Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 01:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 01:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We are not back to bare assertion. We are left with the fact that you will in no way make a definitive statement as to whether rape is wrong (and murder, adultery, etc.) as opposed to making dismissive "I guess sometimes, for some people, rape might be wrong" statements.

I have already told you my stance on the subject multiple times. It is quite straightforward. At this point, I am fairly certain that you are just being deliberately obtuse to avoid actually having to respond to the points raised.

Rape is not objectively wrong, because "objectively wrong" is a nonsense phrase in the context of morality. I think it is wrong. I might even go so far as to say that it is wrong in every situation. But my opinion is not objective fact.

This is not complicated.

Actually, you are missing the point, so I will explain. It is objective as soon as you realize that the entire normal population of the Earth things rape is wrong, and that they know inherently that the rest of the population who think rape is okay (which minority does not even include some rapists!) are 100% wrong.

You are not allowed to tell people "I think rape is wrong, but if you think it is okay, subjectively that is true and I will not judge you" without being called out as a hypocrite.

Again, you are avoiding the point because objective morals underscore an objective moral creator. Additionally, since rape can lead to propagation of the species, you have to perform a dance to explain the universal, normal, recognized, absolute species-wide prohibition against rape.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(25-09-2015 08:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't have even a remotely recognizable argument against materialism

That's wonderful.

(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, you are missing the point, so I will explain. It is objective as soon as you realize that the entire normal population of the Earth things rape is wrong, and that they know inherently that the rest of the population who think rape is okay (which minority does not even include some rapists!) are 100% wrong.

That is not what "objective" means.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-09-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(25-09-2015 10:10 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 08:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't have even a remotely recognizable argument against materialism

That's wonderful.

(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, you are missing the point, so I will explain. It is objective as soon as you realize that the entire normal population of the Earth things rape is wrong, and that they know inherently that the rest of the population who think rape is okay (which minority does not even include some rapists!) are 100% wrong.

That is not what "objective" means.

What he's describing is consensus. Objective is not the only term he seems to have trouble with. He's not particularly bright.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-09-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-09-2015 10:32 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  He's not particularly bright.

Would you say that that's objectively true?

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-09-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, you are missing the point, so I will explain. It is objective as soon as you realize that the entire normal population of the Earth things rape is wrong
What do you mean when you say "wrong"?

Do you mean that people recognise the cruelty forced upon a "random" victim against their own wishes?

Do you mean that people recognise the danger in society for themselves, their mothers, sisters, daughters, grandaughters, cousins, friends etc if we consider rape as an acceptable (unpunishable) practice?

Is this what is meant by wrong? Is wrongness defined from a human perspective, something that ties into recognition of the dangers to loved ones and society as a whole?


(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are not allowed to tell people "I think rape is wrong, but if you think it is okay, subjectively that is true and I will not judge you" without being called out as a hypocrite.
I don't consider anything to be wrong from an objective point of view because ultimately we humans make judgements from a human perspective rather than an objective one.

We are very lax with our language, when one person says something is wrong they mean "It's wrong because according to my religious beliefs I have been taught that my god considers this action/thought to be wrong" or when another person says something is wrong they mean "I have great empathy for all creatures that enjoy life and can feel pain, it makes me sad when a creature is harmed" or another person may deem something as wrong because "There are rules, either law or implied and this breaks the rules therefore it is wrong".
Therefore I don't think it makes sense to state "such and such is wrong" because it disguises your thoughts, it leaves us to assume what you mean when you say that something is wrong.

If I agree with you and say that X is wrong. I might be meaning that X is dangerous for society and so we needs laws to try to reduce the chances of X happening. But you will take it to mean that there is a fundamental truth of the universe that X is wrong in of itself, that this truth has come about because an intelligent designer decreed it so and somehow burnt knowledge of this truth into the hearts of humans (who are unique and almost godly) in their ability to know right from wrong. Which means that you would get the wrong end of the stick. That's not what I'd mean at all.
So to avoid confusion I explicitly state that I recognise rape as being dangerous for humans within society, dangerous for my mother, my daughters, my friends, my colleagues. I will not claim that it is wrong. I do not agree with all the extra baggage you attach to the word "wrong".

(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, you are avoiding the point because objective morals underscore an objective moral creator.
Nope, that is an unfounded assumption.
Objective morals underscore some kind of source for which there is (none to be found) no supporting evidence of. For most atheists it seems quite clear that people have various reasons for calling something "wrong" and that people's opinions and reasons differ, hence many people make use of the moral language in a subjective sense.


(25-09-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Additionally, since rape can lead to propagation of the species, you have to perform a dance to explain the universal, normal, recognized, absolute species-wide prohibition against rape.
Rape can end up with the rape victim being dead, which means no procreation. It can also end up with the man doing the "natural" selection bit of evolution and in this case it leaves a mother to be a solo mum which can be a difficult existence for humans because our offspring are so dependant for so many years.
A family is more likely to survive and thrive with two parents, supporting each other and taking care of children. For humans, it seems that rape is not the most successful method of procreation from generation to generation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 05:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 06:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  A single bit in a computer does not perform any computations by itself.

Computers still compute.

No one said anything about a single bit. Even the combined bits don't desire the truth, just whatever works to keep them moving, to minimize any frictions that arise from any other set of neurons that can stall movement. All they care about in essence is their feelings, managing their emotional states in light of a variety of physical forces pushing against them.

A neuron does not have emotional states. Minds, an emergent property of brains, exhibit emotional state.

Quote:If you think, you who is nothing more that your neurochemistry, desires to know the truth, you're just fooling yourself, because it's a sham. You just want something that makes you feel a certain way.

That might be true, but so what?

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
26-09-2015, 09:45 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:01 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You keep adding nonsense phrases to your questions, which makes them too incoherent to answer. Regardless, yes, people are perfectly capable of actually wanting the truth.


You desire the truth, while the neural chemistry of your brain doesn't care about this. And you don't see the conundrum here? The ship without a captain?

There is no conundrum. The chemistry of your brain is not your mind any more than hydrogen or oxygen being wet.

Quote:Is the desire and want for a truth, a near universal here? Do we all want the truth? Do all of our "combined bits" desire this abstract thing called truth?

Most people want to know the truth about most things that interest them.

Quote:Is the desire for truth a biological desire, like a desire for food, and drink. A desire for friendship, and love, and sex? Or is sort of like a manufactured desire, like a desire for coke?

No, it is an aspect of a conscious mind.

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
28-09-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(26-09-2015 10:32 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 10:10 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That's wonderful.


That is not what "objective" means.

What he's describing is consensus. Objective is not the only term he seems to have trouble with. He's not particularly bright.

All,

I understand consensus. You don't seem to understand how the prohibition against rape has been a universal consensus, an unvarying consensus. I would further state that those armies and governments now using mass rape as an object of terror know that rape and causing terror are wrong, that is, rape is a universal wrong.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(28-09-2015 01:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand consensus. You don't seem to understand how the prohibition against rape has been a universal consensus, an unvarying consensus.

Which still does not make it objectively wrong.

"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
28-09-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(28-09-2015 01:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand consensus. You don't seem to understand how the prohibition against rape has been a universal consensus, an unvarying consensus.

You would have a point except for the fact you are wrong. Raping slaves (both male and female) as being morally acceptable was the consensus for millenia and still is in some places. Considering rape as morally offensive is a recent development.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: