Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(17-09-2015 06:17 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 04:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  conscience or consciousness or both? In any event, I'm still waiting for any shred of evidence that anything you say is more than your own self-delusion.
Both technically. One can know all kinds of shit. It they don't act on it then they are wasting it and life

So that's still a "No" on providing anything to back up your claims.
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
17-09-2015, 07:11 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(17-09-2015 06:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 06:17 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Both technically. One can know all kinds of shit. It they don't act on it then they are wasting it and life

So that's still a "No" on providing anything to back up your claims.
Drinking Beverage
Lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 06:23 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 06:42 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(17-09-2015 04:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 02:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We could play with this of course. If morality doesn’t exist. Why shouldn’t I interfere in the lives of others? Why shouldn’t I play God? Why do I need to justifying using force or aggression, other than just because I want to?

Mainly because you would get your ass kicked.

You might as well tell me that I'd go to hell.

There's no law of the universe that guaranteed an ass whooping. I remember working in customer service, and every so often you'd get a customer threatening to sue you, to come over and kick your ass. And I'd just laugh inside. A scenario in which the person or group your using force and aggression towards, being so powerless that even they recognize that using force and aggression is futile, and would only make it worse for them, is just as likely. And among folks who threaten force their actual capacity to do so, can be non-existent.

How many successful slave revolts have there been? Nat Turner had a short lived one, that ended up enraging those he revolted against, who retaliated ten fold. The Romans strung the leaders of jewish revolts on crosses. This didn't fuel the fire of the communities behind them, but diminished them.

"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
18-09-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
... I'm still not following. Where's your absolute morality other than in your wishful thinking? The fact that humans are nasty to each other is hardly surprising, the fact that we condemn such things more or less universally is *still* not evidence for absolute morality. All it shows is that empathy is a widespread character trait and we have common agreement about shit we don't like.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
18-09-2015, 08:26 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 08:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 06:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... I'm still not following. Where's your absolute morality other than in your wishful thinking? The fact that humans are nasty to each other is hardly surprising, the fact that we condemn such things more or less universally is *still* not evidence for absolute morality. All it shows is that empathy is a widespread character trait and we have common agreement about shit we don't like.

What would evidence of absolute, or even objective morality, or any morality look like for a moral nihilist?

If certain more or less universal principles wouldn't be evidence for morality of any sort, than what would be?

Universal principles is evidence that can be used in support of the existence of morality, though perhaps not proof. Yet you believe it's not?

There are variety of atheists who are moral nihilist, like Alex Rosenberg, and Dennet, who believe that objective morality is an illusion.

But wouldn't the evidence of an illusion, and what's real, parallel each other to a significant degree?

"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
18-09-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 06:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... I'm still not following. Where's your absolute morality other than in your wishful thinking? The fact that humans are nasty to each other is hardly surprising, the fact that we condemn such things more or less universally is *still* not evidence for absolute morality. All it shows is that empathy is a widespread character trait and we have common agreement about shit we don't like.

What would evidence of absolute, or even objective morality, or any morality look like for a moral nihilist?

If certain more or less universal principles wouldn't be evidence for morality of any sort, than what would be?

Universal principles is evidence that can be used in support of the existence of morality, though perhaps not proof. Yet you believe it's not?

There are variety of atheists who are moral nihilist, like Alex Rosenberg, and Dennet, who believe that objective morality is an illusion.

But wouldn't the evidence of an illusion, and what's real, parallel each other to a significant degree?

Sounds more like your problem than mine old son. You're the one who wants there to be an absolute. You figure out how you could be sure. And trusting God doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
18-09-2015, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 09:53 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 09:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Sounds more like your problem than mine old son. You're the one who wants there to be an absolute. You figure out how you could be sure. And trusting God doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

It's not my problem. I'm not the moral nihilist. I'm not the one claiming that universal principles are not evidence of morality you are, without ever really justifying this.

If you don't even know what the evidence would look like in this case, how can you claim that it's not evidence?

"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
18-09-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 04:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Mainly because you would get your ass kicked.

You might as well tell me that I'd go to hell.

There's no law of the universe that guaranteed an ass whooping. I remember working in customer service, and every so often you'd get a customer threatening to sue you, to come over and kick your ass. And I'd just laugh inside. A scenario in which the person or group your using force and aggression towards, being so powerless that even they recognize that using force and aggression is futile, and would only make it worse for them, is just as likely. And among folks who threaten force their actual capacity to do so, can be non-existent.

How many successful slave revolts have there been? Nat Turner had a short lived one, that ended up enraging those he revolted against, who retaliated ten fold. The Romans strung the leaders of jewish revolts on crosses. This didn't fuel the fire of the communities behind them, but diminished them.

"There was once a futile threat made to me over the phone, therefore the consequences of violating prevailing norms in social groups don't exist".

That's something all right, Tomasia, but it's not an argument.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-09-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 09:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "There was once a futile threat made to me over the phone, therefore the consequences of violating prevailing norms in social groups don't exist".

That's something all right, Tomasia, but it's not an argument.

No, what I'm claiming is that there is no single consequence. A school yard bully may get his ass kicked at some point, he may just as well get away with it.

I can look at a variety of situations in which using force and aggression might be advantageous to me, and consider whether or not the threat of retaliations are viable, or whether they can be mitigated, call a bluff, etc...

There's no rule you can appeal to suggest that I not seek to use force and aggression when it might be advantageous to myself. Though what seems to be the norm for folks who can't make a moral appeal, is appeal to karma.

"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
18-09-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 09:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "There was once a futile threat made to me over the phone, therefore the consequences of violating prevailing norms in social groups don't exist".

That's something all right, Tomasia, but it's not an argument.

No, what I'm claiming is that there is no single consequence. A school yard bully may get his ass kicked at some point, he may just as well get away with it.

I can look at a variety of situations in which using force and aggression might be advantageous to me, and consider whether or not the threat of retaliations are viable, or whether they can be mitigated, call a bluff, etc...

There's no rule you can appeal to suggest that I not seek to use force and aggression when it might be advantageous to myself. Though what seems to be the norm for folks who can't make a moral appeal, is appeal to karma.

If you've already defined advantage to yourself as accounting for the reactions of others, then you're already granting the point that was being argued against you. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: