No God, no morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2015, 12:41 AM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 12:39 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(04-12-2015 12:31 AM)wallym Wrote:  Perhaps as a man of reason, you can you provide a rational scientific testable fact why I should behave 'good and decent' when it is not in my best interest?

I just did, in another thread. Here it is,

Because if I act in my own best interest, countries will wage wars and millions will die?

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 12:44 AM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 12:41 AM)wallym Wrote:  Because if I act in my own best interest, countries will wage wars and millions will die?

Well that might depend on who you are.

Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 12:50 AM
RE: No God, no morality
Oh and just to be clear. I am all for the individual acting on behalf of one's own interest. Just so long as it is non violent.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 12:56 AM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 12:44 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(04-12-2015 12:41 AM)wallym Wrote:  Because if I act in my own best interest, countries will wage wars and millions will die?

Well that might depend on who you are.

Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan???

I feel you're light on scientific rational testable data.

Right off the bat, we have the unsupported premise of other humans dying being bad for me in some way.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 01:09 AM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  I feel you're light on scientific rational testable data.

Right off the bat, we have the unsupported premise of other humans dying being bad for me in some way.


You are correct. I am no scientist. My experience really is in the study of literature, including philosophy and the history of warfare. WWII and Roman history being favourite subjects.


My view on morals is that they change over time for various reasons and peoples. For example when the Great Khan received a letter from the pope telling him god was on the pope's side, Khan responded "I am winning, which must mean god is on my side."

I am not privy to the latest scientific data on how morals are developing. However, things seem today as they always have. For example look at this article. It shows how violent the planet is.

My ideas are based mainly in history. As said above. Morals, what is right and correct, seem to be used with specific purposes.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 01:21 AM
RE: No God, no morality
Hello! Big Grin

Welcome to the forums, sorry I missed your introductory posting. Smile

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  I feel you're light on scientific rational testable data.

Well.. we are conversing in a forum... where the common vernacular is the standard currency. SO being 'scientific', while admirable.. is not quite what the dialogue standards are set at.

Though, if you want to converse at that level, go right ahead! There are quite a few folks about who're at home with that level of discourse.

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  Right off the bat, we have the unsupported premise of other humans dying being bad for me in some way.

Okay.... I wouldn't say the premise is unsupported.

Take yourself, for example. You're currently existing within a society that is living in/with the benefits of three to four hundred years of the fruits regarding the applications of scientific inquiry.

Lower the population enough... and such levels of society, the sharing of work load needed for every one to have roughly the same level of 'Free' time will not be sustainable or possible.

As the number drops, I agree with yourself, that the 'level' of people's lives will be again reduced to substance agricultural practices. Modern, industrial, farming practices must have the current levels of development to work the way they do.. to produce as much as they do so that the amount of 'easily' available food is around to allow society to be able to function in the way it does (Note: I am not disagreeing that there are potentially horrendous errors and mistakes in such methods)

So... drop the population even more? Potentially even subsistence farming is no longer possible. Reducing people to living in a 'Hunter/Gathering' method of living. assuming they are now within the narrower bands of climate where such is possible (Yes, I know there are some specialized groups who can and do successfully survive at such a level in what the general population consider 'Extreme'. But, before industrialized society interacted with them, their numbers were very low.. in part due to the rigors of the environment they'd developed the society to live in.)

So... there's some thoughts on 'Why' other humans dying is bad for you. In a completely abstract way, even.

Much cheers to you and yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 01:21 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

Welcome to the forums, sorry I missed your introductory posting. Smile

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  I feel you're light on scientific rational testable data.

Well.. we are conversing in a forum... where the common vernacular is the standard currency. SO being 'scientific', while admirable.. is not quite what the dialogue standards are set at.

Though, if you want to converse at that level, go right ahead! There are quite a few folks about who're at home with that level of discourse.

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  Right off the bat, we have the unsupported premise of other humans dying being bad for me in some way.

Okay.... I wouldn't say the premise is unsupported.

Take yourself, for example. You're currently existing within a society that is living in/with the benefits of three to four hundred years of the fruits regarding the applications of scientific inquiry.

Lower the population enough... and such levels of society, the sharing of work load needed for every one to have roughly the same level of 'Free' time will not be sustainable or possible.

As the number drops, I agree with yourself, that the 'level' of people's lives will be again reduced to substance agricultural practices. Modern, industrial, farming practices must have the current levels of development to work the way they do.. to produce as much as they do so that the amount of 'easily' available food is around to allow society to be able to function in the way it does (Note: I am not disagreeing that there are potentially horrendous errors and mistakes in such methods)

So... drop the population even more? Potentially even subsistence farming is no longer possible. Reducing people to living in a 'Hunter/Gathering' method of living. assuming they are now within the narrower bands of climate where such is possible (Yes, I know there are some specialized groups who can and do successfully survive at such a level in what the general population consider 'Extreme'. But, before industrialized society interacted with them, their numbers were very low.. in part due to the rigors of the environment they'd developed the society to live in.)

So... there's some thoughts on 'Why' other humans dying is bad for you. In a completely abstract way, even.

Much cheers to you and yours.

He is not saying that certain people dying would not lead to a negative impact on him, but instead that he considers the general principle that other people dying is objectively a negative. What he is saying is that the value he places on any individual is directly related to their value to him. This he could say that the death of a friend would be a negative, while the murder of the neighbourhood heroin dealer is a positive act. If the entirety of Calcutta was wiped out by a bomb, he may consider this to be a good act. Less people means less strain on resources, call centers moved back to English speaking countries etc. Basically he is saying that the individual has no intrinsic value beyond their benefit to him. At least that is what I presume.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: No God, no morality
Wallym, ever read Plato's republic and the ring of gyges?

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: No God, no morality
At work.

*Nods*

I was pointing out the more abstract thing that pretty much all people contribute to the sharing of the work load that goes into maintaining our current level of comfort in/for our society.

Create too much unrest and (Given the massive interconnected-ness) the movement of refugees can effect far distant corners of the globe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: No God, no morality
(04-12-2015 01:21 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

Welcome to the forums, sorry I missed your introductory posting. Smile

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  I feel you're light on scientific rational testable data.

Well.. we are conversing in a forum... where the common vernacular is the standard currency. SO being 'scientific', while admirable.. is not quite what the dialogue standards are set at.

Though, if you want to converse at that level, go right ahead! There are quite a few folks about who're at home with that level of discourse.

(04-12-2015 12:56 AM)wallym Wrote:  Right off the bat, we have the unsupported premise of other humans dying being bad for me in some way.

Okay.... I wouldn't say the premise is unsupported.

Take yourself, for example. You're currently existing within a society that is living in/with the benefits of three to four hundred years of the fruits regarding the applications of scientific inquiry.

Lower the population enough... and such levels of society, the sharing of work load needed for every one to have roughly the same level of 'Free' time will not be sustainable or possible.

As the number drops, I agree with yourself, that the 'level' of people's lives will be again reduced to substance agricultural practices. Modern, industrial, farming practices must have the current levels of development to work the way they do.. to produce as much as they do so that the amount of 'easily' available food is around to allow society to be able to function in the way it does (Note: I am not disagreeing that there are potentially horrendous errors and mistakes in such methods)

So... drop the population even more? Potentially even subsistence farming is no longer possible. Reducing people to living in a 'Hunter/Gathering' method of living. assuming they are now within the narrower bands of climate where such is possible (Yes, I know there are some specialized groups who can and do successfully survive at such a level in what the general population consider 'Extreme'. But, before industrialized society interacted with them, their numbers were very low.. in part due to the rigors of the environment they'd developed the society to live in.)

So... there's some thoughts on 'Why' other humans dying is bad for you. In a completely abstract way, even.

Much cheers to you and yours.

1) The reason I bring up scientific testable data, is because that was other's stated standards for believing in things. Morality based on God is nonsense, because God is not scientifically testable and what not. Yet morality based on the idea that human life matters, an equally unscientific notion, is standard.

2) You've given an example why a lot of humans dying in a specific scenario may be bad for me. A murderous psychopath says he wants to be my friend so we could hang out, and that eventually he wants to steal my eyeballs. I should not be friends with him. That doesn't mean I should never make friends. I understand your bigger picture abstract stuff, but I don't think it's applicable here.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: