ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th February 2019, 01:11 AM   #561
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
But basically now it occurs to me: so... what you were trying to say was basically that Critias was right all along? That yeah, you can just unilaterally make up any rules you want?

Because it seems to me that
A) you criticized a system where the whole community, or at the very least a group of those with any power there, debated and agreed upon some set of morals, because
B) someone like Critias could decide to make up their own rules instead, so
C) you propose as better a system where... you make up your own rules instead, and you alone decide what's good or bad.

So what is the difference there? Just that your parents didn't name you Critias?

Or if what you were trying to say is basically that Critias was right, after all, we could have skipped the pointless argument for the last few pages.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 03:01 AM   #562
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
[portion only quoted, emphasis added]

What does the word "opt" mean to you? To me, it means to make a choice. So if you're saying some people choose to believe the Earth is flat, I disagree. Some people believe the Earth is flat, they don't choose to believe that, they just do believe that.
Makes no sense. They have been taught at school that Earth is round. They live in a world where practically everyone knows it is round, but based on something, they decide it is probably flat. It is not something that that just strikes them from nowhere, it is a conscious decision made for some reason that presumably seems rational to them.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 12:50 PM   #563
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
You said later this was addressed to me.

Take, oh, I don't know, the Monty Hall math problem (you know, the one about there are three choices with only one a good prize, you pick one, the game show host shows you one of the ones you didn't pick, if you do - or don't - change your pick, what are your chances, 1/2, or 1/3?).

Don't worry, I'm not going to discuss the answer!

The point is, there is a provable answer. If someone doesn't accept the logic, they can do an experiment with repeated choices, even a simple computer program, to model the situation.

But, regardless of what the truth is, people will believe, or not believe, the correct answer. It's not a matter of choice whether or not to believe, as I see choice.
I think the Monty Hall problem is a good choice, because I would disagree that most people just use faith and have no choice but to believe random nonsense in a maths problem. And even IF someone were inclined to just believe random stuff about maths, I would say they're more likely to actually use their brains when money is involved.

But anyway, at some point someone had to think about it, figure out what the answer is, and decide if the other answer is correct. That is a decision you make.

Now you might use the wrong reasoning or use the wrong premises based on intuition, which is really how most people fail Monty Hall, but it's not simply a case of just having no choice but to disbelieve maths.

The fact is, people don't just act or believe stuff randomly. Every day -- and in fact several times a day -- you run into all sorts of information, and you have to decide what it means and whether you even believe it in the first place. Each of that is a choice.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th February 2019 at 12:52 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:51 AM   #564
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, obviously they did.

Yes, but it's not just that you sometimes draw wrong conclusions from it, it's that it covers the whole spectrum from extreme altruism to fascism. A REAL Critias, as opposed to a strawman sockpuppet like the one in Plato, would NOT argue that might is right. Because that's a recipe for not getting any power. He'd in fact argue that he protects freedom with his police state. He might even believe it, actually.


No, the idea was quite plainly about morals. They thought that if a woman makes herself prettier, it's to sexually tempt men, and that men basically are that easy to tempt into immoral behaviour. Thinking with your dick wasn't as much your failure, it was an established excuse. The woman who tempted you was to blame.

(...)

The laws are just there to enforce a certain morality, and hopefully one we all agreed on. Or at least those with any power agreed on. Nobody in history went, "let's give some immoral laws for giggles."
Excuse me, one thing is morality and another is legal norms. I can judge the legal rules according to my moral principles, but I can not go to a court to defend my client on the basis of moral rules. If you want us to talk about morality, let's talk about morality. But don't change the subject.

My ethics do not justify everything. It is rather strict. I do not believe that fascism and puritanism, whether religious or traditional, give more freedom to the victims or to the executioners. They are also based on illusory moral systems and deny their own responsibility to make moral choices. There are two reasons for rejecting them.

I don't think the tyrant is free. Taking possession of things leads to a system of dependencies as rigid as that of its victims. The relationship between master and slave presents a paradox: the master depends on the slave as much as the slave depends on him. He gains power, not freedom. Therefore, he is liberticidal and illusory.

Another different case: Dostoevsky. I told you that you misunderstood him. Dostoevsky does not want a Christian liberticidal system. He wants Christians to preach Love by their own example, in the hope that this will make that everyone freely love others as themselves, which according to him is the fundamental principle of Christianity. He is therefore theoretically opposed to Christian systems of coercion, such as the Inquisition (he hated the Pope, by the way). I oppose this proposal because it is doubly illusory: it is based on an idealization of social reality and puts freedom in the hands of an authority, Jesus, rejecting one's own responsibility in moral decisions. I can broaden the criticism, but you will see that it is consistent with my moral principles, which do not accept anything, even some ideas that seem "good" before analyzing them.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 01:22 AM   #565
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I do not believe that fascism and puritanism, whether religious or traditional, give more freedom to the victims or to the executioners. They are also based on illusory moral systems and deny their own responsibility to make moral choices. There are two reasons for rejecting them.

I don't think the tyrant is free. Taking possession of things leads to a system of dependencies as rigid as that of its victims. The relationship between master and slave presents a paradox: the master depends on the slave as much as the slave depends on him. He gains power, not freedom. Therefore, he is liberticidal and illusory.
While a good case can be made for that, most people aren't into lots of introspection and philosophical thought. Most people also heavily use double standards, wishful thinking, etc.

It's quite possible to start from freedom and arrive at, well, just about anything imaginable, including defending slavery or even brutal murder. E.g., Ayn Rand, of libertarian fame, ended up defending a guy in her diary, who kidnapped a schoolgirl, taunted the parents, referred to her consistently as an "it", and when the parents paid the ransom, what they got was a torso IIRC stuffed with newspapers, because he decided to cut her into pieces... alive instead. (No, seriously, his own testimony said the blood was coming out in little spurts when he was cutting her arms off, so, you know, heart was still beating.) And bear in mind that this was in a private diary, not trolling someone with nonsense arguments. But apparently even that was some kind of act against the tyranny of society.

Hell, O Henry even has a story where one guy's moral code gets him to pull a gun and defend a scammer against, well, the scammer's patsy who was posing as a guy who's totally gonna get a lot of money out of the scam.

So I'm still not entirely enlightened as to how your making up any rules you wish is better than at least bouncing the ideas off other members of the society. Not that the latter is any guarantee against ending up in dada land, but someone might point out some problem or another.


As for the legal system, while I'm ok with leaving that aside if you wish, I'd still like to see that supposed morality work on SOME examples that are more complicated than trivial situations or generalities. Because if you only have a system that works on the most trivial cases, then it's not much help in the real world.

The situation 2 I described, for example, isn't even that complicated to tackle. It boils down to: you have a resource we both need in order to survive, is it ok to kill you for it? Does it make self defense when you weren't actively trying to murder me? You can replace the plank with anything else to the same effect. It could equally be, say, we both got a case of drug resistant bacteria and not many days to live, you got into a trial for a new drug and you got a sample that could cure it, and I didn't. Is it ok to take your drug and leave you to die? Is it self-defense? Is a society where that's allowed a society in which you want to live?

Such cases are actually not even all that interesting for the legal system, because the guy will almost invariably just get a suspended sentence if at all. That is if he doesn't get a case of jury nullification. He just needs to not be stupid and listen to his lawyer, who'll tell him to be all regretful in court. If the lawyer is any good, he may even get to be not guilty because of temporary insanity or such: he just totally panicked and didn't know what he was doing, see? Because the prosecutor also knows all that, and it's not gonna be a popular case either, he may not even get to court, but get some slap-on-the-wrist settlement. Either way, it's not like we expect Jack to make a habit of getting on sinking ships and pushing people off planks, so it's a one time thing, so it's not generally seen as a need to teach him a lesson to make sure it never happens again.

It's more interesting precisely from a morals point of view.

But as I was saying, ok, I can drop that one case, but show me that your morals work at all on, you know, any case that's not some absolutely trivial and vague generality.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 1st March 2019 at 01:42 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 03:54 AM   #566
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
While a good case can be made for that, most people aren't into lots of introspection and philosophical thought. Most people also heavily use double standards, wishful thinking, etc.

It's quite possible to start from freedom and arrive at, well, just about anything imaginable, including defending slavery or even brutal murder. E.g., Ayn Rand, of libertarian fame, ended up defending a guy in her diary, who kidnapped a schoolgirl, taunted the parents, referred to her consistently as an "it", and when the parents paid the ransom, what they got was a torso IIRC stuffed with newspapers, because he decided to cut her into pieces... alive instead. (No, seriously, his own testimony said the blood was coming out in little spurts when he was cutting her arms off, so, you know, heart was still beating.) And bear in mind that this was in a private diary, not trolling someone with nonsense arguments. But apparently even that was some kind of act against the tyranny of society.

Hell, O Henry even has a story where one guy's moral code gets him to pull a gun and defend a scammer against, well, the scammer's patsy who was posing as a guy who's totally gonna get a lot of money out of the scam.

So I'm still not entirely enlightened as to how your making up any rules you wish is better than at least bouncing the ideas off other members of the society. Not that the latter is any guarantee against ending up in dada land, but someone might point out some problem or another.


As for the legal system, while I'm ok with leaving that aside if you wish, I'd still like to see that supposed morality work on SOME examples that are more complicated than trivial situations or generalities. Because if you only have a system that works on the most trivial cases, then it's not much help in the real world.

The situation 2 I described, for example, isn't even that complicated to tackle. It boils down to: you have a resource we both need in order to survive, is it ok to kill you for it? Does it make self defense when you weren't actively trying to murder me? You can replace the plank with anything else to the same effect. It could equally be, say, we both got a case of drug resistant bacteria and not many days to live, you got into a trial for a new drug and you got a sample that could cure it, and I didn't. Is it ok to take your drug and leave you to die? Is it self-defense? Is a society where that's allowed a society in which you want to live?

Such cases are actually not even all that interesting for the legal system, because the guy will almost invariably just get a suspended sentence if at all. That is if he doesn't get a case of jury nullification. He just needs to not be stupid and listen to his lawyer, who'll tell him to be all regretful in court. If the lawyer is any good, he may even get to be not guilty because of temporary insanity or such: he just totally panicked and didn't know what he was doing, see? Because the prosecutor also knows all that, and it's not gonna be a popular case either, he may not even get to court, but get some slap-on-the-wrist settlement. Either way, it's not like we expect Jack to make a habit of getting on sinking ships and pushing people off planks, so it's a one time thing, so it's not generally seen as a need to teach him a lesson to make sure it never happens again.

It's more interesting precisely from a morals point of view.

But as I was saying, ok, I can drop that one case, but show me that your morals work at all on, you know, any case that's not some absolutely trivial and vague generality.
I'm not a Rand fan, but I'm surprised she defended such a horrible criminal. What argument? Can you give us the precise reference? What's your source? I'm interested in that.

My ethical system is not based on extreme self-analysis. It's a description of how people act. The tyrant usually trades his freedom for power in an unconscious way.

I maintain that apart from extreme altruism no moral system can give a clear answer to the problem you have presented. My suspension of judgment was not a special failure of my moral system. It is that your example escapes the realm of morality. It happens with other cases.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 07:45 AM   #567
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.c...tone-cold.html

As for the argument, it's not a coherent one, but it includes such excerpts as that the people actually hated that guy because of his INDEPENDENCE (i.e., freedom by any other name), not, you know, because he had cut a little girl into pieces alive. He also apparently had the psychology of a real Superman, according to her. Instead of bending to the norms of society (such as, you know, don't kidnap and cut a little girl into pieces,) he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." And other stuff like that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 1st March 2019 at 07:52 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 08:01 AM   #568
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.c...tone-cold.html

As for the argument, it's not a coherent one, but it includes such excerpts as that the people actually hated that guy because of his INDEPENDENCE (i.e., freedom by any other name), not, you know, because he had cut a little girl into pieces alive. He also apparently had the psychology of a real Superman, according to her. Instead of bending to the norms of society (such as, you know, don't kidnap and cut a little girl into pieces,) he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." And other stuff like that.
Thank you, Hans. I will read it.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 01:02 AM   #569
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.c...tone-cold.html

As for the argument, it's not a coherent one, but it includes such excerpts as that the people actually hated that guy because of his INDEPENDENCE (i.e., freedom by any other name), not, you know, because he had cut a little girl into pieces alive. He also apparently had the psychology of a real Superman, according to her. Instead of bending to the norms of society (such as, you know, don't kidnap and cut a little girl into pieces,) he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." And other stuff like that.
From what I have seen it is a Rand's "sin of youth" that is not very clear. In any case, young Rand's ideology, according to the author of the blog, is contrary to mine. Her extreme individualism prevents her from seeing how freedom really works. I affirm that freedom is a collective act that increases as we involve more people in a common project. For that, it must rely on moral feelings, which are based on empathy. Young Rand believes in freedom as an individual act. Her killer is a being without any empathy who believes that her freedom is based on what he wants and standing up to society as a romantic anti-hero. This was dismantled by Albert Camus in his first play, Caligula. I don't remember if I'd already mentioned it here, but it's very worth reading.

On the other hand, you like extreme cases. They are very ostentatious, but they rarely shed light on the difficulties of everyday morality, which is what should interest us.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 01:56 AM   #570
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
As I've said like two messages ago, by now I'm interested in ANY cases, 'cause so far I've only heard vague generalities from you.

It also seems to me like the 99% of situations that are "everyday life" are actually not very interesting, because nothing happens. Most of everyday life even someone with a cartoonish/Critias kind of mustache-twirling villain philosophy isn't in a position to do anything particularly wrong. It's when things get murkier or more unusual that they get their chance.

Even Ted Bundy managed to lead a normal everyday life. He even helped people, e.g., by volunteering at a suicide hotline. It's only if you were a woman alone with him at a safe distance from civilization that you might start being in deep crap.

Hell, Jack The Ripper, probably THE #1 serial killer name that everyone recognizes, obviously must have functioned normally enough in everyday life, because he never got caught.

Edson Izidoro Guimarăes, is thought to have killed 131 patients. But managed to function normally enough for most of her everyday life, including job as a nurse, to only raise suspicion for the last 4.

Hell, even the Critias you mentioned, was nothing special until Sparta needed a muppet goverment for the newly conquered Athens. All of his everyday life, save for that last year and a half, he wasn't even a particularly interesting guy. It's only when he gets put in a highly unusual situation that you start to see what are the problems with his morals.


TL;DR version: a morality that only works as long as it's business as usual and nothing special happens, is quite literally as useless as a kevlar vest that only works as long as you don't get shot, or a life preserver that only works as long as you're not in water. I mean, sure, those too work well enough for that vast majority of the time in your everyday life when you don't get shot or fall off a ship
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 2nd March 2019 at 02:26 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 11:58 PM   #571
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As I've said like two messages ago, by now I'm interested in ANY cases, 'cause so far I've only heard vague generalities from you.

It also seems to me like the 99% of situations that are "everyday life" are actually not very interesting, because nothing happens. Most of everyday life even someone with a cartoonish/Critias kind of mustache-twirling villain philosophy isn't in a position to do anything particularly wrong. It's when things get murkier or more unusual that they get their chance.

(...)

TL;DR version: a morality that only works as long as it's business as usual and nothing special happens, is quite literally as useless as a kevlar vest that only works as long as you don't get shot, or a life preserver that only works as long as you're not in water. I mean, sure, those too work well enough for that vast majority of the time in your everyday life when you don't get shot or fall off a ship
You don't meet Critias or Jack the Ripper every day. However, your life is a constant exercise of freedom that engages others. We usually resolve these issues without reflection, as automatic acts. I don't leave my family because "it doesn't fit into my plans," but I could do it if I wanted to. I don't stand up to the boss and tell him he's a jerk and a pig, but he could. I don't take public transport instead of pollutng the air with my car, but I could do it. And so on. These are moral decisions. And very interesting.

Serial killers and castaways on a raft are more spectacular cases, which attract more attention because they are more morbid. But they are neither more nor less moral than the others.

You can raise these cases if you like. I have already given you my answer on several occasions. Of course, a moral system is also tested with these extreme cases. But don't tell me that my system is not worth it because I find a case in which there is no possibility to decide one way or another. If you give an alternative solution we will see. But, in principle, the suspension of the trial is a valid answer in any system that does not presume to know everything. And a system that pretends to solve everything is simply impossible, in morals, science or any other branch of knowledge.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:47 PM   #572
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You don't meet Critias or Jack the Ripper every day. However, your life is a constant exercise of freedom that engages others. We usually resolve these issues without reflection, as automatic acts. I don't leave my family because "it doesn't fit into my plans," but I could do it if I wanted to. I don't stand up to the boss and tell him he's a jerk and a pig, but he could. I don't take public transport instead of pollutng the air with my car, but I could do it. And so on. These are moral decisions. And very interesting.

Serial killers and castaways on a raft are more spectacular cases, which attract more attention because they are more morbid. But they are neither more nor less moral than the others.

You can raise these cases if you like. I have already given you my answer on several occasions. Of course, a moral system is also tested with these extreme cases. But don't tell me that my system is not worth it because I find a case in which there is no possibility to decide one way or another. If you give an alternative solution we will see. But, in principle, the suspension of the trial is a valid answer in any system that does not presume to know everything. And a system that pretends to solve everything is simply impossible, in morals, science or any other branch of knowledge.
Well .... seriously, what is your point? All the above is trivial. Obviously science and morals are very different. Science strives to be objective and evidence-based. Morals are arbitrary and context-dependent. But all this is elementary knowledge. So ... What are you actually trying to argue?

hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:27 AM   #573
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well .... seriously, what is your point? All the above is trivial. Obviously science and morals are very different. Science strives to be objective and evidence-based. Morals are arbitrary and context-dependent. But all this is elementary knowledge. So ... What are you actually trying to argue?

hans
That the difference between morality and science is not what you say and that moral decisions are not arbitrary. Is that trivial? It shouldn't be so trivial when the other Hans is looking for how attack it in several previous comments.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th March 2019 at 12:32 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:52 AM   #574
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Well, on the other hand you apparently have a system that's unable to say that a combo of robbery and murder is wrong

Because, see, that "extreme" example I gave isn't really.

To start with the trivial question it actually asks: is it self-defense? No, unless someone is actively trying to harm you, it's not. Having a resource you desperately need and not sharing it, which is what Rose was doing in that scenario, is NOT grounds for self-defense in any legal or philosophical system I'm even aware of. Otherwise everyone who's unable to pay for some cancer or AIDS treatment could murder pharmacists in "self-defense." And that's not a society any school of philosophy would want to push.

What Jack COULD invoke is the completely different affirmative defense of "duress". But that's not the same as "self-defense."

See, the answer was that trivial.

But let's dig deeper into it. Rose dies as bleeding obvious, not just foreseeable, result of Jack's assault, so it's at the very least homicide. And it's not even possible to argue that Jack wasn't aware of the implication that being in the freezing water is deadly, because it's exactly the fate he was trying to escape himself.

But even if he were to argue that he was completely unaware that Rose would drown -- e.g., he totally believed she's a perfect swimmer and immune to cold -- according to the eggshell-skull doctrine, he's still responsible for it. You are responsible for all injuries you cause in an assault, whether you knew that they're even possible or not.

Hell, even if Rose died in a completely different and unrelated way as a result of the assault, in the USA it would still count as fellony murder. If you commit a fellony, which assault is, and someone dies -- even if they just got scared and jumped out a window -- congrats, you're a murderer.

But even as a baseline, when I told you that Jack actively pushes Rose off the plank, I told you it's assault and battery. Which any legal or philosophical system ever files under doing something wrong.

So apparently you have a system where even assault, battery, robbery and homicide, oooh, you can't tell if they're really wrong. You can apparently only tell stuff that's at the level of fixing your car exhaust


And what was the point of that detour? Well, that most people try to be likable in every day life. As I was saying, even Ted Bundy was a likable and helpful young man 99% of the time. More helpful than the non-psychopaths around, in fact. Or at least people THINK of themselves as being good people. Most can actually be dramatically better in their own mind than in actual every day life.

But they're also VERY inclined to grant themselves any excuses they ever need, and, as you proved, not very inclined to take a moral stand. Unless they're a part of a mob, I guess. Otherwise, not only nobody wants to tell the boss he's an ass, but they also dislike being the one who tells Critias he's an ass.

And that's why we need that social contract. At some point, someone has to think long and hard and decide what's allowed and what isn't. They might be a lawyer, or a theologian, or just a couple of cavemen around a fire, but someone has to get people to put into explicit works what is allowed, what isn't, and what are the allowed exceptions.

You may dislike comformism, but it's what actually works.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 01:16 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:05 AM   #575
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, on the other hand you apparently have a system that's unable to say that a combo of robbery and murder is wrong

Because, see, that "extreme" example I gave isn't really.

(...)So apparently you have a system where even assault, battery, robbery and homicide, oooh, you can't tell if they're really wrong. You can apparently only tell stuff that's at the level of fixing your car exhaust
.
This is false. I have said that I restained my judgment in this particular case you presented. In the other cases I have given my opinion without problem.

For the rest, you raise the case again from a legal point of view. I am analyzing from a moral point of view. What are your moral principles that allow you to condemn or not condemn Jack? That's the question.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th March 2019 at 01:08 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:22 AM   #576
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
By the very definition of what philosophy is, a bunch of lawyers trying to figure out what rules are best for the country IS philosophy. So I'm not sure on what grounds do you file it under something completely different. They're just more qualified, and base it on actual cases.

Plus, again, I'm not even aware of any school of philosophy that says that, yeah, if someone has a resource you desperately need, sure, go ahead and kill them for it. If you are, please do share that information.

But really, seriously? You actually have to ask what principles let me say that killing someone is wrong, or that it's not self-DEFENSE unless you're actually DEFENDING yourself? The clue is in the name. That superior morality of yours totally couldn't tell? I think you just made my case, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 01:23 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:24 AM   #577
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And what was the point of that detour? Well, that most people try to be likable in every day life. As I was saying, even Ted Bundy was a likable and helpful young man 99% of the time. More helpful than the non-psychopaths around, in fact. Or at least people THINK of themselves as being good people. Most can actually be dramatically better in their own mind than in actual every day life.

But they're also VERY inclined to grant themselves any excuses they ever need, and, as you proved, not very inclined to take a moral stand. Unless they're a part of a mob, I guess. Otherwise, not only nobody wants to tell the boss he's an ass, but they also dislike being the one who tells Critias he's an ass.

And that's why we need that social contract. At some point, someone has to think long and hard and decide what's allowed and what isn't. They might be a lawyer, or a theologian, or just a couple of cavemen around a fire, but someone has to get people to put into explicit works what is allowed, what isn't, and what are the allowed exceptions.

You may dislike comformism, but it's what actually works.
The social contract has nothing to do with moral decisions as I am describing. At least as Rousseau understood it, which is how I understand it. If you have another definition you warn. The social contract refers to the politic laws. It has nothing to do with the social contract if I decide to continue with my family or go to the Bahamas or that I tell the truth to my boss: that he is an imbecile. That I decide to be "nice" and what the limits of kindness are has nothing to do with the social contract. But it has a lot to do with my freedom, which is what I base my moral system on. Of course, morality influences the laws we accept. But morality is not limited to those laws. This is what you don't seem to understand. Or are you unable to explain.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:27 AM   #578
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
I never said that it's ONLY laws. You might have noticed I EXPLICITLY mentioned community rules, or ideas like honour, etc, before. Some get put into law, some not yet. Hell, even the basic stuff like "thou shalt not kill" were not an actual legal system until very late in the history of the human race, but they were the same contract anyway. I'm also sure I defined that contract well enough a couple of pages back.

Honestly, it's not a very interesting discussion, if you have the memory of a goldfish. Or at least when it comes to the stuff you can't argue against.

Edit: I'm also not sure why you want to equivocate what was being discussed with what Rousseau said. Whether what he said is relevant or not, that's something you will have to show. But to just replace what Hans Mustermann said with what Rousseau supposedly said, and then argue against the latter as if it were the former, is a strawman by definition.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 01:32 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:31 AM   #579
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
By the very definition of what philosophy is, a bunch of lawyers trying to figure out what rules are best for the country IS philosophy. So I'm not sure on what grounds do you file it under something completely different. They're just more qualified, and base it on actual cases.

Plus, again, I'm not even aware of any school of philosophy that says that, yeah, if someone has a resource you desperately need, sure, go ahead and kill them for it. If you are, please do share that information.
Philosophy is not what you say. Everyone's philosophy influences the decision to adopt one law or another. But philosophy is not limited to that.
I think every moral theory condemns murder. Including mine. But the case you proposed was more complicated. If the man lets the woman go up, they both die. If you don't let the woman on, you save one. I find it difficult to decide morally on this case. Are you demanding that the man commit suicide to save the woman? That would be heroism, wouldn't it? In fact you do not explain the question from the moral point of view, but from the legal laws, which I do not discuss.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th March 2019 at 01:33 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:34 AM   #580
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
The woman was first on the plank in that question. Guess it serves me right for assuming that someone would have actually seen Titanic if they accept a discussion about a scenario described that way.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 01:36 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:35 AM   #581
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I never said that it's ONLY laws. You might have noticed I EXPLICITLY mentioned community rules, or ideas like honour, etc, before. Some get put into law, some not yet. Hell, even the basic stuff like "thou shalt not kill" were not an actual legal system until very late in the history of the human race, but they were the same contract anyway. I'm also sure I defined that contract well enough a couple of pages back.

Honestly, it's not a very interesting discussion, if you have the memory of a goldfish. Or at least when it comes to the stuff you can't argue against.

Edit: I'm also not sure why you want to equivocate what was being discussed with what Rousseau said. Whether what he said is relevant or not, that's something you will have to show. But to just replace what Hans Mustermann said with what Rousseau supposedly said, and then argue against the latter as if it were the former, is a strawman by definition.
You've initiated the subject of the social contract. If you do not know what you are talking about or you have an original idea of the social contract, please explain it.

Of course, honor can't replace morality. It is an entirely arbirary code that limits freedom.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:37 AM   #582
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
I have already explained how it works. Again, your conveniently forgetting everything that's not some quote that you already learned how to argue against, is not MY problem.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:42 AM   #583
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The woman was first on the plank in that question. Guess it serves me right for assuming that someone would have actually seen Titanic if they accept a discussion about a scenario described that way.
So it's the woman who doesn't let the man go up? Does the woman try to throw the man when she sees that the board can't stand the two of them? Or does she want to die together with the man?

Do you think there is a moral solution to this case? Which one?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:44 AM   #584
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I have already explained how it works. Again, your conveniently forgetting everything that's not some quote that you already learned how to argue against, is not MY problem.
Don't start with excuses. If you don't know what to say, we'll say goodbye.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:07 AM   #585
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,261
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
So it's the woman who doesn't let the man go up? Does the woman try to throw the man when she sees that the board can't stand the two of them? Or does she want to die together with the man?

Do you think there is a moral solution to this case? Which one?
Do you think there's a moral solution to this case? If so, what is it?

Of course, it might be helpful if you officially narrowed down which version of moral that you think is in play here. For example, to invoke a set of options from Mirriam-Webster...

As an adjective -
Quote:
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent
As a noun -
Quote:

2 morals plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct an authoritative code of morals has force and effect when it expresses the settled customs of a stable society— Walter Lippmann
b : ethics the science of morals endeavors to divide men into the good and the bad— J. W. Krutch
After all, problems may well be occurring because of a distinct failure to actually be talking about the same thing because of fundamental underlying misunderstandings. Maybe.

Other than that, he had just directly answered your questions, in reasonable depth, in post #574, about an hour before your post. You simply ignoring that is a strong indicator that you're not paying attention to what he's actually said, which means that you are failing your side when it comes to having a rational discussion.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 4th March 2019 at 02:13 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 03:25 AM   #586
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Don't start with excuses. If you don't know what to say, we'll say goodbye.
Really? Asking you to address what I've actually said, instead of your dumbass strawmen is now an "excuse"? Seriously? Just when I thought your arguing couldn't get any dumber, the above comes to prove me wrong

Seriously, your being apparently too intellectually unequipped to go read what I've actually said when I introduced that concept, doesn't mean I "don't know what to say." It literally just means you're playing too dumb by half to use a forum. Something even 6 year olds and senile old grandmas manage to figure out.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 03:28 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 03:41 AM   #587
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
But now let's address the idea that I somehow use the "social contract" theory wrong. NO, I'm not, you're just unaware of what a pretty well known theory in philosophy even means:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

I don't know exactly what Rousseau wrote, but the theory of the social contract is NOT his creation. It predates him by at the very least two centuries, probably a lot more. And at the very least, it is still taught and studied on its own, not as an addendum to Rousseau.

So the pretense that you can substitute some (probably equally misunderstood) meaning from specifically Rousseau and pretend that your canned answers to that one actually address what _I_ wrote is just nonsense. And it's YOUR problem, not mine.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 04:19 AM   #588
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,197
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But now let's address the idea that I somehow use the "social contract" theory wrong. NO, I'm not, you're just unaware of what a pretty well known theory in philosophy even means:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

I don't know exactly what Rousseau wrote, but the theory of the social contract is NOT his creation. It predates him by at the very least two centuries, probably a lot more. And at the very least, it is still taught and studied on its own, not as an addendum to Rousseau.

So the pretense that you can substitute some (probably equally misunderstood) meaning from specifically Rousseau and pretend that your canned answers to that one actually address what _I_ wrote is just nonsense. And it's YOUR problem, not mine.
Although there are antecedents, the theory of the social contract was systematized by Rousseau in a book with that name. Since then, if it is not specified, it is understood that we are talking about the social contract according to Rousseau. If you use it in another way, we need to know what it is. I await your clarification.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 04:22 AM   #589
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
So,
- I wrote a long message before about what I mean
- I just gave you an academic link.
... and you're still at awaiting clarification?

And I mean, it's not even like you have to read it all, since it's defined in the first sentence in that link: "Social contract theory [...] is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live."

Seriously, what would qualify as clarification to you at this point? It being written on the moon?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th March 2019 at 04:24 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:03 PM   #590
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
That the difference between morality and science is not what you say and that moral decisions are not arbitrary.
Do you deliberately misrepresent what people say? I said MORALS are arbitrary. Once you live under a given moral code, moral DECISIONS can be quite rational.


Quote:
Is that trivial? It shouldn't be so trivial when the other Hans is looking for how attack it in several previous comments.
Special version of 'appeal to authority fallacy': Attempt to play your opponents out against each other. Sorry, no dice.

Your claims in the post in question are trivial. I applaud Hans for trying to get some sense out of it. I suppose I'm not that patient.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:07 PM   #591
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Although there are antecedents, the theory of the social contract was systematized by Rousseau in a book with that name.
Classical 'appeal to authority fallacy'. We don't want to be guessing or read entire volumes by your reference. What exactly does Rousseau say and why do you hold it authoritative?

Quote:
Since then, if it is not specified, it is understood that we are talking about the social contract according to Rousseau. If you use it in another way, we need to know what it is. I await your clarification.
Again, 'appeal to authority fallacy'. YOU may hold Rousseau to be the authority, but that does not oblige anybody else. We don't owe you a clarification re Rousseau.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:12 PM   #592
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
I'm not sure it's even trying to appeal to any authority. I think he's genuinely convinced that if nobody took time to dissect his trivialities, other than say they're trivial, we're all secretly stumped by his genius and won't admit that he totally owned by stating those. Dunning-Kruger, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:16 PM   #593
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not sure it's even trying to appeal to any authority. I think he's genuinely convinced that if nobody took time to dissect his trivialities, other than say they're trivial, we're all secretly stumped by his genius and won't admit that he totally owned by stating those. Dunning-Kruger, really.
Could be the case, yes. Certainly, the idea that he/she can decide which authority is to be the paradigm is .... preposterous.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:20 PM   #594
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
But again, I don't think that's what he's actually saying there. He's not saying I'm some authority and you aren't. He's just patting himself on the shoulder and thinking that I must be desperately scrambling to attack his trivialities, and if I haven't succeeded yet, damn, those must be the real deal. Still silly, but in a different way, is all I'm saying.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:26 PM   #595
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,169
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Do you deliberately misrepresent what people say? I said MORALS are arbitrary. Once you live under a given moral code, moral DECISIONS can be quite rational.
I get this. For example, if I choose to live my life to the code of Bill and Ted:

1) Be excellent to each other, and
2) Party on, dudes!

that choice is completely subjective. However, in making that choice, the things I do follow rationally as a result.

I've said this before: the "morals" that you get from God might be objective, but the choice to rely on God in the first place is subjective.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 01:38 PM   #596
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I get this. For example, if I choose to live my life to the code of Bill and Ted:

1) Be excellent to each other, and
2) Party on, dudes!

that choice is completely subjective. However, in making that choice, the things I do follow rationally as a result.

I've said this before: the "morals" that you get from God might be objective, but the choice to rely on God in the first place is subjective.
I beg to differ. Morals are subjective no matter where you claim to get them from. Note that 'subjective' does not equal 'random' or 'irrational'.

Morals are what is subjectively perceived to be best for you and your surroundings. This perception can be quite rational. For instance, most society's morals condemn murder. This is quite rational because no society can sustain wanton murder of its members. On the other hand, most societies have historically had death penalty and waged wars. So again, arbitrary.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:26 PM   #597
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I've said this before: the "morals" that you get from God might be objective, but the choice to rely on God in the first place is subjective.
Are they, though? Because the idea that "God" gives anything even remotely resembling objective is what I still don't see. Because objective would imply there's just one thing you can get from there. And different people got VERY different things from "God".

I mean, sure, everyone got the trivial stuff like "don't kill" and "don't steal" and such, but from there it diverges rather spectacularly. Hell, it diverges even in the details for "don't kill" and "don't steal".
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:31 PM   #598
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
I also don't really see many people actually deciding to get their morals from "God" for that matter. Hell, the VAST majority don't even bother reading the book to see WTH did God actually say on the topic.

You'd think that if I say I get my rules from one source, be it the Penal Code or the Bible or whatever, the only thing that makes ANY sense there is to actually read that source and see what it says. E.g., that when I defended legalism as a source in message #574, I actually did SOME honest effort to find out what the law says, and that's where the doctrines mentioned in the message come from.

But that's not what 99% of the Xians do, do they?

What I see them do is basically think they're totally fooling everyone else by taking the rules that THEY like and attributing them to God. Yeah, that should totally fool everyone else into following those rules, right?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:50 PM   #599
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I'm not affiliated with any creationists groups as I disagree with most of the young Earth speculations. There are a few things I've pointed out that gave me reason to consider there may be something unknown at work. I've not seen anything yet that would sway my curiosity away from such a thought. Pondering these mysteries is in no way a declaration of faith. It's merely food for thought.

Regarding "faith", I was referring to a statement by another member that science would eventually explain certain things. This reference to future findings that may be made by science is nothing more than an example of faith.

Since nobody can know the future with certainty........entertaining a hopeful outlook on the future findings of science would mean science is no different than religion. Hope equals faith and to be fair you can't rule out one without ruling out the other. So instead of hoping for what we may discover in the future, I think it's best to refer to the here and now of what we know and what we don't.

Chris B.

Interesting to see how someone can decorate an idea, to make it seem like something other than what it is. So now we have "faith in science" being suggested as just another faith, not readily distinguishable from religious faith. Sheesh.

Science is a method and that is all. I am thoroughly sick of hearing theists try and dress it up as something other than this. We all use this method, even animals, to establish what may be factual.

As the scientific method is the only reliable way to find factual evidence it is most reasonable to look there. This does not automatically mean we have faith that science will ultimately provide all the answers. These are just the desperate words of the theist trying to dress science as another kind of woo.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 10:46 PM   #600
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,261
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I've said this before: the "morals" that you get from God might be objective, but the choice to rely on God in the first place is subjective.
So objective that they've changed, repeatedly, as society changed.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But again, I don't think that's what he's actually saying there. He's not saying I'm some authority and you aren't. He's just patting himself on the shoulder and thinking that I must be desperately scrambling to attack his trivialities, and if I haven't succeeded yet, damn, those must be the real deal. Still silly, but in a different way, is all I'm saying.
*shrugs* In his discussion with me, he quite showed that he has distinct trouble with the differences between objective and subjective morality, among other things. In his later discussions, he's shown that he has trouble with a bunch of other related facts and concepts, like the fact that there's significant overlap between different systems of determining what's right and wrong, given that they address frequently related issues.

It rather feels like he doesn't even get his trivialities right and then bullheadedly plows ahead while refusing to even consider the reasons that the trivialities aren't right.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 4th March 2019 at 10:48 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.