Empathy?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Empathy?
Child rape...just how far are we going to let this go?

How big an explosion is needed to end this?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.


If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.


By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.


Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

Again answering a question with a begging question! Just answer the freaking question asked by Mr. Tadlock - what is your moral theory? Since the OP is also about empathy - where does empathy come into play in your moral theory?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
08-05-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Empathy?
What's next? Defending pedophilia? Consider

Oh, wait - he's already there. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-05-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... Morality is one of the most significant aspects of life and yet people want to deny moral standards!!!!!

Morality is significant. It's so significant that humanity does set moral standards. They aren't denied. They are the very core of government: the establishment of law.

Most people, even the most fanatically devout, are stayed from committing moral mayhem not by fear of an unpleasant afterlife but by the more immediate fear of having THIS life made unpleasant by the long arm of the law. The law is our moral standard.

And fortunately, in most of the civilised world, the law making machinery is designed with the capacity to change the law its most vital feature. The standards thus can be adapted to more closely mirror the mores of the times. The zeitgeist.

Human slavery is today unthinkable. Free sexual expression is today less and less repressive while rape is increasingly recognized as an imposition akin to slavery and the exact opposite of free sexual expression. Human rights in general are enlarging and spreading. Compassion and recognition of rights beyond our own species is increasing.

None of the above exists in the so-called "objective" church morals. Worse, the whole thrust of "objective" morality is that morality is static, unchanging.

The one thing mankind is above all is an irresistible force of change. Change for the better. Better health, better prosperity, better human relationships, better grist for our growing minds. Growing up.

And as we grow up, so does the law. Our moral standard. Built by us to suit us.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
08-05-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: Empathy?
Morality is a human construct based on preservation of the species instincts as well as those of self preservation.

Societies build legal framework based on this construct.

This legal framework varies from society to society, but basically it insures the citizens against being killed, stolen from, raped and so on.

Societies that infringe on this basic framework will find themselves at war.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 11:02 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

Again answering a question with a begging question! Just answer the freaking question asked by Mr. Tadlock - what is your moral theory? Since the OP is also about empathy - where does empathy come into play in your moral theory?

Answer the damn question and stop being an evasive and antagonistic preteen with daddy/mommy issues! WHAT IS YOUR MORAL THEORY and why have moral standards changed over the past few thousand years? Role of empathy?!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
08-05-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.


If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.


By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.


Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

This isn't an argument.

You keep raising the moral stakes. If its true for rape, is it true for kiddie rape? Is it true for puppy rape too? Its true, there is no objective moral standard that makes anything wrong. It is important to me to prevent rape, and it is important to me to protect children, so in those respects pedophilia is very wrong. You can find people in this world who don't agree, unfortunately.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 11:28 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This isn't an argument.

You keep raising the moral stakes. If its true for rape, is it true for kiddie rape? Is it true for puppy rape too? Its true, there is no objective moral standard that makes anything wrong. It is important to me to prevent rape, and it is important to me to protect children, so in those respects pedophilia is very wrong. You can find people in this world who don't agree, unfortunately.

YOU HAVE AN OPINION

THEREFORE GOD

???

PROFIT!!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Empathy?
I must be on Mr Walker's ignore list, as several of my posts have gone unanswered. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes TheBear's post
08-05-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You do not get it still.

YOU REFUSE to get it, you pathetic delusional moron.


Quote:If what is moral is determined by a society then why did the allied forces invade Nazi Germany?

Because the allied forces were a fucking ALLIANCE and had pre-arranged contractual obligations to support and defend each other, moron. AND because it was the right thing to do.



Quote:Those fighting against the Nazis did so for a reason. The reason was simple. They thought genocide was wrong.

UNLIKE you fucking xtards, who LOOOOOOVE your mythical gawd and his genocidal behavior. Hypocrite, Thy name is Jermy.



Quote:But if moral relstivism is true, there is nothing wrong with genocide.

Which puts YOUR Xtardiatity firmly in that camp.

YET ANOTHER OWN-GOAL on Jermy!




It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: