Empathy?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 07:05 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I know what empathy is. Your illustration is one of the best ive heard. And I agree.

Yes, you are just being a Fail Trol,l,of course.


Quote:My point is, is that if moral relativism is true,...


Oh, look -- the WLC bullshit machine is back on at full tilt. He must be very happy to have someone like you licking his ass every day. And imitating the idiotic things he says. Strawman much, asshole?


Quote: there is nothing obligating me to be empathetic.

Except the part where it will come back and bite you in the ass. And the part where your mythical fairy tale monster that you use as an exemplar is the worst offender of all on that account. And the fact that adherents of your superstitions are the worst offenders in the real world on that account.


Quote: I have broken no law or moral duty which says I should. And no one can say that I have.

Doesn't mean you won't suffer consequences for your actions.


Quote: Nor can anyone charge me with doing anything wrong or evil for such words to make sense, require that there exist some ideal standard of behavior by which acts are measured.

Sure we can. And for reasons that your mythical Jeebus ripped off from the Buddha and others. Your whole idiotic diatribe rests on the false choice of "MY gawd's socalled morality (which is immoral as fuck) or none at all". The world doesn't work that way, cupcake, and your insistence that it does only puts you firmly in the camp of sociopaths who need to be put down like dogs.



Quote:Take God out of the picture and like Ivan said, all things are permitted.

Bullshit. Your mythical deities is the most immoral figure in fiction. And your fellow adherents of the superstitions surrounding that mythical deity have committed the most immoral and despicable atrocities in human history. You are riddled with narcissistic self-delusion.
Quote:This is simply one of the implications of an atheistic view of reality.

No, it's not, not by any stretch of the imagination. The WLC-Ade is strong in this one. You conveniently ignore the fact that there are plenty of atheists and even entirely atheistic religions full of people who get along just fine and have strong moral values without your monster deity. No Black Swans Fallacy and all that. You have been advised of this many times before. You ignore it at your own peril.



Quote:But most atheists do believe certain things are really wrong i.e. discriminating against atheists for no other reason that they are atheists.

...utterly destroying your bullshit assertions.



Quote:In thinking this, they are not thinking as moral relativists but moral realists.

Fuck your sad attempts at pigeon-holing everyone and everything with self-serving, loaded, question-begging bullshit philosophist labels, and fuck you.


Quote: Even the majority of philosophers, though they be non-theistic actually are moral realists. Go figure!!!

And fuck philosophers, and fuck you.

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, 08:12 AM
RE: Empathy?
Mr Walker, are you struggling and in conflict with your own morality, trying to find your way back to normalcy? I ask this because of all your 'morality' threads.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like TheBear's post
08-05-2014, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 08:15 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 07:12 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What you ask is do people have to believe in God in order to be civil. The answer is no. Some atheists I know are civil as well as empathetic.

I have never said a person has to believe in God to be civil or empathetic.


Bullshit, you lying sack of shit.

Quote:What I have said is that when an atheist says all morality is relative, they are acting inconsistently with their moral relativism when they denounce religion as being evil.

Spouting the same bullshit over and over doesn't make it any less bullshit than the first time you had your head handed to you over it.



Quote:If they were consistent they would not say religion is evil or that rape is wrong.

Amazing that this little philosophical plot cul-de-sac you have bullshitted yourself into doesn't give you pause to question what wrong turn you took to get there.



Quote: Evil and wrong can only be meaningfully used if there is a standard of morality one can appeal to to judge whether an act conforms or fails to conform to said standard.

And here you are, back to the same bullshit false choice fallacy you came in here with, got beat to shit and fled TWO debates in the Ring over, and still are too fucking stupid and desperate to abandon.


[Image: 05%20your%20argument%20is%20invalid.jpg]







Go the fuck away, you 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
08-05-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 07:48 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:12 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What you ask is do people have to believe in God in order to be civil. The answer is no. Some atheists I know are civil as well as empathetic.

I have never said a person has to believe in God to be civil or empathetic.

What I have said is that when an atheist says all morality is relative, they are acting inconsistently with their moral relativism when they denounce religion as being evil.

If they were consistent they would not say religion is evil or that rape is wrong. Evil and wrong can only be meaningfully used if there is a standard of morality one can appeal to to judge whether an act conforms or fails to conform to said standard.

Why can't we create our own standard of morality based upon agreed principles? By that standard, I can call someone who commits crimes for religious reasons wrong and a criminal.

Isn't that exactly what we do?

That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

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 referrent 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 arw deemed sick.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 08:44 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 05:04 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  ...
Put yourself in someone else's shoes
Treat others as you wish to be treated

As the saying goes...

Do not criticise a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.


Because then...



You'll be a mile away and...



you'll have his shoes!

Evil_monster

Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
08-05-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: Empathy?
(07-05-2014 04:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Still waiting for someone to tell me why people are so angry with me for not using something I was never born with (according to them).
CoolCool
Even if you have no empathy, you are still responsible for your actions - whether those actions are direct such as committing rape or indirect such as supporting rape. And if you are guilty of such actions, those who do have empathy and can clearly see what's wrong with those actions will dole out the consequences. While you may not get blame per se just for not having empathy, such actions cannot be allowed to continue in order to maintain the welfare of our species as a whole. This is the reality of living societies where empathy is the primary basis for moral definitions.

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, 09:16 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:48 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Why can't we create our own standard of morality based upon agreed principles? By that standard, I can call someone who commits crimes for religious reasons wrong and a criminal.

Isn't that exactly what we do?

That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

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 referrent 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 arw deemed sick.

I do not think you really understand what "objectivity" really means. Please look it up as I am not doing your simple homework for you. You also seem to hold to such a simplistic view of morals as being based on the individual. It is collective and subjective, not objective and individual. Somebody in a less developed country may think mutilation is an acceptable punishment for certain acts or religious mandates, but here in the west they would be deemed immoral, criminal and just wrong.

So why do you keep going in cricles with your statements? What is it that you do not accept with societies and cultures defining moral behaviors?

“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, 09:22 AM
RE: Empathy?
The reason that we got mad ISN'T because you lack empathy. It's because you were an ass. And being an ass is a choice.

You posted incredibly insensitive comments about rape. There are people on this forum who are rape victims. Essentially what you did was minimize their experience and defend their rapists. this is immensely insensitive, and is asshole behavior. And people responded accordingly. And then you're amazed that people respond in a negative way.

Why should you act with empathy? You don't HAVE to, but if you don't you generally won't be treated well.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like natachan's post
08-05-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:48 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Why can't we create our own standard of morality based upon agreed principles? By that standard, I can call someone who commits crimes for religious reasons wrong and a criminal.

Isn't that exactly what we do?

That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

Oh, but since you have all the fucking Answers, Mr. Duunning-Krueger, they only THINK that's what they are doing. But in YOUR mind, YOU THINK you know better. You disingenuous, deluded son of a bitch.



Quote: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.

FUCK you and your question-begging labels. You know your mythical Jeebus went the same route when he, according to the fables, ripped off the Buddha and others and espoused reciprocal ethics in the form of the "Golden Rule".




Quote:You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind


Just look at you, you delusional piece of shit. The "morality" (to use the term loosely) you espouse was invented by people just as much as any other. The fact that you fucktards attempt to elevate it by proclaiming that some fictional giant in the sky dictated it is just snake-oil bullshit. You are the very picture of the strawman you are attempting to burn.




Quote: and that their referrent 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.

Oh, look at all the semantic prestidigitation. Your "standard" is in the same boat with that of everyone else.


Quote: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!!!!!


Fuck you and your straw men and your lecturing bullshit about shit you don't have the slightest understanding.



Quote: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 arw deemed sick.

There IS not such thing as "evil" in the reified sense that you and your batshit religion claims. You simply refuse to see anything outside of your own little compartmentalized superstitious view of the world, even as everyone here has corrected you on it time and again.


Fuck you and your strawmen and your abject refusal to pay attention to what everyone has explained to you.

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, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 10:11 AM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:48 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Why can't we create our own standard of morality based upon agreed principles? By that standard, I can call someone who commits crimes for religious reasons wrong and a criminal.

Isn't that exactly what we do?

That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

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.

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.

Quote:
You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind and that their referrent 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.

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.

Quote: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.

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.

Quote: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 arw deemed sick.

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.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: