No morality, just ethics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This seems to assume that all others use "morality" to refer to some external standard. That is not a valid assumption.
No that's not my assumption. I know when it comes to atheists they tend to inflate their own personal opinions to be a subjective morality, but I also recognise that they expect others to follow their own subjective morality.

And I counter your anecdata with my anecdata: to wit, no, they don't.

(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just look at Chas here, already throwing insult ad hominem non sequitur attacks at me for not conforming to his personal moral standard.

He said your answer seemed to show a lack of empathy. That is not an "insult ad hominem non sequitur personal attack" (histrionic much?). It is a statement of opinion.

(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your closing assertion is a fundamental non sequitur, unless one genuinely presupposes others to act for literally no reason.
(or, you know, you, as C, declaring that "A does not affect B" does not make it so)
There are many, many people who look to intervene even when things don't impact them personally, just look at laws against gay marriage, against prostitution, against polygomy...

Uh, you're only doing exactly what I said not to, there... do you realize that?

You say things "don't impact them personally". You're free to think so. I am trying to tell you that they think they do, or else they self-evidently wouldn't act accordingly. I would not have thought that a difficult or controversial proposition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-10-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This seems to assume that all others use "morality" to refer to some external standard. That is not a valid assumption.
No that's not my assumption. I know when it comes to atheists they tend to inflate their own personal opinions to be a subjective morality, but I also recognise that they expect others to follow their own subjective morality. Just look at Chas here, already throwing insult ad hominem non sequitur attacks at me for not conforming to his personal moral standard.

I commented that you appear to lack empathy because you express absolutely no concern for harm to anyone but yourself.

And you should look up what 'ad hominem' and 'non sequitur' actually mean because you don't display an understanding of those terms.

Quote:
(20-10-2014 12:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your closing assertion is a fundamental non sequitur, unless one genuinely presupposes others to act for literally no reason.
(or, you know, you, as C, declaring that "A does not affect B" does not make it so)
There are many, many people who look to intervene even when things don't impact them personally, just look at laws against gay marriage, against prostitution, against polygomy...

What? Talk about non sequiturs. Facepalm

Let's stick to the point of actually witnessing actual harm.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-10-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No that's not my assumption. I know when it comes to atheists they tend to inflate their own personal opinions to be a subjective morality, but I also recognise that they expect others to follow their own subjective morality.

And I counter your anecdata with my anecdata: to wit, no, they don't.

(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just look at Chas here, already throwing insult ad hominem non sequitur attacks at me for not conforming to his personal moral standard.

He said your answer seemed to show a lack of empathy. That is not an "insult ad hominem non sequitur personal attack" (histrionic much?). It is a statement of opinion.

(20-10-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are many, many people who look to intervene even when things don't impact them personally, just look at laws against gay marriage, against prostitution, against polygomy...

Uh, you're only doing exactly what I said not to, there... do you realize that?

You say things "don't impact them personally". You're free to think so. I am trying to tell you that they think they do, or else they self-evidently wouldn't act accordingly. I would not have thought that a difficult or controversial proposition.

The odor of libretardism is strong. Consider

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
20-10-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  I commented that you appear to lack empathy because you express absolutely no concern for harm to anyone but yourself.

And you should look up what 'ad hominem' and 'non sequitur' actually mean because you don't display an understanding of those terms.
I never offered any information regarding to my own emotions (whether I have concerns for the plight of others or not). This is not to say that I lack emotions, all it says to you is that my emotions are unknown to you.

Your claim that I lack empathy was unfounded, and a non sequitur because your conclusion had no relevance to any of the information presented. You simply jumped to that assumption.

Your claim was also an ad hominem because you chose to focus an attack directed at a judgement of my own personality rather than address the points and arguments being made. It's a typical path I see you often take.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is not an "insult ad hominem non sequitur personal attack" (histrionic much?). It is a statement of opinion.
As is always the case with insult ad hominem non sequitur personal attacks they are also statements of opinions.

The logic you presented here is somewhat faulty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You say things "don't impact them personally". You're free to think so. I am trying to tell you that they think they do, or else they self-evidently wouldn't act accordingly. I would not have thought that a difficult or controversial proposition.
There are many people who have moral beliefs, that believe in right and wrong. That believe they have a moral obligation to stop others from behaving immorally.

Many times people act even if it does not impact them personally. They feel they are doing the right thing, ridding the world of immorality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 02:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  I commented that you appear to lack empathy because you express absolutely no concern for harm to anyone but yourself.

And you should look up what 'ad hominem' and 'non sequitur' actually mean because you don't display an understanding of those terms.
I never offered any information regarding to my own emotions (whether I have concerns for the plight of others or not). This is not to say that I lack emotions, all it says to you is that my emotions are unknown to you.

Your claim that I lack empathy was unfounded, and a non sequitur because your conclusion had no relevance to any of the information presented. You simply jumped to that assumption.

Your claim was also an ad hominem because you chose to focus an attack directed at a judgement of my own personality rather than address the points and arguments being made. It's a typical path I see you often take.

Nice try at deflection.
The comment about lack of empathy is directed at your statements that if something doesn't affect you directly then it is not your concern.

That is not an ad hominem, but a rational conclusion based on the evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-10-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You say things "don't impact them personally". You're free to think so. I am trying to tell you that they think they do, or else they self-evidently wouldn't act accordingly. I would not have thought that a difficult or controversial proposition.
There are many people who have moral beliefs, that believe in right and wrong. That believe they have a moral obligation to stop others from behaving immorally.

Many times people act even if it does not impact them personally. They feel they are doing the right thing, ridding the world of immorality.

I am addressing actual harm, not morality. Do try to stay on track.

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
20-10-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 12:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 05:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  -- Individual behaviours which collectively determine the culture of the enterprise and is dependent on both organisational and individual ethics.
People are adaptable.
Often when introduced into an established culture we assess and generally conform, in order to fit in, and to succeed within that culture.
Culture and behaviours are more than just ethics.

Cultures are very difficult to change, the path of lest resistance is to try and fit in.

Exactly.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: No morality, just ethics?
(20-10-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You say things "don't impact them personally". You're free to think so. I am trying to tell you that they think they do, or else they self-evidently wouldn't act accordingly. I would not have thought that a difficult or controversial proposition.
There are many people who have moral beliefs, that believe in right and wrong.

The best definitions of morality I have seen are that it amounts to the mechanism we use to answer the question "what should I do?". Do note that this amounts to "there are many people who have opinions".

For example, I am also of the opinion that water is wet.

(20-10-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That believe they have a moral obligation to stop others from behaving immorally.

Some do, in some times and some places, regarding some actions.

So what?

(20-10-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Many times people act even if it does not impact them personally. They feel they are doing the right thing, ridding the world of immorality.

Great! Now connect the dots: your feels as to whose actions affect whom are not privileged.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: