Empathy?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:09 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you might think pedophilia is wrong. the pedophile thinks its awesome. in your world both views are true.

thats my point.

Fail


YOUR mythical gawd-figure and your religion think it's awesome. Along with incest, genocide, rape, butchering and slaughtering children, and every other despicable act anyone could possibly think of.


FAIL.





(08-05-2014 01:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you think lying is bad, liars think its awesome. in your world both views are true.

Fail

[Image: Scarecrow.jpg]


You don't speak for me, asswipe.

I do. In your world you think what is right and wrong is determined by the individual and the societies they live in.

In your world the Nazis were doing an awesome.thing when they killed Jews because it was awesome to them.

Fail

Remember what Michael said?

All depends on who ya ask buddy.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:13 PM)natachan Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you might think pedophilia is wrong. the pedophile thinks its awesome. in your world both views are true.

thats my point.

Fail

No, they're not. We are human animals. The logical objective standard of morality for us is human life and human well-being. By this standard pedophilia is wrong. It doesn't matter what the pedophile thinks, his world view contradicts the objective one of his species. Period.

A morality that is based off a moral law giver is not objective. It is based off the whims of some other being. This is SUBJECTIVE.

You and I would have a different sort of discussion. What I said to him does not apply to you. You actually appear to be one of the few here with some semblance of understanding.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 01:34 PM by djhall.)
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But as long as you think that individuals "create" these standards, you are still thinking as a relativist.

Moral realists believe that humans do not create moral standards at all, but rather, "recognize" that they exist.

You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind and that their reference is their own thoughts from which said thoughts originate. But if this is indeed the case, then the thoughts of the individual IS the only standard that exists. There is no Standard (capitalized) above two contradictory standards (lower cased) that one can point to and say look here! My standard conforms to The Standard more than your standard does.

Even if more people agree with standard (x) than those that do with (y), which is what you allude to with the whole majority agrees argument, all this means is that more people agree with (x) than (y). If you say that that means x is to be preferred over y then what you are really arguing for is the objectivity of x. I.e. that people "should" hold (x). But in so doing you are arguing "for" the very thing you set out to argue "against" i.e. the existence of objective moral values.

Life is full of standards. Life would be unlivable without them. Morality is one of the most significant aspects of life and yet people want to deny moral standards!!!!!

Deny them on forums and in philosophical papers that is.

No one LIVES as if morality is relative and that there is no such thing as evil. Those that do and act on these views are deemed sick.

I don't think you really want to find an answer as much as you want to argue in favor of god, but others might find serious discussion or thoughts on non-god based morality, so I will throw out a some of my thoughts on the subject as it pertains to the real world, without all the philosophical buzzwords and theoretical logic traps.

For most people, morality is like pornography... “I shall not today attempt further to define; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

I believe, even if we don't explicitly realize it, we are operating with learned frameworks of logic and reason based on one or more moral axioms. An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (āxīoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

As starting points that can't be further justified, these axioms would have to be very simple. "Human life has value", perhaps, or "I have value" and "What gives me value gives others value", or "we have equal value", or maybe just the golden rule. This isn't a finished product, it is just a rough outline of a process, so I'm sure generations of humans would debate and obsess over finding the simplest axioms possible.

From those axiomatic nuggets, objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") reasoning and logic can be used to evaluate competing moral propositions in a search for the ideal moral framework. The Standard you argue we need is filled by the simplest possible moral axioms that form the base of the system.

AHA, you say! But how do you prove the Universally and Objectively Correct Axioms! You don't. You can't. But what if someone else holds "human suffering" or "I am the supreme value" as their axiom? Isn't that a problem? Well, yeah, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a "moral" problem anymore. If you are swimming in the ocean and are attacked by a shark, is it a moral problem? You have morals, but other than fighting back or giving up, what choice do you have and what difference does morality make? Might doesn't make right, but it does make what is. As much as possible we strive to obtain and maintain the "moral environment", but we live in a cold and amoral universe with no omnipotent god to make it alright, so at the very, very, very, end, I suppose we may be nothing more than the product of sociobiological moral evolution... survival of the fittest morals. If you don't have mutually beneficial morals, you fight among yourselves more, and you tend to get killed off by those of us with more mutually cooperative morals when we clash.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
08-05-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 12:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If that is the case, then objectivity goes out the window when I ask you about anything. For example if I were to ask you what shape the earth was then I throw objectivity out the window in asking you this. According to you there is no objectively correct answer.

Fail
Incorrect analogy: "What shape is the earth" vs. "Which do you hold to be true".

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
08-05-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:09 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  YOUR mythical gawd-figure and your religion think it's awesome. Along with incest, genocide, rape, butchering and slaughtering children, and every other despicable act anyone could possibly think of.


FAIL.






[Image: Scarecrow.jpg]


You don't speak for me, asswipe.

I do.

Np, asswipe, you don't.



Quote:In your world you think what is right and wrong is determined by the individual and the societies they live in.

When the fuck did *I* say that, you fucking moron.


Quote:In your world the Nazis were doing an awesome.thing when they killed Jews because it was awesome to them.


You mean the Christian fuckers who had "GOTT MIT UNS" on their belt buckles. That's YOUR world you are talking about, you disingenuous son of a bitch.


Quote:Fail

Yes, you do, every fucking time.


Quote:Remember what Michael said?

All depends on who ya ask buddy.

Michael the idiot vegan-apologist? I don't give a fuck what he says, moron.

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
08-05-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 12:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If that is the case, then objectivity goes out the window when I ask you about anything. For example if I were to ask you what shape the earth was then I throw objectivity out the window in asking you this. According to you there is no objectively correct answer.

Fail
Incorrect analogy: "What shape is the earth" vs. "Which do you hold to be true".

Ok what is rape?

Wrong, right, or neither
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:13 PM)natachan Wrote:  No, they're not. We are human animals. The logical objective standard of morality for us is human life and human well-being. By this standard pedophilia is wrong. It doesn't matter what the pedophile thinks, his world view contradicts the objective one of his species. Period.

A morality that is based off a moral law giver is not objective. It is based off the whims of some other being. This is SUBJECTIVE.

You and I would have a different sort of discussion. What I said to him does not apply to you. You actually appear to be one of the few here with some semblance of understanding.

Yet, you keep making this kind of claim:

(08-05-2014 01:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In your world you think what is right and wrong is determined by the individual and the societies they live in.

In your world the Nazis were doing an awesome.thing when they killed Jews because it was awesome to them.

Virtually NOBODY, other than some crackpots more in love with the idea than any semblance of real morality, actually believes that crap. It generally only gets trotted out by people trying to sell their own moral code so they can try to force that position on their opponents and then use it to discredit them.

Natachan is far more accurate a description of what most people here believe than the crap you are claiming they believe.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
08-05-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Incorrect analogy: "What shape is the earth" vs. "Which do you hold to be true".

Ok what is rape?

Wrong, right, or neither

According to YOUR mythical sky fairy (and its goatfucker creators and their adherents --YOU), it's right.


Fucking idiot.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
08-05-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Incorrect analogy: "What shape is the earth" vs. "Which do you hold to be true".

Ok what is rape?

Wrong, right, or neither
You mean which do I hold to be true? Rolleyes

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:30 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Ok what is rape?

Wrong, right, or neither

According to YOUR mythical sky fairy (and its goatfucker creators and their adherents --YOU), it's right.


Fucking idiot.

Ah, it does warm the cockles of my heart to see our aTaq bird giving the vile filth a good roasting Smile I admire your patience and salute your persistence in seeking to inform our nauseatingly pustulent acquaintance of his multiple and egregious deficiencies both of intellect and of character. While I hold no hope for his eventual salvation I do experience profound satisfaction to see his revolting opinions thoroughly trounced.

Everybody raise a glass to the master of the 'ouse!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: