DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Omega on April 09, 2012, 11:27:59 AM
-
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.
Many people think it's just prima facie wrong to kill another human, which I would argue clearly is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"
I'm interested to hear why the murdering of another human being is wrong in the context of your worldview.
-
1. Because murder is irrevocably doing objective harm to another person against his/her will. And
2. Because God said so.
-
I read the thread title and couldn't help but laugh, for some reason.
And. It is wrong because you take something from a person and people around him that can never be given back. A life is the most precious thing someone possesses and it's simply not there anymore when you take it.
-
Is it :omg:
:blush :blush :blush
-
Well, if you're getting into the debate that "right" and "wrong" are just social constructs and in an objective universe they have no place and everything is technically neutral, then -- yep, pretty much. Well done.
However, as right and wrong are by their very nature social constructs designed to prevent ourselves from enacting unsolicited harm upon our fellow humans, "murder" falls squarely into the "wrong" category by the very nature of categorisation, seeing as it deprives our fellow people of not just one right or one possession, but everything they've ever known and every thought they've ever had.
Yes, wrongness itself is basically subjective and something we've made up as higher functioning sentient beings, but if you entertain any concept of rightness and wrongness whatsoever then murder broadly falls squarely into the "wrong" category with more or less no ambiguity whatsoever by most definitions. It's not so much a question of "is murder a wrong thing" as "is wrongness a thing?" If wrongness is a thing then of course murder's wrong.
It's a bit (if not much) like saying "what makes Dream Theater rock music?" Yep, rock music's pretty much a concept that we've made up ourselves for our own convenience and in a neutral universe it'd all just be music (or sounds, or noise)... but the second you've got the concept laid out and you're thinking in a universe defined by those principles, the question kind of becomes empty.
-
I would say that killing another person is not always wrong. There may be a justifiable reason. I think more information and context is needed.
Murder, defined as an unlawful killing of another with malice and/or forethought, without a justifiable reason, is wrong. It is wrong because you have taken away something from another person without his/her permission or acceptable justification.
-
It's "wrong" because (most) people like to live, rather than die. Every other reason is superfluous.
-
Murder is wrong for many reasons, all of which should be evident to anybody who isn't batshit insane.
1) People, on the whole, prefer to live rather than die. Everybody but the sociopathic should be able to understand this and empathize.
2) When you kill somebody, you're doing away with their life, and that life is not yours to take.
3) Hurting somebody -- say, stabbing someone in the face without killing him -- is already morally wrong, because this is unjustly diminishing someone else's quality of life. Murder is diminishing someone else's quality of life, but to one extreme.
You may note that people do want to die sometimes; can't a person consent to death, by this logic? This is a more complex issue. The state's opinion on the matter is generally that you are mentally ill if you have a good quality of life but would still like to die.
Plain old murder, however, the unjustifiable killing of another human, is just wrong, no matter how you look at it. Society cannot function when you're free to stab anybody and everybody in the face.
EDIT: I'll note that a lot of people are relying on God to support their belief that murder is wrong. This is worrisome and we should avoid it; if God were proven nonexistent tomorrow (not that such a thing would ever be possible), it would not suddenly become okay to stab faces.
-
because only the Creator (the one who gave it in the first place) has the authority to take a life (and those He grants that authority to, ie. governing authorities)
-
because only the Creator (the one who gave it in the first place) has the authority to take a life (and those He grants that authority to, ie. governing authorities)
What? How does he do that? What governments are authorized to do that and which ones aren't?
-
because only the Creator (the one who gave it in the first place) has the authority to take a life (and those He grants that authority to, ie. governing authorities)
While I do totally respect your opinion and your religion, and think a good religious text is a superb way to define one's personal morality, I would argue that it's very important to divorce it from general morality, in a world where there are about as many different doctrines as countries.
Then again, I'm not religious, so I don't know. I can't know. That might be easier said than done. Heck, might be completely impossible. And it's certainly a creed the US was founded on, so it's totally relevant, and good call, sir. I'm not criticising; just playing devil's advocate, given that we don't know whether the OP might be an atheist or a pantheist or a fully paid-up member of Heaven's Gate.
-
Allow me to preface this by stating that I, obviously, believe murder is both intuitively and objectively wrong. On what basis do I claim this? I assert that morality is objective, grounded in God. By objective, I mean independent of people's opinions. Therefore, I see the statement "murder (or rape, genocide -- etc) is wrong" as true as the statement "2 + 2 = 4" (or is it 5? I'm no bueno with math, mister).
Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral. It follows immediately that moral values and duties don't really exist. They're just illusions of human beings. Even if the naturalist is willing to go beyond the bounds of science, why think, given a naturalistic worldview, that human beings are morally valuable? On a naturalistic view, moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousin Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality," which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on an atheistic worldview, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If I we were to rewind the tape of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with very different set of moral values might well have evolved.
For us to think that human beings are special or that our morality objectively true is to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, an unjustified bias toward one's own species. So if there is no God, any basis for regarding the herd morality evolved by Homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Take God or objective morality out of the picture, and all you're left with is an apelike creature on a speck of dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.
Certain actions such as incest or rape or murder may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human history have become taboo, but that does nothing to show that rape or murder or incest is objectively wrong. The murderer or rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.
So while it would obviously be inconvenient to the person being murdered to have his or her life taken away, there's no reason, given naturalism, to see murder as objectively wrong. While most people would obviously rather live than die, this gives us no reason to see murder as objectively wrong if morality is seen as nothing but a man-made construct. While a society may not function too well with a bunch of murderers (or if murder impedes an idea of progress), that doesn't mean that murder is objectively wrong.
-
If objective morality is defined as morality not dependent on human opinion, and if God does not exist, then there's no reason murder should be wrong.
-
You've basically hit the nail on the head here, Omega. There's nothing here I disagree with. You're right to notice that morality, from a naturalistic point of view, doesn't exist.
But our civilization relies on morality nonetheless, as well as a slew of other things that don't really exist in concrete terms at all, like government and power and justice and causality and reason. How do we justify this? There are a couple ways to fill in the gaps here. If you ask me, I'd say that humans have an emergent property -- they are more than the sum of the parts. Somewhere down the line, humans acquired the ability to reason and create works of literary, visual, and musical art. Humans have genuine emotions, and are able to apply their intellects to accomplish far greater things than any other species.
Humans are bigger than animals. They are emotional and spiritual and reasonable; they create order in a world without order. We are advanced enough that the goal of humanity is no longer to continue to propagate the human race; the human race will continue no matter what happens, honestly. Humanity has bigger aspirations. To me, this fact implies a moral code -- humans are capable of greater things than other species, and as a result they should operate under a higher code of conduct. Each person is inherently valuable, whereas I really don't care one way or another what happens to any particular chipmunk.
-
If objective morality is defined as morality not dependent on human opinion, and if God does not exist, then there's no reason murder should be wrong.
We wouldn't have survived very long as a species if we all thought murder was an okay thing to do.
-
If objective morality is defined as morality not dependent on human opinion, and if God does not exist, then there's no reason murder should be wrong.
We wouldn't have survived very long as a species if we all thought murder was an okay thing to do.
Yes, that's correct. So?
-
How did our ancestors cope before God told everyone that murder wasn't cool?
-
As has been pointed out countless times before, when people who don't believe in objective morality say "murder is wrong" it's shorthand for saying "it is my personal opinion based on my own subjective beliefs that it is wrong to kill another person in cold blood." It's just that no one spells it out because most people don't need it spelled out for them.
-
How did our ancestors cope before God told everyone that murder wasn't cool?
I'm guessing in the same way that people do today. They just blindly hold to the notion that murder is wrong (or that survival/thriving of the human species is right), even though they have no basis for that belief.
-
To OP:
Because I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Why do I do this so strongly? Probably genetics, a combination of my parents, and my experiences as a kid, and culture in general (which, by the way, completely lacked any religion).
Kant does a fairly good job of rationalizing this logic, but I always keep John Stuart Mill in the back of my mind.
By the way, I think you want to ask this question to a psychopath. Me stating that I believe what I believe because of my experience, DNA, etc, is going to have the same effect as if I said that I believe what I believe because of "God" - as in, none. You stating that murder is wrong becuase of your God who makes it objectively true, doesn't make a psychopath any more moral. And on the same note, it doesn't make you any more moral than me; our actions determines our morality, not our beliefs.
-
ITT, people can display their shoddy understanding of human nature.
rumborak
-
Me stating that I believe what I believe because of my experience, DNA, etc, is going to have the same effect as if I said that I believe what I believe because of "God" - as in, none.
That's okay with me. My answer was not designed to have an effect on anyone.
And on the same note, it doesn't make you any more moral than me; our actions determines our morality, not our beliefs.
That's not the point. Nobody is arguing for a morality contest. I think what Omega is implicitly arguing is the question of whether objective morality exists.
-
None of that is relevant to the truth, Sheavo. If morality is objective, then it doesn't matter how you arrive to a moral lifestyle. Even if you can't justify objective morality, you can still live it out (or not). You could believe in a round Earth because you read it in a comic book. It's a terrible reason to believe in a round Earth, but it's still a correct belief.
The question is whether or not a belief in objective morality is justified. Given a godless world, I see no reason to believe that there exist objective morals outside of the opinion of human beings.
-
It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.
-
The question is whether or not a belief in objective morality is justified. Given a godless world, I see no reason to believe that there exist objective morals outside of the opinion of human beings.
Is anyone here actually arguing otherwise?
-
because only the Creator (the one who gave it in the first place) has the authority to take a life (and those He grants that authority to, ie. governing authorities)
What? How does he do that? What governments are authorized to do that and which ones aren't?
in particular, Romans 13 discusses that all governing authorities are ordained by God (ie. the position rather than the person, necessarily) and have been given the sword to punish evil and reward good. The fact that this does not often happen (the governments of the period of Rom 13 were especially corrupt) does not change the universal plan of God's intention for authority. The authorities, however, who abuse that God-given right will eventually have to face the authority of God.
a soldier wears a uniform and a police officer wears a badge as a sign that they have been sent out under the authority of those with the authority to "bear the sword"
-
By the way, I think you want to ask this question to a psychopath.
Interestingly enough, if you subscribe to moral subjectivism, "psychopaths" don't actually exist. By subjective I mean "dependent on people's opinions." Given moral subjectivism, a "psychopath" is nothing more than an individual whose opinion on what is moral and what is not is merely different than yours (or what is thought to be "moral" among the majority). This means that any individual who belongs in a minority that holds differing moral opinions -- however benign or malicious they may be -- would be a psychopath.
-
because only the Creator (the one who gave it in the first place) has the authority to take a life (and those He grants that authority to, ie. governing authorities)
While I do totally respect your opinion and your religion, and think a good religious text is a superb way to define one's personal morality, I would argue that it's very important to divorce it from general morality, in a world where there are about as many different doctrines as countries.
Then again, I'm not religious, so I don't know. I can't know. That might be easier said than done. Heck, might be completely impossible. And it's certainly a creed the US was founded on, so it's totally relevant, and good call, sir. I'm not criticising; just playing devil's advocate, given that we don't know whether the OP might be an atheist or a pantheist or a fully paid-up member of Heaven's Gate.
while I appreciate your humility and caution in your post, you offended me and are now banned permamently
:biggrin:
-
By the way, I think you want to ask this question to a psychopath.
Interestingly enough, if you subscribe to moral subjectivism, "psychopaths" don't actually exist. By subjective I mean "dependent on people's opinions." Given moral subjectivism, a "psychopath" is nothing more than an individual whose opinion on what is moral and what is not is merely different than yours (or what is thought to be "moral" among the majority). This means that any individual who belongs in a minority that holds differing moral opinions -- however benign or malicious they may be -- would be a psychopath.
Sorry, but moral subjectivity doesn't magically change the definition of words. A psychopath isn't someone who merely holds differing moral opinions.
-
It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.
Call it "Subjective Morality" or "Perspective Morality" or "Schmespectic Schmorality," if there are no objective moral values and duties, then no actions are either prohibited nor obligatory, "wrong" or "right," "good" or "evil."
-
By the way, I think you want to ask this question to a psychopath.
Interestingly enough, if you subscribe to moral subjectivism, "psychopaths" don't actually exist. By subjective I mean "dependent on people's opinions." Given moral subjectivism, a "psychopath" is nothing more than an individual whose opinion on what is moral and what is not is merely different than yours (or what is thought to be "moral" among the majority). This means that any individual who belongs in a minority that holds differing moral opinions -- however benign or malicious they may be -- would be a psychopath.
Sorry, but moral subjectivity doesn't magically change the definition of words. A psychopath isn't someone who merely holds differing moral opinions.
This
Also, I adhere to moral perspectivism. I would please request that you understand what this means.
-
None of that is relevant to the truth, Sheavo. If morality is objective, then it doesn't matter how you arrive to a moral lifestyle. Even if you can't justify objective morality, you can still live it out (or not). You could believe in a round Earth because you read it in a comic book. It's a terrible reason to believe in a round Earth, but it's still a correct belief.
The question is whether or not a belief in objective morality is justified. Given a godless world, I see no reason to believe that there exist objective morals outside of the opinion of human beings.
Seeing as how we cant know the truth, even if we saw it, I don't see the problem with this. I live my life according to what I view as moral, and it's something I constantly question and try to improve. If, at the end of the day, there's a God and I chose wrongly, then I would consider that God evil, and not worth worshiping.
What if "objective morality" is murder is not wrong, but that in fact murder is justified and the right thing to do? How would you prove otherwise?
-
Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.
rumborak
-
Here we are with the objective morals thread part deux.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=30708.0 (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=30708.0)
-
Sorry, but moral subjectivity doesn't magically change the definition of words. A psychopath isn't someone who merely holds differing moral opinions.
What is a psychopath?
-
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
-
There's a distinct "my firetruck is bigger" element to it, yeah.
rumborak
-
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
Some people feel the need to believe in a god, and to have concrete "objective" moral rules given to them by said god.
That is totally cool with me.
Some people need to prove that their god and those objective morals exist, and cant accept that there are those that believe, nor need, neither.
-
Because, as is demonstrable, the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question, whether you realize it or not. Regardless, although I think that objective moral values and duties clearly do exist (for example, we have a duty to love a child rather than to abuse and murder it, or that the crimes of the Nazi regime were objectively wrong, regardless if even a majority of society were to agree or were to be brainwashed into believing that they were right -- etc), we must come to understand and help people realize what it means if morality is subjective. It may very well be the case that morality is nothing but an illusion -- we must simply understand what it would mean if this is true.
-
It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.
Call it "Subjective Morality" or "Perspective Morality" or "Schmespectic Schmorality," if there are no objective moral values and duties, then no actions are either prohibited nor obligatory, "wrong" or "right," "good" or "evil."
As has been pointed out countless times before, when people who don't believe in objective morality say "murder is wrong" it's shorthand for saying "it is my personal opinion based on my own subjective beliefs that it is wrong to kill another person in cold blood." It's just that no one spells it out because most people don't need it spelled out for them.
EVERY time this conversation comes up, you show time and time again you can not come up with an argument about how a group of people deciding that they're not going to put up with any murder in a world with "subjective morality" isn't logically sound. Each and every argument you end up making amounts to "it's not objective so it makes no sense" which is hilarious coming from someone posing on a fansite dedicated to a band.
edit:
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
Pretty much. The end result of the argument would be "our social rules wouldn't make sense if morality is subjective, thus it must be objective so obviously God exists. Checkmate atheists."
-
Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.
rumborak
I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary." Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue. And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.
-
Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.
rumborak
I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary." Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue. And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.
Are for you, though. Not for me, or the majority of Earth's population.
rumborak
-
I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary."
Nope. I didn't.
I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue. And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.
The importance of the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is immeasurable and depending on how you answer is extremely significant. Haha, nuts! Get it? Cuz you said nu... nutty...
-
The importance of the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is immeasurable and depending on how you answer is extremely significant. Haha, nuts! Get it? Cuz you said nu... nutty...
For you. It bears no importance or relevance to most of us. You seem to fail to grasp that.
rumborak
-
Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.
rumborak
I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary." Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.
I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments? Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?" I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.
I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue. And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.
Are for you, though. Not for me, or the majority of Earth's population.
rumborak
Well, no. If they exist, they exist for all. Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.
-
So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?
-
this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum
-
So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?
Not very. They're yummy.
-
this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum
Thanks for that. Your comment added a lot to the discussion.
-
Well, no. If they exist, they exist for all. Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.
Problem is, there are a lot of other ones. You might believe your particular set of moral codes is the most important, but to me it's just a zoo of relics from ancient peoples.
If you can convince me somehow that the Buddhist morals are objectively inferior to the Christian ones, then we're talking. Otherwise it's just you and your (obviously) biased statements.
rumborak
-
So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?
Not very. They're yummy.
I asked my buddy the same question the other day and his answer was that we are more evolved beings and therefore are not at a fault for exerting our superior intelligence on other animals. Seems like a pretty good answer, and probably a very common idea, but it certainly presents a problem.
If little autistic girls were also 'yummy', why shouldn't I be able to eat them in peace?
-
So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?
Indeed. It's called speciesism -- an unjustified and arbitrary apportionment of value to a given species (particularly one's own). Why think, given atheism, that what is conducive to humans is any more valuable than what is conducive to elephants or squirrels?
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
Woah, woah woah! Hold your horses! I do enjoy me the occasional medium rare with extra butter and a side of creamed corn at the good old Ruth Chris down the road...
-
Well, no. If they exist, they exist for all. Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.
Problem is, there are a lot of other ones. You might believe your particular set of moral codes is the most important, but to me it's just a zoo of relics from ancient peoples.
If you can convince me somehow that the Buddhist morals are objectively inferior to the Christian ones, then we're talking. Otherwise it's just you and your (obviously) biased statements.
rumborak
I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true. No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one). God does, and only God does.
So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?
Not very. They're yummy.
I asked my buddy the same question the other day and his answer was that we are more evolved beings and therefore are not at a fault for exerting our superior intelligence on other animals. Seems like a pretty good answer, and probably a very common idea, but it certainly presents a problem.
If little autistic girls were also 'yummy', why shouldn't I be able to eat them in peace?
I think the answer really comes down to what kind of sauce we are talking about here.
-
this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum
Thanks for that. Your comment added a lot to the discussion.
:tup
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
-
:lol the sauce is an exquisite blend of urhine, ejaculate, and blood from the girls autistic brother.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
??? But they aren't cute and don't do little tricks.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
-
I've never killed a living organism for my dinner.
-
I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true. No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one). God does, and only God does.
What makes your word/view any more important than that of the million of Buddhists? I mean, you clearly assert priority of your particular deity. I think I would have to hear some kind of reason for that, other than "my God is bigger than yours".
rumborak
-
I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true. No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one). God does, and only God does.
What makes your word/view any more important than that of the million of Buddhists? I mean, you clearly assert priority of your particular deity. I think I would have to hear some kind of reason for that, other than "my God is bigger than yours".
rumborak
Nothing. My world view is irrelevant. The only view that matters if the view of the one and only creator of the world. It's not about which view is better or more important. It's simply a matter of following the dictates that that creator has passed down. Buddhism may have a fantastic set of morals (in many areas, I would conceded that it does). But the bottom line is that its dictates (if you could really call them that) are man-made and, therefore, subjective.
I've never killed a living organism for my dinner.
Really? I would argue that you are doing it wrong then.
-
this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum
This.
Murder is wrong because killing is bad and takes lives. Why is it absolutely every aspect of life has to be completely overanalyzed? Next thread: "Food. Why eat?"
-
Bosk scares me.
-
Bosk scares me.
Don't worry. I don't eat Vegans. They generally send my digestive system into a tizzy.
-
Sorry, but moral subjectivity doesn't magically change the definition of words. A psychopath isn't someone who merely holds differing moral opinions.
What is a psychopath?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society. Psychopaths have a total lack of empathy and remorse, and have very shallow emotions. They are generally regarded as callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, impulsive, irresponsible, and hedonistic.
SO ya, psycopaths are actually fully fline with a "perspective" world. It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.
Call it "Subjective Morality" or "Perspective Morality" or "Schmespectic Schmorality," if there are no objective moral values and duties, then no actions are either prohibited nor obligatory, "wrong" or "right," "good" or "evil."
I'm sorry, but you are just ignoring what perspectivalism is, and how it differs from subjective. For starters, it doesn't' throw objectivity out the window, it just looks at it through the subject. If there's a wind blowing, and I say it feels warm, and you say it feels cold, neither of us are right nor wrong (and it's entirely possible, by the way). Both are a perspective on the same objective reality, but they are completely different experiences and takeaways from the wind.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
-
I tend to try to stay away from the whole religious side of this argument. Murder is wrong, for one simple reason:
Society does not accept murderers. Wrong is a completely relative term, only based on the parameters set up by those within society. The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it. THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG.
However, with that being the case, why is the death penalty still being used? Texas alone murdered 30 people in the years 2010-2011. Why? As a supposed detterent for murder and other violent crimes.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.
-
The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it.
I disagree. I think it is more accurate to say that "the masses" as a whole have agreed that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong. Most recognize that killing is, unfortunately, sometimes justified. What those justifications are may vary considerably from society to society or from individual to individual, but most would realize that there are some justifications.
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.
So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.
-
But Ents!
-
But Ents!
bosk: the only person who knows what he's talking about anywhere
-
The only view that matters [...].
It's not about which view is better or more important.
K then.
Buddhism may have a fantastic set of morals (in many areas, I would conceded that it does). But the bottom line is that its dictates (if you could really call them that) are man-made and, therefore, subjective.
Are you so stuck in your view that you can not see the symmetry of the situation? I mean, at this point you're trying to get the point across by bludgeoning it with a hammer.
rumborak
-
Are you so stuck in your view that you can not see the symmetry of the situation? I mean, at this point you're trying to get the point across by bludgeoning it with a hammer.
rumborak
??? I'm not following you.
-
The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it.
I disagree. I think it is more accurate to say that "the masses" as a whole have agreed that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong. Most recognize that killing is, unfortunately, sometimes justified. What those justifications are may vary considerably from society to society or from individual to individual, but most would realize that there are some justifications.
Your right, I should have worded that a little differently.
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.
So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.
No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
But Ents!
Tree? I am no tree! I am an Ent.
-
This thread is one of the reasons I love P/R so much. :corn
-
I find it amusing that someone could read the Bible and then argue morality is objective.
-
All plants experience stress.
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.
So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.
No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
You are changing the argument -- you said initially that you eat plants because eating a fruit doesn't kill the plant, but you're still opposed, for some reason, to eating only part of an animal without killing it.
Also, the argument from consciousness is a difficult one to make. Very few animals have a sense of "self" or "consciousness", as you suggested. The higher-level animals generally do, like monkeys and dolphins, but the western world generally doesn't eat these animals anyway. Let's take birds as an example: most birds don't have the mental capacity to have a sense of self, so why shouldn't we eat them?
-
No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
Eating a pig's toes wouldn't kill it eather.
There are all sorts of defense mechanisms plants have for when they're being attacked. Some can release toxins to fight off whatever bug is eating them, some can even release signals that call in the predators of whatever's attacking them. Tomatoes, for example, can call in parasitic wasps to take care of the caterpillar that's eating it. Apparently this process may even harm the wasp.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990622055654.htm
Another thing worth considering is that if you're eating a plant's fruit then you're preventing that fruit from spreading that plant's seeds (unless you save all of the seeds and plant them yourself), which should be just as bad as eating an egg.
-
Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.
-
Derp. Nvm.
-
Eating a pig's toes wouldn't kill it eather.
Another thing worth considering is that if you're eating a plant's fruit then you're preventing that fruit from spreading that plant's seeds (unless you save all of the seeds and plant them yourself), which should be just as bad as eating an egg.
I never said eating a pig's toes would kill it. It would certainly hurt it. (physical pain =/= stress).
As for eggs, I don't necessarily begrudge those who eat eggs. It's just not for me.
-
Fair enough.
-
Thread recap!
ITT, we have learned: Eggs and little autistic girls can be eaten. Ents and Buddhists are still off limits in most civilized societies.
-
Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.
-
I have a enemy and a gun so what the fuck?
In all seriousness, technicallly it's not but we created laws, so... Consider this I'm saying this without what religions say about it. For them it's a sin, for the humanity it's not right.
-
this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum
Thanks for that. Your comment added a lot to the discussion.
:tup
And this was the first thread I posted in on this side of the forum. That was only a couple of hours ago. What the hell DTF, since when can you discuss so rapidly? :lol
-
Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.
I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html) I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.
Along with your newborn baby.
-
And little autistic girls! :)
-
Bitch had it coming to her.
-
Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.
I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html) I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.
Along with your newborn baby.
"I'm done talking about this. Screw science and scientific definitions of scientific words; if I believe something, it is true."
The link was interesting though. Thanks for pointing it out to me; pigs are smarter than I thought. But the link doesn't prove anything.
The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
OH YOU WENT THERE!
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
The real one. You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
The real one. You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.
So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why? Serious question.
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
The real one. You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.
So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why? Serious question.
That's kind of what rumborak and I have been going around and around about. I'll try to put it a slightly different way. Whether it is wrong and whether anyone individually or collectively believe it to be wrong are two different things. Whether it is wrong is independent of belief. God and God alone has the authority to declare what is wrong and what isn't, so whether or not you or I believe is irrelevant. It is wrong whether we believe or not, and our belief is not required to make it right or wrong. We could use the analogy of the traffic laws. I may choose to believe the legislature has no authority to make laws restricting how fast I drive and that the police do not have authority to enforce any such laws as long as I subjectively believe I am driving in a safe manner. However, I will likely eventually learn that my disbelief is irrelevant to whether those laws exist.
Completely separate is the issue of whether or not I can still recognize that murder is wrong if I do not believe in the author of that rule. Sure. But, again, that's a different issue. For some things like murder where the harm is so obvious, lack of belief in God does not prevent most people from appreciating that murder is not beneficial. For some other things, the rationale is less obvious. But where it is more obvious, it is easier for people who don't believe in God to come together as a society and say, "Yes, I think this is 'wrong.'"
-
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
-
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
The importance of that question....the question of objective moral values existing....is, well, subjective. :)
-
2. Because God said so.
whos god?
The real one. You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.
So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why? Serious question.
That's kind of what rumborak and I have been going around and around about. I'll try to put it a slightly different way. Whether it is wrong and whether anyone individually or collectively believe it to be wrong are two different things. Whether it is wrong is independent of belief. God and God alone has the authority to declare what is wrong and what isn't, so whether or not you or I believe is irrelevant. It is wrong whether we believe or not, and our belief is not required to make it right or wrong. We could use the analogy of the traffic laws. I may choose to believe the legislature has no authority to make laws restricting how fast I drive and that the police do not have authority to enforce any such laws as long as I subjectively believe I am driving in a safe manner. However, I will likely eventually learn that my disbelief is irrelevant to whether those laws exist.
Completely separate is the issue of whether or not I can still recognize that murder is wrong if I do not believe in the author of that rule. Sure. But, again, that's a different issue. For some things like murder where the harm is so obvious, lack of belief in God does not prevent most people from appreciating that murder is not beneficial. For some other things, the rationale is less obvious. But where it is more obvious, it is easier for people who don't believe in God to come together as a society and say, "Yes, I think this is 'wrong.'"
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exist.
We dont have to have faith that the lawmakers and cops exist. We know they do. We know who exactly wrote the laws.
With a god, and gods laws/morals, we only have faith that he even exists, much less that the laws/morals that are attributed to him are even from him, and not just man-made.
So not a great anaolgy.
God, if there even is one, may not even have a set of objective morals and/or laws/rules.
i think it far more likely, the "objective morals" that are so easily attributed to a god we know nothing about, are merely constructs of man....just like every other aspect of the god we have created.
Making all morals, in the end, subjective.
But I understand the need for some to have a god, and objective morals, in their lives. I respect that....for them....not for myself. I personally have no need for objective morals, and am doing just fine within the subjective moral framework myself and society have built.
-
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.
Which is why it is such a great analogy. We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.
-
Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.
I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html) I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.
Along with your newborn baby.
"I'm done talking about this. Screw science and scientific definitions of scientific words; if I believe something, it is true."
The link was interesting though. Thanks for pointing it out to me; pigs are smarter than I thought. But the link doesn't prove anything.
The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.
Don't misquote me. I was simply saying that if the so-called scientific terminology said dogs were conscious, then I find it incredibly difficult to believe pigs are not. I believe what I am saying to be true, and that is good enough for me. You can believe whatever you want, and I am fine with that. What I believe to be right is true (for me), while what you believe to be right is true (for you). That is all that matters. To each his own.
-
And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.
-
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.
Which is why it is such a great analogy. We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.
No, you can't.
-
And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.
Funny how that the "objective" morality from ones god is so subjective, as it all depends on which god you subscribe to. :lol
-
yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.
aren't plants worthy of the same protection?
Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.
So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?
Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.
https://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html
Sentience? I can't "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone other than me is conscious. It's not really possible. So, if there's no real test to do it towards other humans, how then am I supposed to prove to you that plants are conscious? I can only ask that you look at the facts, that there is something more to plants than what we normally give them credit for, and that possibly this makes them "conscious" on some level.
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
I would just point out that you said "believes," and avoided stating anything factual. It's reasonable, and in line with evolution, to imagine that most, if not all, animals are conscious, it's just that said consciousness may not be what we experience. After all, our experiences are only experienced after being filtered through our brains, and often after our thoughts are modified into a human language.
What you seem to be pointing more to, is not consciousness, but self-consciousness. Not awareness, but being aware that we are aware.
Until we actually answer what consciousness is - which we really have no clue about as of right now - we can't possibly say what is not conscious.
-
And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.
Irrelevant because no other god exists.
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.
Which is why it is such a great analogy. We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.
No, you can't.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I can and do.
-
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.
Which is why it is such a great analogy. We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.
No, you can't.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I can and do.
[/quote]
Excuse me, I should have said WE cant. You may be able to convince yourself, but not everyone is capable of taking that leap of faith.
-
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
-
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
Yes, YOU can. For someone like you they are convincing. But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping :lol. I can touch a cop or a judge.
-
It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness
I would just point out that you said "believes," and avoided stating anything factual. It's reasonable, and in line with evolution, to imagine that most, if not all, animals are conscious, it's just that said consciousness may not be what we experience. After all, our experiences are only experienced after being filtered through our brains, and often after our thoughts are modified into a human language.
What you seem to be pointing more to, is not consciousness, but self-consciousness. Not awareness, but being aware that we are aware.
Until we actually answer what consciousness is - which we really have no clue about as of right now - we can't possibly say what is not conscious.
You are clever to take issue with my terminology. The fact of the matter is that consciousness is made up -- it doesn't exist in any kind of concrete way. We made up consciousness. Roughly, from a purely psychological-scientific point of view, consciousness is "knowing that you exist as a physical being on a physical plane, and that you can interact with things on that physical plane"; consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.
If we go back to the beginning of the conversation (I've noticed that discussions on DTF tend to drift away from where they started, rather than being resolved. Rather odd.), we'll find that all I was really saying was that seneca was wrong to say that we shouldn't harm animals because they're "conscious", because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious". It was a semantic issue. We've defined consciousness to be a certain thing and many of the animals which seneca labeled as "conscious" and as "having a sense of self" just aren't, under the scientific definition. And what's the point of this discussion if we're not going to employ science and logic?
EDIT: You can find more on the scientific definition of consciousness here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Defining_consciousness
-
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
Yes, YOU can. For someone like you they are convincing. But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping :lol. I can touch a cop or a judge.
You can touch a lawyer too. If you want to. :eyebrows:
-
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
Yes, YOU can. For someone like you they are convincing. But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping :lol. I can touch a cop or a judge.
You can touch a lawyer too. If you want to. :eyebrows:
I need an adult!
-
Eyewitness accounts? Kinda like all those alien abductions?
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
Yes, YOU can. For someone like you they are convincing. But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping :lol. I can touch a cop or a judge.
You can touch a lawyer too. If you want to. :eyebrows:
I need an adult!
lol Gohan
-
Depending upon what you mean by saying consciousness is "made up," I might agree with you... or I might completely disagree with you. Our concept of consciousness is a fabrication, but as Descartes showed us centuries ago, we cannot doubt that we exist - or more properly, I cannot doubt that I exist. The nature of that consciousness is given, it was given to me, and it's all I've ever known.
consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.
I think there's enough wiggle room to seperate the two, but they are highly related - and the difference between the two may just be a language to express consciousness.
because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious".
But there isn't any science behind that claim. This is an assumption, one that's rarely been terribly challenged by peole - and when it is challenged, it usually shows itself to be a falsehood.
All the reasoning we use to apply unconsciousness to animals can be equally applied to humans, if using the right perspective. We are not nearly as free as we usually like to think we are, and we are a creature of instinct as much as any animal. If you'd like an interesting book on the matter, I'd suggest The Animal that Therefor I Am by Jacques Derrida. It's a little weird (pretty quickly he's talking about a cat looking at him naked), but he does a good job of tearing apart the false dichotomy, where man is something other than nature, and somehow special, unique or holding some traits most animals don't have.
As a side note, ever hear about that autistic girl who helped ranchers develop better methods of corralling cows? She got "in the mindset" of a cow, looking through the world as if she was a cow, and suggested adjustments to the system that worked. If humans can imagine themselves, correctly, in a cows shoes, why assume that cows are completely unconscious, or aware - especially when they show signs of individuality?
-
The importance of the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is immeasurable and depending on how you answer is extremely significant. Haha, nuts! Get it? Cuz you said nu... nutty...
For you. It bears no importance or relevance to most of us. You seem to fail to grasp that.
rumborak
Sorry didn't notice this (and I thought you had me on your "don't engage in dialogue at any cost" list).
Rumborak, how you answer the question "do objective moral values and duties exist?" determines whether it is truly wrong to murder someone or not.
-
Depending upon what you mean by saying consciousness is "made up," I might agree with you... or I might completely disagree with you. Our concept of consciousness is a fabrication, but as Descartes showed us centuries ago, we cannot doubt that we exist - or more properly, I cannot doubt that I exist. The nature of that consciousness is given, it was given to me, and it's all I've ever known.
consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.
I think there's enough wiggle room to seperate the two, but they are highly related - and the difference between the two may just be a language to express consciousness.
because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious".
A But there isn't any science behind that claim. This is an assumption, one that's rarely been terribly challenged by peole - and when it is challenged, it usually shows itself to be a falsehood.
All the reasoning we use to apply unconsciousness to animals can be equally applied to humans, if using the right perspective. We are not nearly as free as we usually like to think we are, and we are a creature of instinct as much as any animal. B If you'd like an interesting book on the matter, I'd suggest The Animal that Therefor I Am by Jacques Derrida. It's a little weird, but he does a good job of tearing apart the false dichotomy, where man is something other than nature, and somehow special, unique or holding some traits most animals don't have.
C As a side note, ever hear about that autistic girl who helped ranchers develop better methods of corralling cows? She got "in the mindset" of a cow, looking through the world as if she was a cow, and suggested adjustments to the system that worked. If humans can imagine themselves, correctly, in a cows shoes, why assume that cows are completely unconscious, or aware - especially when they show signs of individuality?
A couple things:
A You say there isn't any science behind the claim that some animals are not conscious. This is not true. There is no "assumption" whatsoever. It's all definitional: one day, psychologists said that "all things that are conscious will do X, Y, and Z", and from then on all things that did X, Y, and Z were called conscious, and that's that. All I'm talking about, and all I've been talking about for the last two pages, has been whether the animals in question meet the requirements for what we defined to be consciousness. You seem to be arguing that science somehow badly or incorrectly defined consciousness, but the spiritual or dualist definition of consciousness doesn't have much to do at all with the scientific definition. So what exactly are you saying here?
B Sounds interesting. I'll try to find it at the library.
C No, I've not heard of this story. Maybe you should elaborate, but I can imagine myself in a rock's shoes as well. To me, "showing signs of individuality" doesn't really mean anything substantial; maybe cows have quirks because of their upbringings or youths or genes, but that doesn't mean the cows understand their quirks or the quirks of other cows or how their own quirks make them different.
-
C No, I've not heard of this story. Maybe you should elaborate, but I can imagine myself in a rock's shoes as well. To me, "showing signs of individuality" doesn't really mean anything substantial; maybe cows have quirks because of their upbringings or youths or genes, but that doesn't mean the cows understand their quirks or the quirks of other cows or how their own quirks make them different.
I never said you did, but I see how I was unclear about it. Consciousness has degrees, so to say that two things are both conscious is not to say they are the same, but of the same kind - or, conversely, the difference between my consciousness and a cows is not one of kind, but of degree.
It isn't that they understand their quirks - it's that they have quirks. I'm not saying they're vastly intelligent animals, just that they are aware, they have feelings, etc - and it is those feelings which we humans can relate to. Can you relate to how a rock feels? And no, I don't think rocks feel, or are conscious, and I'm willing to bet you don't think so either.
-
I find it amusing that someone could read the Bible and then argue morality is objective.
If you think that's what I'm doing, you're sorely mistaken.
-
So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why? Serious question.
If God does not exist, then you are forced to see morality as nothing but a subjective human construct which cannot tell you what actions are objectively "right" or "wrong" and you lose yourself in moral relativism.
-
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
Yes.
How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.
-
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
Yes.
How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.
Why does it matter if it's objectively wrong? If it's "subjectively wrong," it's still wrong.
Are you proposing murders would go up without an objective belief in making murder wrong? Or that you would go around killing people if God didn't command you not to?
-
I find it amusing that someone could read the Bible and then argue morality is objective.
If you think that's what I'm doing, you're sorely mistaken.
Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?
-
And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.
This is the Euthyphro dilemma which goes a little like this:
1.) Is something good because God wills it?
2.) Or does God will something because it is good?
If you affirm the first one, then what is good becomes arbitrary (as God could have willed that murder is good and then we would be morally obligated to murder).
If you affirm the latter, then what is good or bad is independent of God.
While it seems as if there's no way to escape either of the two horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma, the dilemma is a false a one.
There's a third alternative, namely that God wills something because He is good. God's own nature is the standard of goodness and His will is an expression of His nature.
-
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
Yes.
How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.
Wrong is wrong. Objective, schmobjective.
Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life. Only in philosophy class. Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.
-
And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.
Funny how that the "objective" morality from ones god is so subjective, as it all depends on which god you subscribe to. :lol
You're confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology (namely the nature of reality with how we come to know of it).
-
Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?
It stems from my belief of God and because its existence is (as I would argue) sufficiently clear (some philosophy helps, too).
-
Wrong is wrong. Objective, schmobjective.
Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life. Only in philosophy class. Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.
The Unexamined Life is not worth living.
-
You've basically hit the nail on the head here, Omega. There's nothing here I disagree with. You're right to notice that morality, from a naturalistic point of view, doesn't exist.
Thank you, theseoafs, for being seemingly the only atheist who can at least understand the significance of objective and subjective morality. And no, this is not sarcasm.
-
Wrong is wrong. Objective, schmobjective.
Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life. Only in philosophy class. Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.
The Unexamined Life is not worth living.
My life isn't unexamined.
-
You've basically hit the nail on the head here, Omega. There's nothing here I disagree with. You're right to notice that morality, from a naturalistic point of view, doesn't exist.
Thank you, theseoafs, for being seemingly the only atheist who can at least understand the significance of objective and subjective morality. And no, this is not sarcasm.
I can comprehend perfectly fine how it's "significant," the problem is that you can't make a single rational argument for why a world governed by subjective morality means you have to be accepting of any and all view points.
-
Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?
It stems from my belief of God and because its existence is (as I would argue) sufficiently clear (some philosophy helps, too).
Well then, I'm not clear which is more silly: taking the lesson of moral objectivity from a book like the Bible, or taking it from human history.
-
Omega, I hate to break up the discussion, particularly for something like this, but you realize you can quote multiple people in a single post right? And you can edit that same post so you don't have to quadruple post.
-
I tend to agree with Scheavo's view on the difficulty in defining the true meaning of 'conscious', and that there are certain degrees to which that conscious can exist.
On another note, I just watched an interesting 10 episode web series (for a total of 1 hour) about an angst-ridden hit man (kiefer sutherland aka Jack Bauer) who confesses his sins to a preacher, leading to a discussion the ethics of murder. An interesting find for me after spending a large part of my day following this thread. It's on Netflix instant play.
-
sounds interesting...what is title?
-
So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why? Serious question.
If God does not exist, then you are forced to see morality as nothing but a subjective human construct which cannot tell you what actions are objectively "right" or "wrong" and you lose yourself in moral relativism.
the bold part is where you lose me, do you have any evidence to back this up? is there really any evidence that people who believe in objective morality make different moral decisions than people who do not believe in objective morality?
the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question
Not really.
Yes.
How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.
and if you can't see a difference in the way people act with or without believing in objective morality is knowing it really that important? of is it a (fun) philosophical exercise?
-
The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.
Which is why it is such a great analogy. We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.
No, you can't.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I can and do.
Yeah, you can. There's little "leaping" involved. Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself. They are many, and quite convincing.
No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven. Whether or not your god is real, it is still something based entirely on putting your faith into something that can't ever be 100% proven one way or the other by humans, and won't really be known until we die (if then, even). What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours? If it was as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, then everyone in the whole world would follow the same god, the same religion and hardly anyone would doubt or be a nonbeliever. Clearly that is not the case.
Again, I'm not talking about how you personally feel about it and what you firmly believe to be true, but in general terms of something being a universal accepted fact.
-
Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.
Science isn't the totality of existence either. Arugably the premise of the topic might be an example of "mentalization" which, according to David Hawkins, is something the ego does for a pay-off so that's an even narrower view of existence.
-
No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven. Whether or not your god is real, it is still something based entirely on putting your faith into something that can't ever be 100% proven one way or the other by humans, and won't really be known until we die (if then, even). What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours? If it was as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, then everyone in the whole world would follow the same god, the same religion and hardly anyone would doubt or be a nonbeliever. Clearly that is not the case.
Again, I'm not talking about how you personally feel about it and what you firmly believe to be true, but in general terms of something being a universal accepted fact.
Reported for being logical
-
sounds interesting...what is title?
ahhh, the title seems like an important bit of information for me to leave out :facepalm:
The Confession
-
No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven. I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.
What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?
First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word. Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God. And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.
-
No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven. I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.
No one's saying that belief in God isn't proven to be real, Boskypoo.
-
No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven.
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm not talking about religion that is based on that which cannot be proven. I am talking about belief in the God of heaven, who has been proven to be real.
Erm, what? When was that?
-
Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.
Dayuuuumn, awesome post.
-
What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?
First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word.
Even worse than that, you don't even know whose they are. The accounts have been accounted to Moses and the disciples, but that's all bogus.
Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God. And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.
Dude, Mohammed runs circles around Jesus in terms of historicity. Same with Buddha.
rumborak
-
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/jacksonpopcorn.gif)
-
What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours?
First off, they are not "my" eyewitnesses in any sense of the word.
Even worse than that, you don't even know whose they are. The accounts have been accounted to Moses and the disciples, but that's all bogus.
:lol Well, okay, if that's what you believe, have at it.
Second, I am not aware of any credible eyewitnesses of any other God. And certainly not to the degree where we have such a sheer number of credible witnesses that are consistent with one another as the God of the Bible.
Dude, Mohammed runs circles around Jesus in terms of historicity.
rumborak
In terms of knowing who wrote down the original and certainty that all manuscripts are word-for-word duplicates of the original text, sure (well, actually, there is some controversy about that, but I'm willing to put that aside for the moment). But in terms of multiple, actual eyewitness accounts of God, no. Not even close. Not remotely. There is a huge difference between one dude writing down a bunch of things nobody else is privy to versus a LOT of people over several generations writing down a bunch of things their audiences were often eyewitnesses of, and which reference hundreds of other eyewitnesses who could be talked to to verify their facts.
-
Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.
Science isn't the totality of existence either.
I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.
-
I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.
-
I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.
Something about murder being wrong or something.
-
Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.
Science isn't the totality of existence either.
I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.
Can it show that a thought exists or consciousness or will or energy any better than philosophy or spiritual texts?
-
I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.
Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.
Science isn't the totality of existence either.
I agree with you. Yet naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our best scientific theories. I obviously do not defend naturalism.
Do you get it now?
-
:lol
On a more serious note...
Bosk- I only have one eyewitness account to back up my own personal religion (Nelsonism, derived from the Church of Nelson A.K.A. CON). It just so happens that the eyewitness is me (Nelson), which poses a question. Would you suggest that since there are more eyewitness accounts in Christianity, that my belief system is invalidated? Surely my own personal account is more valuable to me than all the other accounts from people thousands of years ago. The nature of my religion also contradicts directly with many of the things you assert as 'true', so surely the two religions can't coexist. Are you going to say that my religion (as well as countless others) cannot be true, simply because of stories in the bible? If we are going on eyewitness accounts, I'm going to have to say that I myself am a more credible source than Moses and the rest of your prophets.
This is tricky...
-
I still don't understand what the point of this thread is.
I posed this question a bit earlier. My suspicion, and apparently a few others agree with me, is that it's supposed to blow the minds of all non-believers so they realize how wrong and foolish they've been to question the existence of God, or something like that.
I think another, less intentional but much more productive point has been to creep me the fuck out. This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots. It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.
-
GOOOOD IS DEAD
AND NOOOO ONE CARES
IF THERE IS A HELL
I'LL SEEEEE YOU THERE
-
Bosk- I only have one eyewitness account to back up my own personal religion (Nelsonism, derived from the Church of Nelson A.K.A. CON). It just so happens that the eyewitness is me (Nelson), which poses a question. Would you suggest that since there are more eyewitness accounts in Christianity, that my belief system is invalidated? Surely my own personal account is more valuable to me than all the other accounts from people thousands of years ago. The nature of my religion also contradicts directly with many of the things you assert as 'true', so surely the two religions can't coexist. Are you going to say that my religion (as well as countless others) cannot be true, simply because of stories in the bible? If we are going on eyewitness accounts, I'm going to have to say that I myself am a more credible source than Moses and the rest of your prophets.
This is tricky...
Depends. If you claim to have spoken to the creator, I need to see and hear irrefutable proof that can be independently corroborated before I will believe it. That's the standard. Since I have that, again, from a plethora of witnesses whose accounts are consistent with one another, that's what I have to go with.
-
There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...
-
There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...
Of course there is.
-
There is no proof of god though, right? Only maybe jesus and stuff...
Of course there is.
I and many others have been touched by his noodly appendage.
-
the bold part is where you lose me, do you have any evidence to back this up?
Relativism is philosophical position which stipulates that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual.
Likewise, moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places; all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
Relativism states that there is no absolute truth or that truth is merely relative to the individual. Yet relativism is self-refuting; If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
Likewise, the statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or of a crime and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person’s reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral laws....when things go wrong for him.
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why? Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers. A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation and be defended. Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is “I don’t like it.”
Imagine the following, Woody-Allen-esque scenario as a thief enters a jewelry store in the day to scope out the alarm system, cameras, etc. Being this a Woody-Allen-esque scenario, the thief unexpectedly gets into a philosophical conversation with the owner:
Owner: "So,everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute, and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong."
Thief: "That is a very interesting perspective. I was brought up believing there was a God, and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong, and that we are free to do what we want."
The thief leaves the store, returns that night, and breaks in. He disables all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. Then the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a mask.
Owner: "Don't shoot me! Please take whatever you want and leave me alone."
Thief: "That is exactly what I plan to do."
Owner: "Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice."
Thief: "That's not good. Because now you also know what I look like, and since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you."
Owner: "You cannot do that!"
Thief: "Why not?"
Owner: "Because it is not right!"
Thief: "But didn't you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"
Owner: "Yes, but I have a family, children that need me, and a wife."
Thief: "So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong, it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry, but that will not do."
Owner: "But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so."
Thief: "As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?"
Owner: "Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!"
Thief: "I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance."
Owner: "But it is true! I swear I'll tell no one."
Thief: "Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I leave, you will break your so-called promise because your morals and promises are relative. There is no way I can trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me of that."
Owner: "But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!"
Thief: "It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself."
*The thief shoots the owner and kills him*
is there really any evidence that people who believe in objective morality make different moral decisions than people who do not believe in objective morality?
That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity. This thread isn't meant to argue "theists are more moral people".
The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?
The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?
The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?
The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?
and if you can't see a difference in the way people act with or without believing in objective morality is knowing it really that important? of is it a (fun) philosophical exercise?
How one acts in a given worldview and its validity are two separate things. For example, for a moral relativist, there would be no objective reason why him killing someone would be wrong, but that doesn't mean that he will simply go around killing people because it is not wrong. Again, this is missing the point.
Sorry for the essay.
-
Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.
-
Proof god exists. :rollin
I would love to hear what proof exists. "Eyewitness accounts" from book from long ago arent "proof". If that were the requirement, there would be just as much "proof" for UFO's. Heck, UFO's would have even more proof with all the vidoes out there. Maybe you have a video of god?
And to use fossil records to show the Flood happened? Bosk, it appears clear to me you are way to vested in your religious beliefs to be rational and unbiased with the obvious scientific evidence.
-
Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.
I disagree. First off, "proof" and "100% proof" are not the same thing. There are degrees of proof. IMO, if you cannot prove to a satisfactory degree that your religion is true, you should not believe it.
Second, sure there would still be nonbelievers. People will do and believe what they choose. That's how it has always been, and I expect that's how it always will be.
Proof god exists. :rollin
I would love to hear what proof exists. "Eyewitness accounts" from book from long ago arent "proof". If that were the requirement, there would be just as much "proof" for UFO's. Heck, UFO's would have even more proof with all the vidoes out there. Maybe you have a video of god?
And to use fossil records to show the Flood happened? Bosk, it appears clear to me you are way to vested in your religious beliefs to be rational and unbiased with the obvious scientific evidence.
Well, gosh, I guess you got me there. Good points all around. I guess I'll go and recant now.
:yeahright Wait...
Yeah, but seriously, people have been making those same sorts of ridiculous claims since the beginning of time. The evidence is there. You can do with it what you like.
-
Proof is a strong word that shouldn't be used to refer to any religion, and I'm saying that with a knowledge of Christian apologetics. I've said it before: if any religion were 100% proven, there wouldn't be rational nonbelievers.
the people who were arguing against Jesus in the presence of a now-living Lazarus indicates that we are often more hard-headed than we care to admit
-
That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.
And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.
-
That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.
And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.
So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?
-
The issue is that you can give "evidence" different weight than another would. Evidence is not proof. You have to make a judgement call, or a leap of faith, at some point to say it is proven, or that there is proof, the god of the bible exists.
You believe the god of the bible exists. Thats cool. But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect. It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
So, no, there is no proof god exists. But if you feel there is enough evidence to make that decision for yourself, then that is cool, and I have never said anything otherwise.
-
That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.
And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.
So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?
Why wouldn't it be? The only refutation you even put forth was this:
Relativism states that there is no absolute truth or that truth is merely relative to the individual. Yet relativism is self-refuting; If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
Likewise, the statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
But it's irrelevant because we're not talking about universal relativism, simply moral relativism.
-
That's not the point. I'm not interested in the social impact of a worldview as much as its validity.
And yet your half your post was about a thief killing a shop owner because he was a moral relativist.
So is moral relativism viable as a consistent worldview?
Yes. It is just peachy for me and the majority of humans. Not sure why you can't understand that.
-
But it's irrelevant because we're not talking about universal relativism, simply moral relativism.
Uh, I think you ought to read what "moral relativism" means again.
-
Moral relativism does not rest on the idea that there are no absolute truths anywhere, just that there are no absolute justifications for morality.
-
The issue is that you can give "evidence" different weight than another would. Evidence is not proof. You have to make a judgement call, or a leap of faith, at some point to say it is proven, or that there is proof, the god of the bible exists.
Yes, exactly. That's what the definition of the word "proof" means. It is weighing the evidence and making a judgment call about whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude whether or not something is true.
But in light of that, the next part of your post makes no sense:
You believe the god of the bible exists. Thats cool. But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect. It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
So, no, there is no proof god exists. But if you feel there is enough evidence to make that decision for yourself, then that is cool, and I have never said anything otherwise.
No, that is exactly what proof means. I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.
-
Moral relativism does not rest on the idea that there are no absolute truths anywhere, just that there are no absolute justifications for morality.
Close enough.
Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places; all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why? Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers. A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation and be defended. Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is "I don’t like it."
-
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?
That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.
-
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?
That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.
Exactly.
-
This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots. It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.
:lol
I love it!!!
So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures? How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.
-
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?
That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.
Uh, yes. I agree:
"The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?"
"Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers."
Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.
-
So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures? How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.
On a naturalistic view, moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousin Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality," which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on an atheistic worldview, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If I we were to rewind the tape of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with very different set of moral values might well have evolved.
Certain actions such as incest or rape or murder may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human history have become taboo, but that does nothing to show that rape or murder or incest is objectively wrong. The murderer or rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.
-
This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots. It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.
:lol
I love it!!!
So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures? How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.
I think that is exactly how it evolved. That is how ALL morals have evolved.
-
And? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You're not satisfied, but that doesn't make it an inconsistent worldview as you previously claimed.
-
The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?
That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.
Uh, yes. I agree:
"The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?"
"Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers."
Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.
Nope. It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong. So to me it is wrong. I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else, like you do.
Wierd how you cant accept that.
-
Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.
-
Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.
u mad?
-
And? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You're not satisfied, but that doesn't make it an inconsistent worldview as you previously claimed.
At this point, I'm just copy / pasting from my long post.
"Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or of a crime and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person’s reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral laws....when things go wrong for him."
In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.
-
Nope. It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong. So to me it is wrong. I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else
Precisely! This is moral relativism!
-
In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.
yes we can.
Nope. It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong. So to me it is wrong. I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else
Precisely! This is moral relativism!
No fuc*ing sh*t. That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.
What is your point?
-
As has been pointed out countless times before, when people who don't believe in objective morality say "murder is wrong" it's shorthand for saying "it is my personal opinion based on my own subjective beliefs that it is wrong to kill another person in cold blood." It's just that no one spells it out because most people don't need it spelled out for them.
-
Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.
My fault is not superficially with atheism, it is with moral relativism / subjectivism.
But given atheism, it would be impossible to assert the existence of objective morality without appealing to a transcendent foundation for morality. Some atheists subscribe to what is known as Moral Platonism -- that objective moral values and duties just exist, without foundation. Moral Platonism, though, as I have argued in another thread, is unintelligible, unfeasible and provides no basis for moral duties. So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.
-
In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.
yes we can.
Nope. It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong. So to me it is wrong. I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else
Precisely! This is moral relativism!
No fuc*ing sh*t. That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.
What is your point?
Eric, just read the really long post I made not too long ago. It addresses every little comment you've been writing. And if you still can't understand it, then just leave the thread because this is clearly going over you head.
-
What is clear is that you are on your second thread trying to show moral relativism is "self refuting", etc. And it seems that most of what we are all telling you is either going over you head, or you are just too stubborn to accept it.
-
And once again we end up at the same place. :|
-
So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.
1) I showed why it isn't self-refuting and you ignored it. Moral relativism doesn't assert that no absolute truths exist, so it's not contradicting anything.
2) "The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?"
-
Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.
My fault is not superficially with atheism, it is with moral relativism / subjectivism.
But given atheism, it would be impossible to assert the existence of objective morality without appealing to a transcendent foundation for morality. Some atheists subscribe to what is known as Moral Platonism -- that objective moral values and duties just exist, without foundation. Moral Platonism, though, as I have argued in another thread, is unintelligible, unfeasible and provides no basis for moral duties. So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.
moral relativism doesnt need to be "lived out consistently" by its subscribers. it is fluid and changes. pretty simple concept.....unless you are an objective moralist with the silly idea that relativism somehow isnt valid.
-
In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.
yes we can.
Nope. It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong. So to me it is wrong. I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else
Precisely! This is moral relativism!
No fuc*ing sh*t. That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.
What is your point?
Eric, just read the really long post I made not too long ago. It addresses every little comment you've been writing. And if you still can't understand it, then just leave the thread because this is clearly going over you head.
not an appropriate response to disagreement....warning issued
-
Omega's threads are always made to present a point, not to actually have an argument. Hence the pages of fruitless "debate".
-
Omega's threads are always made to present a point, not to actually have an argument. Hence the pages of fruitless "debate".
and statements like this don't help to create fruitful debate
-
This thread is dildos. I mean seriously, none of you arguing that murder is neither right or wrong would ever go kill an innocent person and not feel regret, remorse and absolute dread. And if you don't feel any of those things, then you're a fucking zombie.
Also, non-believers (atheists, agnostics, whatever) aren't moral-less without god. This shit has been discussed countless times. Just becuase we we don't believe in a god and it's divinely set laws doesn't mean we're soulless (for lack of a better word) monsters who feel no pain and don't know right from wrong.
My parents taught me right from wrong, and neither of them are religious either. Well, my mom is a practicing wiccan, but she didn't start that until much later in life.
-
not an appropriate response to disagreement....warning issued
Hang on
I ask someone who clearly is not understanding the topic to leave the thread while that person writes things like: "No fuc*ing sh*t. That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.
What is your point?"
And I get a warning? Seriously?
-
Once again I find ironic that we are arguing whether it is right or wrong that there is a right or wrong
-
Oh, I wasn't being facetious. The moderation here is teetering on bi-polar.
-
What is clear is that you are on your second thread trying to show moral relativism is "self refuting", etc. And it seems that most of what we are all telling you is either going over you head, or you are just too stubborn to accept it.
this statement isn't any different than Omega's...knock it off!
-
Thats cool. But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect. It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
No, that is exactly what proof means. I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.
Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.
-
Thats cool. But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect. It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
No, that is exactly what proof means. I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.
Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.
Don't let me do your extremely hard moderator work for you, yeshaberto, but what exactly does this query and its previous long, drawn out sub-discussion have to do with the topic?
-
Since you apparently forgot your own OP:
I'm interested to hear why the murdering of another human being is wrong in the context of your worldview.
God, at least for Bosk and you, is this context.
-
Thats cool. But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect. It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.
No, that is exactly what proof means. I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.
Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.
Don't let me do your extremely hard moderator work for you, yeshaberto, but what exactly does this query and its previous long, drawn out sub-discussion have to do with the topic?
I am going to assume your sarcasm here and your bi-polar comment are meant in the best way.
-
I'm amazed at how fast this conversation is moving. I leave for 2 hours and come back to find an additional 2 pages.
-
I'm amazed that every thread that Omega starts turns into an insult hurling contest.
-
Kirk, you too have contributed nothing to the topic at hand other than back-handed jabs and the occasional "facetious" post.
Yea, but don't worry; I'll get a warning for it, not you.
-
I'm amazed that every thread that Omega starts turns into an insult hurling contest.
seriously?
warning issued
-
murder is wrong, but death to this thread
-
murder is wrong, but death to this thread
:lol :clap: