Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
I think the idea of "set" or "Absolute" morals is nonsense, some one here keeps harping on about it.

We evolved morals as a result of self preservation, probably from darwin award non-recipients along with taught social norms.
Ethics are more of an intellectual appraisal of many factors along with morals.
morals won't stop someone from doing a perceived bad deed, but it will help them think about the consequences of the action.

Its disturbingly obvious from wars that self preservation can trump morals on a industrial scale.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sporehux's post
09-11-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(08-11-2013 11:25 PM)sporehux Wrote:  I think the idea of "set" or "Absolute" morals is nonsense, some one here keeps harping on about it.

We evolved morals as a result of self preservation, probably from darwin award non-recipients along with taught social norms.
Ethics are more of an intellectual appraisal of many factors along with morals.
morals won't stop someone from doing a perceived bad deed, but it will help them think about the consequences of the action.

Its disturbingly obvious from wars that self preservation can trump morals on a industrial scale.

To some extent I take your point on the definition differences between ethics and morals. Ethics do involve a process of intellectual appraisal and it's why I prefer it. I find morals in isolation too basic and inflexible where as a sound ethical foundation is much more valuable and functional to me.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2013, 04:02 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
I take morality to be individual and ethics to be communal.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2013, 04:18 AM
Re: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
How's this thread still going?

You follow what the coconut God tells you to do; nothing less, nothing more.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2013, 04:49 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(09-11-2013 04:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How's this thread still going?

People keep posting here. Poopyhead. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:31 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Ah, you mean the miracle cures... yes, unexplained healing *must* be the work of an invisible homicidal maniac with an incomprehensible master plan.

As if "homicide" has anything to do with "healing"! Think, moron, think!

A small sideline to the main argument here.

Dearthair, morondog was commenting on your writing about the healing done. First he was pointing out the fallacy of gap-filling (where "I don't know how that happened" automatically means "a deity exists and is responsible for that event"). Second he was pointing out the nature of the deity involved as a separate part, namely that said deity is an invisible, homicidal maniac. This rather knock the idea that the entity involved is a 'good' one since any good deeds such as healing that came after do not excuse the evil deeds that came before.

These are separate traits and can be combined in a single entity.
Evidence of the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

Also, please note how I have presented this. I have made a statement and provided a link to the evidence I am citing. If you are going to claim evidence and then failing to provide easy access to the source of your evidence (saying 'Google it' doesn't count, though mentioning the book it comes from is) is laziness on YOUR part, not that of the reader. This provides the possibility of allowing others to attack the validity of your source (though I would hope that it would be something more than "don't believe that guy, he's an idiot" without any discourse on WHY said person should be discounted).

I have provided a statement: that a being can be a 'healer' AND a 'homicidal maniac'. I have provided evidence of such. You are now free to attack my statement on logic or by attacking the validity of my source.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OddGamer's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: