Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Laugh out load

The voices in my head all say I'm normal........

Except that one voice..... but it's just crazy.........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
09-09-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 01:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:34 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What is it that makes you define what "normal" is and what "everyday joe" is supposed to be?

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/5-bar...n-feelings

Here is some limited data from a decade ago upon some people but it's not some certain formation of data that most "everyday joe" thinks things are objectively wrong or not. What defines what is a "normal" person anyway?

I have been on key saying that piece Stevil has stated and it's reflected a lot when you directly talk to people and ask them what they actually belief opposed to taking their word choice for what it is. People speak in generalizations and in absolutes because it's simpler and quicker to achieve a shared thought or expression of a feeling before you mull over the actual idea in your head. I brought it up in many of those other moral threads because a couple of them were specifically about how people say things, well initially they were.

What normal means, is the average. The average person is not an atheists, the average person tends to be religious. Over half of whom are christians and muslims.

Secondly objective morality is not the same as absolute morality. Nor is believing certain actions can be right in certain circumstances, and wrong in other circumstances, a belief that morality is subjective, such as it might be right to kill a man in self-defense, but not right to do so just for shits and giggles.

Atheist is one statement still.. there are plenty of people who aren't atheists who would agree and disagree with some atheists about. Morality is one, being an atheist doesn't mean that person doesn't have a similar view of what morality is. Religious/Christians/Muslims and the like have differing views on various subjects at all times, including morality.

Yes I know normal is used as average... that doesn't give an answer to why you think you have a case for defining and declaring what average or the everday joe is though?

Nobody was talking about absolute morality.. I said talking in absolutes. Like a statement.. People being questioned and talking far more commonly in at least the US, show more of a view toward not objective, be it relativist/subjecitve/non-existence. The antithesis of your claim of objective isn't just subjective, it's actually anything else.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 05:11 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 02:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Atheist is one statement still.. there are plenty of people who aren't atheists who would agree and disagree with some atheists about. Morality is one, being an atheist doesn't mean that person doesn't have a similar view of what morality is.

And...?

Quote:Religious/Christians/Muslims and the like have differing views on various subjects at all times, including morality.

Yea, you'd be hard pressed to find a religious person, muslim, christian or otherwise, who thinks that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is a matter of opinion, or taste, or subjective.

Quote:Yes I know normal is used as average... that doesn't give an answer to why you think you have a case for defining and declaring what average or the everday joe is though? [/quote[

Because I'm an average joe duh. Not to mention I don't live under a rock, and have enough interactions with everyday people, to not be entirely clueless as to what they believe. And if you think the average joe believes in subjective morality, you'd be an idiot. Even more reflective atheist philosophers and scientists and shit claim than moral objectivity is an illusion, because they're not entirely clueless as to what the average joes perceptions are.

[quote]Nobody was talking about absolute morality.. I said talking in absolutes. Like a statement.

You're linked survey did.

Quote:People being questioned and talking far more commonly in at least the US, show more of a view toward not objective, be it relativist/subjecitve/non-existence. The antithesis of your claim of objective isn't just subjective, it's actually anything else.

What the hell are you talking about? The antithesis of objective is subjective.

You can subscribe to objective morality, as folks who subscribe to moral realism often do, and yet believe certain things like taking someone life for fun is wrong, while taking someone life in self-defense may be right.

Objective morality doesn't require a belief in absolutes, such as taking life in any circumstance is wrong.

I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 04:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

But first, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Well I have.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 04:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 02:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Atheist is one statement still.. there are plenty of people who aren't atheists who would agree and disagree with some atheists about. Morality is one, being an atheist doesn't mean that person doesn't have a similar view of what morality is.

And...?

Quote:Religious/Christians/Muslims and the like have differing views on various subjects at all times, including morality.

Yea, you'd be hard pressed to find a religious person, muslim, christian or otherwise, who thinks that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is a matter of opinion, or taste, or subjective.

Quote:Yes I know normal is used as average... that doesn't give an answer to why you think you have a case for defining and declaring what average or the everday joe is though? [/quote[

Because I'm an average joe duh. Not to mention I don't live under a rock, and have enough interactions with everyday people, to not be entirely clueless as to what they believe. And if you think the average joe believes in subjective morality, you'd be an idiot. Even more reflective atheist philosophers and scientists and shit claim than moral objectivity is an illusion, because they're not entirely clueless as to what the average joes perceptions are.

[quote]Nobody was talking about absolute morality.. I said talking in absolutes. Like a statement.

You're linked survey did.

Quote:People being questioned and talking far more commonly in at least the US, show more of a view toward not objective, be it relativist/subjecitve/non-existence. The antithesis of your claim of objective isn't just subjective, it's actually anything else.

What the hell are you talking about? The antithesis of objective is subjective.

You can subscribe to objective morality, as folks who subscribe to moral realism often do, and yet believe certain things like taking someone life for fun is wrong, while taking someone life in self-defense may be right.

Objective morality doesn't require a belief in absolutes, such as taking life in any circumstance is wrong.

I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

Why do you resort so often to terrible analogies? Yes, nobody believes it because it's an absurd claim. That doesn't further discussion in any positive way. It doesn't shine any light on the topic, it just reflects your choices in discussion.

In the general conscientious idea of objectivity... You think it is the majority view, because you constantly confirm to that it is the case. But you don't ever demonstrate a case to it being so, you simply want to assert it routinely that objective views of right/wrong are significantly innate to a point of not even being so evolutionary. Babies or kids viewing things in contrasting black/white right/wrong manners isn't evidence towards it because it's just as sensibly consistent with any evolutionary background of it developing within a child. That's not proof of anything in the case either way.

And if you somehow still don't get how disagreeing with something doesn't mean you confirm it's antithesis... you'll never actually learn from people you disagree with. You can't just try to define and view things on assertions of your particular view based on your particular experience. There is far more than how you view things. But when you actually ask people, and define to them what they say, you're idea of what the "everyday Joe" thinks becomes far less defined as what you would previously seem to think. Some of this is on a scale of a line and it is true more liberals in studies tend to view things more in a fairness/harm view over relative manners to other cultures. They are just as everybit apart of the common people that make up what is and isn't the norm.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 05:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 04:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And...?


Yea, you'd be hard pressed to find a religious person, muslim, christian or otherwise, who thinks that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is a matter of opinion, or taste, or subjective.


You're linked survey did.


What the hell are you talking about? The antithesis of objective is subjective.

You can subscribe to objective morality, as folks who subscribe to moral realism often do, and yet believe certain things like taking someone life for fun is wrong, while taking someone life in self-defense may be right.

Objective morality doesn't require a belief in absolutes, such as taking life in any circumstance is wrong.

I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

Why do you resort so often to terrible analogies? Yes, nobody believes it because it's an absurd claim. That doesn't further discussion in any positive way. It doesn't shine any light on the topic, it just reflects your choices in discussion.

In the general conscientious idea of objectivity... You think it is the majority view, because you constantly confirm to that it is the case. But you don't ever demonstrate a case to it being so, you simply want to assert it routinely that objective views of right/wrong are significantly innate to a point of not even being so evolutionary. Babies or kids viewing things in contrasting black/white right/wrong manners isn't evidence towards it because it's just as sensibly consistent with any evolutionary background of it developing within a child. That's not proof of anything in the case either way.

And if you somehow still don't get how disagreeing with something doesn't mean you confirm it's antithesis... you'll never actually learn from people you disagree with. You can't just try to define and view things on assertions of your particular view based on your particular experience. There is far more than how you view things. But when you actually ask people, and define to them what they say, you're idea of what the "everyday Joe" thinks becomes far less defined as what you would previously seem to think. Some of this is on a scale of a line and it is true more liberals in studies tend to view things more in a fairness/harm view over relative manners to other cultures. They are just as everybit apart of the common people that make up what is and isn't the norm.

I'm sorry I'm not able to decipher what exactly your point is here?

Are you claiming that a belief that wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is a matter of opinion, or taste, is subjective, is an absurd belief? That hardly anyone would believe this?

If so than I don't even know what it is we're arguing.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 12:56 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 01:01 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 01:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You might think otherwise in regards to yourself, but you're not representative of the everyday joe.
Sure, I wasn't speaking from my own perspective, as you know I'd tell you that morality is BS.

But my perspective of a "normal" average joe, is as I have stated in my previous post.

Perhaps if I lived in a religious state or associated primarily with religious people then my perspective of "normal" would be different.

But thank god (figure of speech) that I live in a country where god is irrelevant and outdated.
Here you are much more likely to hear the word "god" spoken as a figure of speech or a swear word. Very rarely do I hear it spoken as if "god" is an actual thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-09-2015, 04:03 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 06:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 05:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why do you resort so often to terrible analogies? Yes, nobody believes it because it's an absurd claim. That doesn't further discussion in any positive way. It doesn't shine any light on the topic, it just reflects your choices in discussion.

In the general conscientious idea of objectivity... You think it is the majority view, because you constantly confirm to that it is the case. But you don't ever demonstrate a case to it being so, you simply want to assert it routinely that objective views of right/wrong are significantly innate to a point of not even being so evolutionary. Babies or kids viewing things in contrasting black/white right/wrong manners isn't evidence towards it because it's just as sensibly consistent with any evolutionary background of it developing within a child. That's not proof of anything in the case either way.

And if you somehow still don't get how disagreeing with something doesn't mean you confirm it's antithesis... you'll never actually learn from people you disagree with. You can't just try to define and view things on assertions of your particular view based on your particular experience. There is far more than how you view things. But when you actually ask people, and define to them what they say, you're idea of what the "everyday Joe" thinks becomes far less defined as what you would previously seem to think. Some of this is on a scale of a line and it is true more liberals in studies tend to view things more in a fairness/harm view over relative manners to other cultures. They are just as everybit apart of the common people that make up what is and isn't the norm.

I'm sorry I'm not able to decipher what exactly your point is here?

Are you claiming that a belief that wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is a matter of opinion, or taste, is subjective, is an absurd belief? That hardly anyone would believe this?

If so than I don't even know what it is we're arguing.

It's an absurd example that serves no point of being said. It's really not worth going on when there is a routine usage of horribly unfitting analogies and assumptions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 05:54 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 04:03 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's an absurd example that serves no point of being said. It's really not worth going on when there is a routine usage of horribly unfitting analogies and assumptions.

You're not being entirely clear here.

It's an absurd example because no one actually believes that the wrongness of torturing babies just for fun is subjective?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And no, "I think that rape is always wrong" is not equivalent to "rape is objectively wrong", no matter how much you wish it was.

No, it's equivalent to saying handle bar mustaches are always wrong. You're just stating a preference, like your musical taste, or fashion preferences.

When you say rape is always wrong, all you're really saying is that you don't like it.

And that is quite sufficient.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: