I missed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Interesting.
If ethical and religious values cannot be used to ground law, what can?
Printable View
I missed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Interesting.
If ethical and religious values cannot be used to ground law, what can?
Look a little closer: I think Nowake is of the opinion that religion must not influence (secular) law, and therefore that only secular ethics should be considered.
We have a significant disagreement here then PVC. Do you remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That was the same God as Jesus. People like Hitler were evil, they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway. Are you honestly telling me that if you could go back in time before Hitler came to power and save the lives of tens of millions, and you had a gun to his head that you would even flinch before pulling that trigger? I certainly would not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And no, I am not saying we should kill late-term abortionists. We have a legal system, and it needs to be used. We need to outlaw abortion, and make being an abortion doctor a crime that bears a life sentence with no chance for parole and no chance for early release.
You may think it is wrong, but it is my firm belief that there is a difference between killing and murder. What a soldier does to an enemy soldier is killing. What a soldier does to a civilian is murder. Shooting my neighbor because I do not like him is murder. Shooting my neighbor because he is raping his daughter is killing.
Every murderer, every rapist, and anyone found guilty of treason should get ten in the head. Period.
"the same God" is a debatable point, the historical veracity of that passage is a debatable point AND you have missed the meaning of the story. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah wer utterly unrepentant, their lack of remourse for their sinful lives was seen by God. We are not Gods, we do not see with Godly eyes, that is the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Everything we know about Hitler points to his absolute belief in the rightness of what he was doing, as I have said above.Quote:
People like Hitler were evil, they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway.
You mean murder him? No, I would not, I'd try to do something more productive, like use my foreknoledge to get the NAZI party outlawed or prevent Hitler from undertaking the Night of the Long Knives. Killing him in cold blood would be an incredibly crude solution to the problem, and might even make the geopolitical situation worse because without Hitler their would be no buttress against Stalin.Quote:
Are you honestly telling me that if you could go back in time before Hitler came to power and save the lives of tens of millions, and you had a gun to his head that you would even flinch before pulling that trigger? I certainly would not.
Killing the late-term abortionists, or all abortionists, is more efficient. If a doctor knows he will suffer extra-judicial execution for performing an abortion you will have (virtually) no abortions, just like they got people to stop using Opium as an anasthetic in the Renaissance. If an abortionist carries out 3 abortions a week over 30 years that's 3*52*30=4,680 lives saved if you kill him before he even starts. How does that compare to Hitler, where would you draw the line? I don't think Hitler killed even 100 people personally, the "Final Solution" wasn't even his idea, anyway.Quote:
And no, I am not saying we should kill late-term abortionists. We have a legal system, and it needs to be used. We need to outlaw abortion, and make being an abortion doctor a crime that bears a life sentence with no chance for parole and no chance for early release.
What soldiers do in war is self defense, shooting your daughter's rapist is murder, shooting someone to stop them shooting someone else is defense of another.Quote:
You may think it is wrong, but it is my firm belief that there is a difference between killing and murder. What a soldier does to an enemy soldier is killing. What a soldier does to a civilian is murder. Shooting my neighbor because I do not like him is murder. Shooting my neighbor because he is raping his daughter is killing.
Ok, when do you shoot the executioner if he executes a guiltless man.Quote:
Every murderer, every rapist, and anyone found guilty of treason should get ten in the head. Period.
How do you tell the difference, I can defend my principles based on a largely "secular" model which involves what New Athiests would call "atheist" ethics, but is really Deism, and Humanistic principles, but my actual moral compass is fundamentally Christian. So are my ethics religious, secular?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Does it matter if they believe in their evil if you cannot persuade them otherwise and they are killing innocent people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So you think that letting Hitler live if you had the chance to kill him before he was responsible for a single death would have been a good thing? And no, Hitler was not needed as a buttress against Stalin. Stalin would not have been America's ally if they did not have a common enemy.
Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?
It wasn't America that had to worry about Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You do not understand my ethical system, which inclines me to think you haven't read my other posts in this thread. Put simply, forgiveable is not "justified" to be "justified" something has to be "right" killing is not right, but in certain situations it is forgiveable and understandable. War is a good example, we should never go to war but if we do then we should fight to protect those we love and their right to live in peace, not to kill our enemies. This is what keeps soldiers going through battle fatigue, love of their comrades, not hatred of their enemies.Quote:
Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?
This basic philosophy of violence is the one used by the US marines, btw, marines are no longer trained to view the enemy as subhuman because they found that when the marines went home after a tour they started abusing their families, so now they teach them to kill in defence of their comrades.
Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You do not understand my ethical system, which inclines me to think you haven't read my other posts in this thread. Put simply, forgiveable is not "justified" to be "justified" something has to be "right" killing is not right, but in certain situations it is forgiveable and understandable. War is a good example, we should never go to war but if we do then we should fight to protect those we love and their right to live in peace, not to kill our enemies. This is what keeps soldiers going through battle fatigue, love of their comrades, not hatred of their enemies.
This basic philosophy of violence is the one used by the US marines, btw, marines are no longer trained to view the enemy as subhuman because they found that when the marines went home after a tour they started abusing their families, so now they teach them to kill in defence of their comrades.[/QUOTE]
Semantics if you ask me, but I think we have wandered of the course of the thread.
Not at all, and we haven't wandered that far, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Should you ever kill?
Answer: No, but in certain situations it can be taken as given that, having exhausted all theoptions available to a reasonable, normal, person you killed because you percieved it to be the lesser of two evils. You still committed an evil act.
In such a situation it still behoves you to feel remorse, and it behoves society to forgive you, the same pertains in rape cases where we should allow abortion.
Hey PVC :2thumbsup:
No, I asked you to differentiate between the two precisely because such views are mistaken. While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant. I.e. according to the Oxford dictionary, moral, adjective -- concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society -- a woman showing her face publicly in certain Muslim communities is rightfully considered immoral and moral men righteously have the duty to rape her.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
Your example:
Perfectly concedes the point I made in my previous post. In most cases social pressure towards planning only for long-term relationships leaves people inadequately equipped to asses their own Otherness. They project and subjectively accept any confirmation of their beliefs. At best, they allow themselves to be charmed because social mores leave them no other possibility of living with their choices.Quote:
In most cases where two strangers have sex one is predatory, generally has gone out with the express intention of "picking up" someone. The other is "picked up", various lures and underhand tactics are used, chiefly lieing, misrepresentation and intoxication. If two people meet in a bar and end up in bed, this is the general patter, no matter where they are in the world.
Element of infidelity towards whom,Quote:
On the other hand, if two academics were to meet at a conference, say, and fall into bed after one gave a particularly passionate and lucid paper on 14th Century poetic lyrics addressed to the Virgin Mary that might conform to the sort of experience you describe, but in my experience such encounters also include an element of infidelity which, even if admitted to beforehand, demonstrated moral degeneracy and a lack of emotional maturity.
demonstrates moral degeneracy due to which axiological arbiter
and shows a lack emotional maturity because it signifies what?
First of all, TA is correct. Second of all, you are missing the point. The only goal is for you to be able to defend your Christian principles based solely on secular arguments. You may believe what you will, but none of your arguments can exist because “God says so”. Thus, we limit the values you can advance as part of a social agenda strictly to the ones which do not clash with our secular world-view. This thread is case in point, you were unable to allow yourself to justify an argument from a religious vantage point and your only footing amongst us in defining life and its privileges is the secular declaration of Human Rights.Quote:
How do you tell the difference, I can defend my principles based on a largely "secular" model which involves what New Athiests would call "atheist" ethics, but is really Deism, and Humanistic principles, but my actual moral compass is fundamentally Christian. So are my ethics religious, secular?
Wouldn't evolution sort out abortions in the long term?
If someone is capable of an action must they do so?
If you are capable of taking a foetus to term must you?
If you are capable of having sex must you?
What is the difference between being forced to have sex and being forced to carry a foetus to term?
Fascinating. So if I understand your argument for preventative murder in certain circumstances, you would support the abortion of Hitler as a foetus? Or is it only after he was born that you would murder him? In the latter case, at what age is the deed acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
It's not easy to separate them and I'm not even sure that a strict “no product of religion in law, at all” works because generally the two overlap and shape each other to such an extent, but it seems quite easy to tell the difference when religion interferes with the secular debate. For instance from a secular point of view we wouldn't be having the discussion about ensoulment, would we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I wish I could get pregnant, just so I could get an abortion.
That reminds me of a 'joke' article I read years and years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Title: Aborted Babies don't kill people, Unaborted Babies kill people
Quote:
News flash: Every single murderer, rapist, and terrorist has been an unaborted fetus. Look in a history textbook, you will never find information about an abortion blowing something up, killing a jew, or flying an airplane into a building.
Instead of fighting the Middle East, we could have used all the funding on international pro-choice campaigns. Osama himself would probably have been aborted. If that were the case, September 11th would have never happened and 3000+ people would still be alive, no thanks to you stubborn anti-everything renegades.
More examples of unaborted babies:
1. The Columbine Crew
2. Michael Jackson
3. Beyonce Knowles
Unaborted babies shoot up their school, molest children, and make rubbish music. I don't even see why people want to have babies, it's insane.
We do not know if someone is going to be a raving lunatic, madman murderer until after they commit their acts of murder, so not, you cannot go indiscriminately killing unborn babies saying one may be evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
That said, if (in the hypothetical scenario I laid out) you could go back in time and knew who Hitler was, of course I wouldn't object to aborting him as a baby. In real life however, people do not have that power, and 'preventative murder' does not exist, because we are not Gods and we do not know what will happen before it happens.
You begin by asking me to assent to an essentially Protagorean view of ethics, if I do so I automatically lose the arguement. It therefore goes almost without saying that I do not agree with your extreme epistomological relativism. It is niether self evident, nor provable, that my view of morality is "mistaken". In fact, the inherrent weakness of epistomological relativism is that it is only correct according to your own point of view, but not in general. To say that the only truth is that there are no truths is a logical paradox, and I therefore reject it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Even so, you have missed my actual point, which refered to effect and regard. I identified imorality as deliberately acting in a way which caused harm to another, rather than a prescriptive version of absolute morality that defines a particular act as inherrently immoral, I could have said, "pre-marital sex cheapens the act of spirtual joining, etc." I didn't.
So you acknowledge the harm? You are essentially arguing here that society should change and conform to the predator, or rather that if we were all predators there would be no prey. Underlying this appears to be the assumption that "social pressure" is artificial rather than organic, this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before.Quote:
Perfectly concedes the point I made in my previous post. In most cases social pressure towards planning only for long-term relationships leaves people inadequately equipped to asses their own Otherness. They project and subjectively accept any confirmation of their beliefs. At best, they allow themselves to be charmed because social mores leave them no other possibility of living with their choices.
Most people ultimately want a family, ergo a long term relationship, ergo society reflects this. This is not a social construction, it reflects our need to procreate efficiently.
Infidelity to acknowledged partnerQuote:
Element of infidelity towards whom,
demonstrates moral degeneracy due to which axiological arbiter
and shows a lack emotional maturity because it signifies what?
Moral degeneracy due to failure to keep word (often these people are married, or in an aknowledgedly monogomous relationships)
Lack of emotional maturity due to an inability to restrain base urges in view of the impact their actions will have on their significant othe, and/or a willingness to lie to their partner. This also evidences a profound lack of what you identified as the ability to appreciate oneself as Other.
Would my metaphysical beliefs in an objective moral reality be permissable, or do I have to subscribe to your relativistic ones? As this is a metaphyisical question you can't prove the issue either way.Quote:
First of all, TA is correct. Second of all, you are missing the point. The only goal is for you to be able to defend your Christian principles based solely on secular arguments. You may believe what you will, but none of your arguments can exist because “God says so”. Thus, we limit the values you can advance as part of a social agenda strictly to the ones which do not clash with our secular world-view. This thread is case in point, you were unable to allow yourself to justify an argument from a religious vantage point and your only footing amongst us in defining life and its privileges is the secular declaration of Human Rights.
Well, I can say that the "soul" is out contiousness, and in that sense we can talk about the emerging conciousness in a feotus, and the potential for a conciousness to emerge in an embryo. All that is lacking from that version of a "soul" is its connection to God, the consequences of the argument are exactly the same. Nurtured and protected an embryo will ultimately develop into a unique human being with her own aspirations, beliefs and unique view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
This point can be applied practically when you consider that many great artists and other luminaries were born to poor families. Steve Jobs, for example, was given up for adoption 56 years ago, but today he might be aborted. This is not an argument in itself, but I feel it brings into sharp focus the issue we are discussing, which is ultimately about human lives.
Indeed we cannot, but your argument presents an interesting ethical position. Not least from your previous post advocating the execution of those carrying our abortions - this sentence would apply to the person aborting Hitler? (Truly, this is becoming one of the finest Godwin's I have managed to peddle into something approximating a discussion :smile:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
For a related example, there are some circumstances when we know for certain that a genetic condition will cause the newborn immense and swiftly terminal suffering. In your view, is it evil or good to inflict that suffering?
First of all, I did not advocate the execution of those carrying out abortions. I advocated making it illegal to carry out abortions, and sentencing those who did it to life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Second of all, abortion is an evil because it is the killing of innocent people. In your Hitler example, you already know that he is not innocent, so it is not murder...simply execution for crimes he already committed.
As far as babies born with terminal illnesses, yes, I believe the parents should be able to choose for certain illnesses whether to abort the baby or not, for the sake of saving it pain and suffering.
That is not why 99.99% of abortions are carried out though. Exceptions can always be made in the law for that and times when the mother would die.
Afternoon PVC
Thank you for reminding me I should’ve replied to this bit before.Quote:
this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before
You are falling into the aristocratic fallacy that the "lower orders" are degenerate due to base stupidity/ignorance, such is not so. Historical degeneracy at the bottom of society tends to follow degeneracy at the top.
Leaving aside your generic portrayal of elites throughout history as an aristocracy a la Ancien Régime, your assertion is demonstrably false. No one has a monopoly on originating “degeneracy”. I.e. unless you would argue the degeneracy of British football hooligans was somehow copied from Oxbridge culture, or the sexual mores hippies displayed at Woodstock were simply a leaf taken the books of North-Eastern WASP families?
Currently, the issues which were on our table, the degeneracy caused by ignorance towards contraceptive methods and prevention of STDs and what not, are disproportionately a problem stemming from the want of knowledge of lower class citizens, not sexual liberty.
Oh not at all, you confuse the actors. There are no predators in cases where consensual sex between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place.Quote:
So you acknowledge the harm? You are essentially arguing here that society should change and conform to the predator, or rather that if we were all predators there would be no prey. Underlying this appears to be the assumption that "social pressure" is artificial rather than organic, this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before. (...)
Infidelity to acknowledged partner
Moral degeneracy due to failure to keep word (often these people are married, or in an aknowledgedly monogomous relationships)
Lack of emotional maturity due to an inability to restrain base urges in view of the impact their actions will have on their significant othe, and/or a willingness to lie to their partner. This also evidences a profound lack of what you identified as the ability to appreciate oneself as Other.
As to your answers to my inquiry asking for clarification, you’re clearly adding details to your initial example. You first described a couple of intellectuals consenting to have sex. No mention of the existence of an implicit commitment towards a long-term bond, existing relationships with a third party or negative consequences. Believe it or not, cases such as these abound all over the world, I could not presume you omitted anything on purpose.
Thus, lets try this again, perfectly normal and common consensual sex with an explicit non-binding nature between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place, where is the infidelity, moral degeneracy and lack of emotional maturity?
I was clear in my explanation from the beginning though. Any belief is permissible, you simply aren’t allowed to argue for its enforcement on the grounds that “it is your belief”, you must use secular principles, which are empathy-based.Quote:
Would my metaphysical beliefs in an objective moral reality be permissable, or do I have to subscribe to your relativistic ones?
But you already lost the argument in the developed world. I am just reigning you in. We can debate opinions PVC, but we cannot argue about facts, things which are either one way or another. The “weakness” you describe is confirmed by the plurality of our race; you are “mistaken” because you’re placing yourself in opposition to reality.Quote:
You begin by asking me to assent to an essentially Protagorean view of ethics, if I do so I automatically lose the arguement. It therefore goes almost without saying that I do not agree with your extreme epistomological relativism. It is niether self evident, nor provable, that my view of morality is "mistaken". In fact, the inherrent weakness of epistomological relativism is that it is only correct according to your own point of view, but not in general.
And this whole side-argument began because I wanted to be clear my correct, dictionary validated usage of the term immoral in the phrase:
I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age
is not given the extra-valences one presumes of it nowadays, especially one who is religious.
The only absolute moral principles we can accept are those which can withstand the test of empathy.
My apologies, I conflated a post of PVC's with yours. :embarrassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
OK, I understand your position more clearly now. Thank you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You all need to stick to the topic, and respond to my previous post :stare:
You are deliberately lumping all out-of-marriage sex with borderline rape-cases and adultery. Most of the people who have casual sex with strangers or near-strangers do intend to pick a permanent partner to go forth with and multiply when they're a little older. I fail to see what the problem is as long as there's consent from both sides - having had a moderate amount of alcohol beforehand doesn't invalidate it. Honestly, if your objections here aren't grounded in your religious views then I don't know what to make of it. I do not see how casual sex between strangers, without additional qualifiers, in itself would lead to moral degeneration or a dysfunctional society. Stuff like unwanted pregnancies, rampant STD's and single parent families (note: not saying that there's something wrong with single parents per se; I'm referring to accidental pregnancies where the father bails out) result from poor upbringing, bad education and whatnot - pinning it entirely on "sex" or "sex outside of marriage" is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Fathers often bail out as the law is so biased against the father. Some probably think best to start again, rather than fight it through the courts for months. Then they can go back every time there is a problem with the arrangements. For the woman to get her child support takes a couple of weeks and comes straight out of the salary before the man gets it.
~:smoking:
I think this whole idea that abortion is solely a question for the female involved is a self-rigtheous cop-out. It so nicely dodges the question of moral responsibility when it comes to foetuses. There is this slightly yes/no question that sits at the centre of this debate - that is question of the 'rights' of a foetus: does it have any?
I will now pretend that a foetus have the same rights as an adult human (something which I vehemently disagree with in real life). If the foetus did not threaten the life of the mother, it would clearly be murder to abort it. This means, beyond the special case of rape, it would be the moral responsibility of humans not to create unwanted foetuses, because it would be murder to remove them.
This means that if the female would want to maintain full control over her body, she should either a) remain sexually inactive or b) accept the risks that come with sexual activity - in this case: unwanted pregnancy.
This is unfair for the female gender, but such is the world at times. Living comes with responsibilities, and you cannot dodge them by claiming that they are "unfair".
Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. 100% (rape excluded).
---
Just to reiterate my position: I think it is completely absurd to let a weeks old foetus override the desires of an adult person, and so abortion is typically fine. Foetus =/= human being.
I am only going to say that I am all for prenatal eugenics, and leave it at that. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Ever heard of the Bullingdon club? I can't speak for America and Woodstock but university students in the UK have a long history of Hooliganism, and like the "Buller" the difference between upper class hooligans and lower class ones is that in the former case his Pa might come round the next day and pay for the damages and offer something approaching an apology, if you're lucky. More recently, one of the justifications used for the London riots, which were nothing but criminal destruction, was that if MP's and Bankers can get away with anything why should "ordinary" people obey the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
High numbers of single teenage mothers are caused by moral degeneracy and poor sexual habits, not ignorance. The people know about condoms and the Pill, often they choose not to use them. What is lacking is the ability and or willingness to take responsibility for ones actions.Quote:
Currently, the issues which were on our table, the degeneracy caused by ignorance towards contraceptive methods and prevention of STDs and what not, are disproportionately a problem stemming from the want of knowledge of lower class citizens, not sexual liberty.
This is absurd, because most one night stands happen between strangers who do not know each others' social commitments. If I walk into a bar and I buy a girl a drink and she says, "do you have a girlfriend" and I say "no." she can only take my word for it. Among complete strangers this can be taken even further, in a random bar in London I can put on a talored suit and shiny shoes and call myself a Banker, but I am in fact just a "poor clerk that can getten him no prefferment nor benefice."Quote:
Oh not at all, you confuse the actors. There are no predators in cases where consensual sex between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place.
Quote:
As to your answers to my inquiry asking for clarification, you’re clearly adding details to your initial example. You first described a couple of intellectuals consenting to have sex. No mention of the existence of an implicit commitment towards a long-term bond, existing relationships with a third party or negative consequences. Believe it or not, cases such as these abound all over the world, I could not presume you omitted anything on purpose.
Thus, lets try this again, perfectly normal and common consensual sex with an explicit non-binding nature between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place, where is the infidelity, moral degeneracy and lack of emotional maturity?
You didn't read what I wrote, I said:
Infidelity, that is explicit as to the cause of the immorallity in my example, which is based on reports of actual events.Quote:
On the other hand, if two academics were to meet at a conference, say, and fall into bed after one gave a particularly passionate and lucid paper on 14th Century poetic lyrics addressed to the Virgin Mary that might conform to the sort of experience you describe, but in my experience such encounters also include an element of infidelity which, even if admitted to beforehand, demonstrated moral degeneracy and a lack of emotional maturity.
I think you'll find that "secular" principles are generally based on deductive logic and balance/value judgements, not empathy. A judgement based on "empathy" would see me become a vegetarian because I don't enjoy killing sheep, as I suffer a negative emotional response from the slaughter.Quote:
I was clear in my explanation from the beginning though. Any belief is permissible, you simply aren’t allowed to argue for its enforcement on the grounds that “it is your belief”, you must use secular principles, which are empathy-based.
Fashion is ever changing, just because we live in a relativistic period which does not make value or worth judgements does not mean it will always be so. You're wrong anyway, not only is my absolutist view of morality shared by most religious people, it is also shared by many "secularists" and the New Athiests. About the only thing I agree with Richard Dawkins on is that there is good and evil in the world.Quote:
But you already lost the argument in the developed world.
No, you're just winding me up.Quote:
I am just reigning you in. We can debate opinions PVC, but we cannot argue about facts, things which are either one way or another. The “weakness” you describe is confirmed by the plurality of our race; you are “mistaken” because you’re placing yourself in opposition to reality.
In order for me to be in opposition to reality reality must be objective, but you are an epistomological relativist. AND you have answered my question, I must subscribe to your metaphysics.
I refuse, and I rebuke you ths.
YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION TO REALITY
You quoted the OED short definition of "moral" not "immoral". You also quoted selectively, the whole entry from the acual OED reads:Quote:
And this whole side-argument began because I wanted to be clear my correct, dictionary validated usage of the term immoral in the phrase:
I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age
is not given the extra-valences one presumes of it nowadays, especially one who is religious.
The only absolute moral principles we can accept are those which can withstand the test of empathy.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It's all about the metaphysics. If you believe in right and wrong then morality has nothing to do with empathy at all, it is about value, how it is assigned and what it's nature is, whether good or evil.
Oi mister :2thumbsup:
Again, you let your contempt get the better of you. Empathy is the one which allows secular principles to evolve their inchoate form into morality. Deductive logic then permits us to infer the behaviour of others based on our empathic experience of their feelings. Interestingly enough, the only category of people medically (and thus secularly) assessed as evil, sociopaths, are the only ones from whom empathy is absent; in fact, it is the absence of empathy which qualifies them as sociopaths in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
As to your absolutist view of morality being shared by secularists and New Atheists as Dawkins, yet again a fact demonstrably false. Your reading of Dawkins is incomplete or superficial.
Dawkins on morality
2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.
Only incidental accounts, but what I heard was confirmed through internet search just now. So, on the one side, a small rich boys’ club whose excesses limit themselves to smashing windows and china during dinners for which they rent the locale full-time and for which they pay themselves on the spot in full and often in cash – financial capacity and the assuming of responsibility to pay for any potential damage being a requirement for joining the club. On the other, we have the often racist skinheads of the 70s which evolve into Burberry chavs, in large numbers part of the Ultra subculture now and whose destruction of public property is only a minor issue in comparison with other accomplishments such as murder (sometimes racially motivated), street-fighting and massive intimidation of their communities. Obviously, the later are totally revendicating themselves from the former.Quote:
Ever heard of the Bullingdon club? I can't speak for America and Woodstock but university students in the UK have a long history of Hooliganism, and like the "Buller" the difference between upper class hooligans and lower class ones is that in the former case his Pa might come round the next day and pay for the damages and offer something approaching an apology, if you're lucky.
I am not addressing our degeneracy-caused-by-casual-sex argument further, the reaction of other readers leads me to believe my point about what sexual liberty actually stands for has been made a few posts ago. Repeating it when it cannot be made any clearer only serves to annoy the both of us :bow:
This is a very bizarre conversation :dizzy2:Quote:
2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.
If you find my so dissagreeable you should stop adding ironic smilies, shouldn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Insulting your interlocutor is a sign that you are either losing the argument or intellectually dishonest, and you just enjoy harrassing others.Quote:
Again, you let your contempt get the better of you.
This is a demostrably flawed premise. Without arbitary values assigned to entities and actions morality collapses, and your "empathetic" system fails on a practical front anyway. For example, from a purely utilitarian point of view you have no inherrent value other than that assigned to you be society at large, our empathy for you matters only so far as we care about you to begin with and your life and death can be happily decided without consequence if you are simply and profoundly unpopular. If no one likes you, most people will be happy you are dead and killing you will therefore upset fewer people than letting you live. In fact, if "empathy" is my moral guide and everyone hates you it behoves me to murder you for the good of society, or just dissapear you and cover it up so no one has to confront the fact I killed you.Quote:
Empathy is the one which allows secular principles to evolve their inchoate form into morality. Deductive logic then permits us to infer the behaviour of others based on our empathic experience of their feelings. Interestingly enough, the only category of people medically (and thus secularly) assessed as evil, sociopaths, are the only ones from whom empathy is absent; in fact, it is the absence of empathy which qualifies them as sociopaths in the first place.
Utterly absurd, but I can defend it logically, because the individual's happinness is worth less than the group, the only counter argument is that each human life is of equal worth (a logically indefensible claim without recourse to some arbitary non-realists definition of worth) and that each is counted individually, not collectively on a balance scale - such a claim would require an external "counter".
Dawkins' reading of Dawkins is superficial, not withstanding a logical justification for morality based on natural philosophy, he believes in Good and Evil as absolutes, he says "thank goodnesss" instead of "thank God" because he believes there is goodness in the world. In fact, his continued opposition to all forms of religion is proof of this, because he persists in the face of evidence that religion is of net benefit.Quote:
As to your absolutist view of morality being shared by secularists and New Atheists as Dawkins, yet again a fact demonstrably false. Your reading of Dawkins is incomplete or superficial.
This is natural philosphy, not science, and it completely sidesteps the human capacity for violence (especially sexual) and the fact that we commit these acts because we have empathy. The purpose of cruetly is to cause suffereing and perfectly ordinary, sane, people can be extremely cruel under the right circumstances. Further, he is incorrect about the nature of "society", his charactarisation holds only in Christendom, where successive religious edicts sought to curb pagan practices. In many societies rape, murder and theft are perfectly acceptable. Ancient Sparta encouraged the young to steal, but not get caught; India included murderous cults to Shiva the destroyer; and in modern South Africa gang rape is used to punish Lesbians.Quote:
Dawkins on morality
2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.
Empathy is morally neutral, the ability to employ empathy is a useful social tool, nothing more. It is utterly useless, for example, in this abortion debate because none of us can remember what it felt like to be a feotus.
Well, Chavs have nothing to do with Skinheads, and the Bullers only pay for the physical damage they cause, they don't even consider the emotional or phychological damage, which is the same as hooligans.Quote:
Only incidental accounts, but what I heard was confirmed through internet search just now. So, on the one side, a small rich boys’ club whose excesses limit themselves to smashing windows and china during dinners for which they rent the locale full-time and for which they pay themselves on the spot in full and often in cash – financial capacity and the assuming of responsibility to pay for any potential damage being a requirement for joining the club. On the other, we have the often racist skinheads of the 70s which evolve into Burberry chavs, in large numbers part of the Ultra subculture now and whose destruction of public property is only a minor issue in comparison with other accomplishments such as murder (sometimes racially motivated), street-fighting and massive intimidation of their communities. Obviously, the later are totally revendicating themselves from the former.
In other words, you can't demonstrate that your one night stands haven't been with persons who were already in relationships, but you're too proud to admit you might be the dirty secret in someone else's marriage?Quote:
I am not addressing our degeneracy-caused-by-casual-sex argument further, the reaction of other readers leads me to believe my point about what sexual liberty actually stands for has been made a few posts ago. Repeating it when it cannot be made any clearer only serves to annoy the both of us :bow:
Now hold your horses PVC; if you think I crossed a line by debating your views and my replies are harassing you, I honestly apologise. I do not find you disagreeable, I simply disagree with you. If you request my personal impression of you, I can at most say I find you a tad backward, but certainly I do not dislike you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
Moreover, the emoticons I add to my introductions are never, ever ironic. I greeted you and then gave you the ok sign, it was a polite and friendly way to start.
Writing that you show contempt is not an insult PVC, you do hold moral relativists in contempt, you have done everything but use the exact word to show it. I was simply stating that your passionate contempt towards them is leading you to bias, which was my impression.
Your last remark is though very personal. How do those chaps who like to fancy themselves as cultured debaters without having ever read Rhetoric in school never fail to polish it? Ad hominem I think. I forgive the rudeness, but it shows lack of character and such a feeble attempt at showing a grasp of basic psychology that I am now suspecting you do, in fact, have profound empathy issues.
And to clarify, I am not continuing that specific line of the debate because this is a thread on a gaming forum. Its subject was mildly controversial and I had an opinion about it, hence I wanted to state it. Once I feel I’ve done a thorough job of expressing myself, I have to stop because you are not paying me for these lectures and I cannot simply write essays upon essays for rested minds who wish to “win” an argument.
You’re a Christian who thinks sexual liberty is sinful. I’d be in the same situation if I’d try to convince a Muslim about the existence of the female soul. I’ve never wanted to cause you to stray from your path, I simply wanted to insert a different viewpoint in the thread. The merits of which are to be decided by our readers, towards whom I’ve already done my utmost to be understood.
It must be said that claiming to understand Richard Dawkin’s points of view better than himself is really taking it to the next level. Simply stating that he believes goodness exists in the world does not imply that he does not think goodness is developed from empathy. It is what he actually says in those quotes I provided you with after all.
Well we were talking about Richard Dawkins’ views, and those of the New Atheists. You claimed they understood good and evil in the same way you did. At no point were we discussing their scientific positions, but their opinions on morality, I was showing you that they place themselves on the complete opposite side.Quote:
This is natural philosphy, not science, and it completely sidesteps the human capacity for violence (especially sexual) and the fact that we commit these acts because we have empathy. The purpose of cruetly is to cause suffereing and perfectly ordinary, sane, people can be extremely cruel under the right circumstances.
Cruelty can be displayed by ordinary people and empathy helps you understand pain and thus, how to cause it. And then, which is the absolutely mind-reconstructing & society-defining action which empathy sears into our brains as a seething need? Justification. Empathy forces us to justify ourselves; to explain to ourselves why we’ve acted as we did, because we know, we understand intimately the pain we’ve caused and cannot live with it without reasoning it as part of a Moral standpoint. Croatian ustashas threw Serbian two-year olds in the air and caught them in their knives before hitting the ground in front of their mothers, but they would’ve first blown their brains out before doing that to a random Italian family. The Serbs were Orthodox. Blasphemers. You had to torture them for their sins against your God. Justification. Empathy requires it before suppressing your humanity. And when this rationalisation creates an entire System of Justifications, we have Morality. We draw a straight line.
Odd to see you agreeing with my previous point where I stated that:Quote:
Further, he is incorrect about the nature of "society", his charactarisation holds only in Christendom, where successive religious edicts sought to curb pagan practices. In many societies rape, murder and theft are perfectly acceptable.
While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant.
Finally, I got something right according to you as well, societies do define their own good and evil after all.
I know I know, while you agree on that, you also think that there is some actually genuine notion of good and evil out there which is the only one worth being adopted by human beings.
Yes. There is. I've never disputed that. I just think we are able to sometimes grasp what it truly means to be Good due to the mind-altering effects of empathy which haunts us to justify in any way, even by deluding ourselves, actions we’d be horrified to experience ourselves. It leads us to develop secular principles. You just think that’s God.
The amusing part is that those good-and-evil-defining-societies combine our viewpoints marvellously: their delusion is that their empathy is to be suppressed because that woman's rape is justified by God. Opposing the rape thus makes you immoral, a point I was making in an earlier reply.
Uhmm empathy is a lot more complex. It does not only employ emotional recognition, it creates self-reflective perspectives through imagination. It’s a fairly well researched phenomenon.Quote:
Empathy is morally neutral, the ability to employ empathy is a useful social tool, nothing more. It is utterly useless, for example, in this abortion debate because none of us can remember what it felt like to be a feotus.
But that was merely to address your inaccuracy when presuming that one needs to have previously experienced an emotion in order to understand it. What bothers is that you think empathy is irrelevant because it doesn’t explain the foetus. It does explain to us the gravida.
Really? The emotional and psychological damage they provoke to the owners of the vandalised joints who willingly rent them to them beforehand while fully aware of the club’s reputation? Hmm, nice touch there.Quote:
Bullers only pay for the physical damage they cause, they don't even consider the emotional or phychological damage, which is the same as hooligans.
Very similar emotional and psychological damage to the one lower-class english hooligans inflicted upon the Italian spectators on the Heysel Stadium when their attack caused 39 people to be crushed to death.
Telling me I show contempt is one thing, you said I have contempt. You are not qualified to say that, because you aren't inside my head. I find your view of morality disagreeable, and I think you use it to justify a type of behaviour I find distasteful, but that does not mean I hold moral relativists in contempt. It is simply the fact that I believe you are profoundly wrong and therefore I resist you profoundly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
Quote:
Your last remark is though very personal. How do those chaps who like to fancy themselves as cultured debaters without having ever read Rhetoric in school never fail to polish it? Ad hominem I think. I forgive the rudeness, but it shows lack of character and such a feeble attempt at showing a grasp of basic psychology that I am now suspecting you do, in fact, have profound empathy issues.
You have included two Ad Hominems here, that I am uneducated and that I may be a sociopath. The worst that I have said of you is that you are refusing to engage with my point that if you have a one night stand you cannot know the other person's social situation other than by their report. You are obviously an intelligent and educated man, so you must realise this. Accusing you of a deliberate lack of self reflection is, admittedly, an Ad Hominem but a very mild one. I am not accusing you of a genuine failure of character.
On the other hand, accusing me of a lack empathy - I can now accuse you of a lack of empathy, and we can go around and around until I get on a plane to Romania, or you get on to one to England and we end up with someone skewered on the end of a rapier; but I'd rather not, and not because the flight is expensive.
As regards education in rhetoric, Cicero is one of my favourite Latin authors.
Did I say that? I think you'll find I said that I was opposed to casual sex between strangers because it was irresponsible.Quote:
You’re a Christian who thinks sexual liberty is sinful.
I'm not Saint Augustine, I'm actually ok with sex.
I do not understand the concept of debating as a spectator sport, and I do not, generally, play to the crowd.Quote:
I’d be in the same situation if I’d try to convince a Muslim about the existence of the female soul. I’ve never wanted to cause you to stray from your path, I simply wanted to insert a different viewpoint in the thread. The merits of which are to be decided by our readers, towards whom I’ve already done my utmost to be understood.
If you read Dawkins carefully you will see that he often, if not always, refers to "good and evil" in the abstract, this is not a matter of his personal opinion only, it is very clearly something he believes to be embedded in reality.Quote:
It must be said that claiming to understand Richard Dawkin’s points of view better than himself is really taking it to the next level. Simply stating that he believes goodness exists in the world does not imply that he does not think goodness is developed from empathy. It is what he actually says in those quotes I provided you with after all.
The problem is that this view is presented as "scientific", but it is really a blending of natural and moral philosophy. Read Dawkins and you see that he believes everything stems from our genes, but he consistently make imaginative leaps to try and connect his, essentially quite duelistic philosophy, to his monistic scientific realism. For example, he has claimed that belief in God is an inherited survival trait independent of any deity, but he also claims we have now outgrown this belief - we can transcend our genetics. On the one hand man is as he should be, because he follows his deterministic genes, on the other he should be more than he currently is and change his nature, in contravention of his genes.Quote:
Well we were talking about Richard Dawkins’ views, and those of the New Atheists. You claimed they understood good and evil in the same way you did. At no point were we discussing their scientific positions, but their opinions on morality, I was showing you that they place themselves on the complete opposite side.
There is a logical and philosophical canyon there.
So your morality can be used to justify causing suffering? Mine can't. To be clear, if you justify something you are say it is good. I do not agree that vicious cruelty requires the "suppression" of humanity, that implies a transcendent quality to human nature that is at odds with an avowedly secular and realist worldview. I sounds like nothing so much as the sort of thin a religious man says about his God-given conscience.Quote:
Cruelty can be displayed by ordinary people and empathy helps you understand pain and thus, how to cause it. And then, which is the absolutely mind-reconstructing & society-defining action which empathy sears into our brains as a seething need? Justification. Empathy forces us to justify ourselves; to explain to ourselves why we’ve acted as we did, because we know, we understand intimately the pain we’ve caused and cannot live with it without reasoning it as part of a Moral standpoint. Croatian ustashas threw Serbian two-year olds in the air and caught them in their knives before hitting the ground in front of their mothers, but they would’ve first blown their brains out before doing that to a random Italian family. The Serbs were Orthodox. Blasphemers. You had to torture them for their sins against your God. Justification. Empathy requires it before suppressing your humanity. And when this rationalisation creates an entire System of Justifications, we have Morality. We draw a straight line.
It is also generally true that the decision comes before the rationalization. Croatians kills Serbs because they hate them, they justify that hate on religious grounds, but it is obvious that Romans and Greeks can coexist, and generally have across history. The fact is, our capacity for empathy is not a "moral" faculty, it is merely something we use to justify some of the decisions we make - it represents out affective preferences, how we feel, and in that sense it is no more a justification for action than Divine Edict, which claims to be God's preference.
Quote:
Odd to see you agreeing with my previous point where I stated that:
While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant.
That different societies have different moral codes is not in dispute, their relative value is.
OK, you have completely lost me. Objective values require a valuator. To say that:Quote:
Finally, I got something right according to you as well, societies do define their own good and evil after all.
I know I know, while you agree on that, you also think that there is some actually genuine notion of good and evil out there which is the only one worth being adopted by human beings.
Yes. There is. I've never disputed that. I just think we are able to sometimes grasp what it truly means to be Good due to the mind-altering effects of empathy which haunts us to justify in any way, even by deluding ourselves, actions we’d be horrified to experience ourselves. It leads us to develop secular principles.
Just indicates that you have not considered what "God" is, philosophically speaking. Further more, to argue for objective values invalidates your argument viz empathy because an empathetic moral system requires that at least one person in a society to apprehend the objective moral good before empathy can operate on the given question. For example, if everyone thinks infanticide if fine there is not empathetic element to whether or not it is moral. Infanticide first has to upset someone before empathy can be used as a justification for not killing babies, because it upsets their parents.Quote:
You just think that’s God.
This implies they don't want to rape the woman, I contend that they do want to rape her because she threatens their masculinity; the hatred is a result of their emotional response and using "Divine Will" to justify it is just a sideshow. The point is that human being are inherently capable of cruelty, and their empathy alone does not prevent them acting out their malicious desires. In order for empathy to come into play those men must first acknowledge that the woman is of equal value, and not sub-human because only then will they empathize with her.Quote:
The amusing part is that those good-and-evil-defining-societies combine our viewpoints marvellously: their delusion is that their empathy is to be suppressed because that woman's rape is justified by God. Opposing the rape thus makes you immoral, a point I was making in an earlier reply.
Her value must be recognised.
What you are really talking about, then, is empathy and sympathy. Empathy is the understanding of another's emotions, sympathy is sharing them. Empathy is the tool you use to engage sympathetically, one can have one without the other, both ways.Quote:
Uhmm empathy is a lot more complex. It does not only employ emotional recognition, it creates self-reflective perspectives through imagination. It’s a fairly well researched phenomenon.
But that was merely to address your inaccuracy when presuming that one needs to have previously experienced an emotion in order to understand it. What bothers is that you think empathy is irrelevant because it doesn’t explain the foetus. It does explain to us the gravida.
This is a rationalisation of the Bullers, they do vandalise randomly as well. In any case, they are just a more recent manifestation of the callous young aristocrat, the lord's son you rape the farmer's daughter and then pays the father for the "whore".Quote:
Really? The emotional and psychological damage they provoke to the owners of the vandalised joints who willingly rent them to them beforehand while fully aware of the club’s reputation? Hmm, nice touch there.
Very similar emotional and psychological damage to the one lower-class english hooligans inflicted upon the Italian spectators on the Heysel Stadium when their attack caused 39 people to be crushed to death.