FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2012, 07:35 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 05:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is just more self-justification. Acknowledging that you're doing something wrong because "they did it first" or "they do it, too" or "they do it but to a greater extreme" doesn't make your act right. Like the old cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right", or to quote the bible, "don't repay evil with evil" (I know, it's the bible, but it's still a good saying).

Then you have removed the concept of justice.

If/when the judge sentences James Holmes for 12 counts of murder, will you complain that "two wrongs don't make a right", or will you see it as an act of justice? Ethics needs justice if we are to expect anyone to ever follow it. Which is why "turn the other cheek" is a failed system.

Forget the GR and follow the MGR.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(26-07-2012 07:35 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 05:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is just more self-justification. Acknowledging that you're doing something wrong because "they did it first" or "they do it, too" or "they do it but to a greater extreme" doesn't make your act right. Like the old cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right", or to quote the bible, "don't repay evil with evil" (I know, it's the bible, but it's still a good saying).

Then you have removed the concept of justice.

If/when the judge sentences James Holmes for 12 counts of murder, will you complain that "two wrongs don't make a right", or will you see it as an act of justice? Ethics needs justice if we are to expect anyone to ever follow it. Which is why "turn the other cheek" is a failed system.

Forget the GR and follow the MGR.

Why would a justice system meting out a punishment for a broken law be a "wrong"? I think you're equivocating a bit here. Are you suggesting that the judge has the right to gun down James Holmes because "he did it first"? Do we all retain that same right?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(26-07-2012 07:27 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 04:48 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's clearly unethical -- it doesn't benefit a greater number of people than it hurts, it isn't something that we'd want done unto us, it isn't a virtue...

Something is unethical if it isn't covered by utilitarianism, kantianism or virtue ethics? There are other ethical frameworks. Smile

Not that I'm aware of. Sure, there are such things are egoism, moral relativity, and emotivism, but they aren't actually "ethical frameworks" per se, but rather methods for avoiding an ethical discussion.

I'm glad you have some study in ethics, and if you want to debate about whether ridiculing someone is ethical or not, we can have that discussion. But simply saying that I may have missed an ethical framework doesn't actually support the idea that ridicule is ethical... you'd still have to present that framework and explain why it's ethical under that standard (as well as, perhaps, why we should ignore the other frameworks that suggest that it's unethical).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2012, 06:45 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2012 06:51 PM by Red Celt.)
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(26-07-2012 04:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Not that I'm aware of. Sure, there are such things are egoism, moral relativity, and emotivism, but they aren't actually "ethical frameworks" per se, but rather methods for avoiding an ethical discussion.

Not that you're aware of? So... do we have to have a discussion based on your educational level? You jumped from ethics to meta-ethics. There are ethical frameworks besides utilitarianism, kantianism & virtue ethics; those are just the shop-standard three. If you doubt the existence of others, Google it.

Why the interest in ridicule?

(26-07-2012 04:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Why would a justice system meting out a punishment for a broken law be a "wrong"?

That's what I asked you. What you proposed didn't involve justice, which is contrary to a judicial court. But, now judges are allowed to judge?

(26-07-2012 04:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I think you're equivocating a bit here. Are you suggesting that the judge has the right to gun down James Holmes because "he did it first"?

I didn't mention guns (as a means of justice).

(26-07-2012 04:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Do we all retain that same right?

If someone slapped you in the throat, do you have the right to retaliate? Or do you have to accept it? Retribution = justice. The Christian system that you suggested doesn't include justice. Why should it, when Christians believe that justice will be meted-out at the Pearly Gates?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:48 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I hate Seth's assertion at about 35 minutes in that mocking Christians is not only alright, but necessary. This is just after he stated that religions shouldn't get undue respect, and I agree... but they should at least be given the respect that we want our own beliefs to get. And so I don't agree with his assertion about mockery, either, because it's not fair. Stating that it is alright to belittle others' beliefs through ridicule takes away our ability to complain when it is done to ours, because that would make us both hypocritical and holders of a double-standard.


[Image: peacefulcats.jpg?psid=1]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Red Celt's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: