Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 10:24 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 is no hell. There are, however, proper ass kickings. This I know.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-09-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(17-09-2015 06:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 04:06 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Everyone, in theory, should be able to agree that there is a higher power, or creative force, at least to some extent.
Would the fundamental forces of nature count as a "higher" power (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear)? These dictate all physical events.

In terms of the complexity of replicating structures would the "creative" force be the "fitness" (given environmental pressures) of each replicating structure. It's more of a "sustainable" or "proliferation" force rather than a "creative" one. The creativity comes from random mutation but obviously the filtering inherent in the "survival of the "fitest" process is required to remove the poorly suited replicating structures otherwise we would end up with a high entropy chaotic static.
Yes. At a base level observable nature can be seen as not only the best of our existence, but also a higher power. This thought pattern wouldn't be very beneficial as a full time stance rather a starting point. Much like agnosticism. Or worship of the literal Sun of our solar system. There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power, but do display the general theory for grasp by all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes. At a base level observable nature can be seen as not only the best of our existence, but also a higher power. This thought pattern wouldn't be very beneficial as a full time stance rather a starting point. Much like agnosticism. Or worship of the literal Sun of our solar system. There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power, but do display the general theory for grasp by all.

I must commend you, sir. This is the finest word salad I have been served in... oh, it must be at least three days now.

Might I request the house Italian?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
18-09-2015, 11:05 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.
History has yet to play out in full. Physical aggression is looked down upon. Those of right guidance are said to easily be able to take on two enemies. If one where pure the ratio would change exponentially in their advantage. To think this is descriptive of physical aggression as opposed to defence or intellectual battle would be misconstrued and ultimately damning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 11:01 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes. At a base level observable nature can be seen as not only the best of our existence, but also a higher power. This thought pattern wouldn't be very beneficial as a full time stance rather a starting point. Much like agnosticism. Or worship of the literal Sun of our solar system. There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power, but do display the general theory for grasp by all.

I must commend you, sir. This is the finest word salad I have been served in... oh, it must be at least three days now.

Might I request the house Italian?
Damn, that does read like utter gibberish. Still waking up. Don't catch that mischievous auto correct all the time or even most times. Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power
There is no power higher than the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) that's why they are called fundamental.

Consciousness is an emergent abstract consequence of these fundamental force.
No thought or original idea has ever come to be without being a direct consequence of an event caused by the fundamental forces.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-09-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What would evidence of absolute, or even objective morality, or any morality look like for a moral nihilist?
If you describe/document an objective method of discovery for morality that and we then go and use that method to discover the answers as to what is right and what is wrong and we get independent people performing the method and even computers performing the independent method and they all come up with the same set of morals. Then this is a strong candidate.

Although of course your own description will have to convincingly (in an objective fashion) show why your method of discovery is correct while other's competing methods of discovery is incorrect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 09:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.
The burdon of proof is on those with the claim.
The claim is "universal morals exist"

A moral nihilst is a position of lack of belief.

You provide convincing proof and then I will accept universal morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-09-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 01:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power
There is no power higher than the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) that's why they are called fundamental.

Consciousness is an emergent abstract consequence of these fundamental force.
No thought or original idea has ever come to be without being a direct consequence of an event caused by the fundamental forces.
Yet the fundamental readily observable forces are too of a single, somewhat seemingly, unobservable, and as such, superior or creative force of the ones you speak of.

Uhm... There is but One.

The fact that this seems not the case is through deviation of the course set by the Creator in not one, but two separate cases. One indeed thinking they supersede the other. This of course, breaking fundamental laws by self will as opposed to gratification and sole direction under the sole singular act of giving, not taking. For God has literally supplied all in great splendor and wealth. If we but could see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 09:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you don't even know what the evidence would look like in this case, how can you claim that it's not evidence?
We can be unconvinced. We can remain without belief.

It's your problem to convince us what evidence for morality looks like and that it actually exists and is discoverable in an object way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: