere claim that how others react to your behaviour is an indication of morality is proof that all of you are living by an absolute standard. Have you made this claim?
I cannot fathom how you can equate reactionary consequences with absolutism. To me all you are saying is, "because you believe this is blue, it is therefore red". You simply cannot use the word "react" and "absolute" in the same sentence to describe the same thing and expect your audience to think that you have a coherent argument.
I have already gone down too far in the rabbit hole you have dragged me so I won't argue with you about your opinions on the GR or how you feel that people are hypocritical with regards to relative morality. I'll only say this; I believe there is evidence, some of which has already been presented, that shows how humanity already operates with a relative morality. The reason why we are justified in throwing people in jail for certain actions is because we have determined that certain concepts within the vast majority of all of our relative morals intersect with each other and therefore we can agree to make social consequences that are completely legitimaly founded upon those moralities.
I'll close with this and I hope these last few words will drive any response you care to offer more so than the above. In the end, it does not matter to me what you claim your morality is. I don't care if there is actually an absolute morality or if you claim to have an absolute morality. My curiosity with this thread was purely based on the contradiction inherent in the claim that a religiously derived morality is likely to be abandoned if the religion is destroyed. Moreover, that this should be any reason for us to give merit to the idea that any given religion is "good", "right", or "useful".
You said above that you feel that the people making that claim down "own" their morality. I ask you this, if you believe your absolute morality comes from God, why would you KEEP your morality if tomorrow you discovered there was no God?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by anastasia, posted 06-05-2007 12:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by anastasia, posted 06-05-2007 10:52 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 135 of 180 (403887)
06-05-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 4:14 PM


Re: I'm still reading...
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
What exactly do you think my approach is?
Greedless goodness.
Yeah, I did go a bit overboard on that here... The point was that goodness can be greedless, and it's better to aim for that. Not that it always is, or even that I always am.
And I would like to straighten that the main point to my approach should be that morality is situational. No one thing is going to work for all situations.
If we were to remove all penalties for people's actions, then I think we could refer to people as a "Potentially Dangerous Tribe", hell, we can still refer to much of them that way even with penalties for their actions.
In that case, the simple fact that I'm still alive proves that either you've misinterpretted "my approach", or you're wrong about people. Take your pick on that one
But seriously,
If all penalties were removed from people's actions, would you behave any differently? Why or why not?
All penalties? What are we talking about... removing penalties of law? Removing the possible physical-retribution of anyone? Removing even emotional penalties (regret, empathy...)?
I think I'd behave differently in each case:
No Legal Penalties
This would be the most similar to how I act now. As in, I don't see how I'd change my own personal actions at all. However, without laws, if anyone did something I thought was "lowering the inner-feelings of others", it would then be up to me to be judge-jury and executioner. Penalties I'd inflict on them would range from inflicting mental stress (guilt) to physical prevention. Of course, I'd likely need a group of like-minded folks to side with me or I'd likely "not last long".
That is, if anyone wants to do things that me and my group don't approve of.. go ahead and do them.. over there. If they insist on doing them against us, then this is where the "dukes" come in, as you so put it.
So yes, I'd act differently because it would then be my place to "put up or shut up" when heads collide. Would this be behaving diffferently? I don't know... perhaps I'm behaving exactly the same, except with penalties in place, it's someone elses job to take care of that and without them it's my place.
If you're wondering, even right now I do not consider it immoral to punch someone. It's why that punch is thrown which makes it good or bad.
No Law and no Physical Penalties
Acting as juge-jury and executioner as above, however "physical prevention" would no longer be an option. I don't really know how this would work since I'm assuming they couldn't physically harm me either? I would have to rely on mental-stress to inflict penalties on those insisting on "lowering the inner-feelings of others", with the maximum being some form of interactive banishment.
No Laws or Physical or Mental Penalties
I'm having a really hard time visulizing this one. But... if no one could hurt anyone in any way... I'm wondering if morality would even exist? Certainly not mine. My morality is based on increasing the amount of good in the world. If there's no bad.. there's no good either. Sounds kinda boring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 5:13 PM Stile 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