Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(06-05-2015 07:11 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And people of philosophical backgrounds laugh at it.

What people? Far as I know his opponents never even bothered addressing his view, all they did is go and on about his violent illustration.

Quote:What's his audience? Where was this even said or written?

Quote:It's clear how often on here you don't grasp or dismiss how beings are massively controlled by chemicals and social surroundings.

That's true, I don't particularly grasp the supposed coherency of those who argue for moral relativism, because it seems to be the case that it's entirely not there. The only person who seems remotely consistent here is Stevel, and he lacks a belief in morality at all, though he started as a relativist.

And I'm not sure what you saying here about chemicals and social surroundings, perhaps you could apply it to the duck dynasty's guys illustration?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
07-05-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 06:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 07:11 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And people of philosophical backgrounds laugh at it.

What people? Far as I know his opponents never even bothered addressing his view, all they did is go and on about his violent illustration.

Quote:What's his audience? Where was this even said or written?

Quote:It's clear how often on here you don't grasp or dismiss how beings are massively controlled by chemicals and social surroundings.

That's true, I don't particularly grasp the supposed coherency of those who argue for moral relativism, because it seems to be the case that it's entirely not there. The only person who seems remotely consistent here is Stevel, and he lacks a belief in morality at all, though he started as a relativist.

And I'm not sure what you saying here about chemicals and social surroundings, perhaps you could apply it to the duck dynasty's guys illustration?

Who is "he" and who are his opponents? Opponents in what? Is this some comment battle? i wasn't speaking of this comment or anything of it, but the argument itself which is far from new.

I've basically stopped talking about it with Stevil as I used to, but I don't often agree with his definitions of terms like morality in the discussions.

The odd thing is, unless you're just being dishonest; your comments and positions are relativist in their context to. You have stated you don't believe the Bible is inerrant and defend the actions of the Hebrews as fitting for their time. That's a relativist case you make.(Now maybe you're only reaching into the relativist view to try to make your argument and case. A problem I see you seeing with supposed atheists in arguments, because you purposefully in the past left your position out of it, they often do that mental game of arguing against the God/Bible is objectively good case. They seem inconsistent because they're arguing, IF X was the case type of thinking.)

Still what I was getting at before is that It seems you contrast or don't grasp the ideas due to disagreeing on the social and evolutionary impacts on people.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
07-05-2015, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2015 09:40 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 07:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Who is "he"

Uhm, the Duck Dynasty guy.

Quote:and who are his opponents?

Those inclined to disagree with him.

Quote:I've basically stopped talking about it with Stevil as I used to, but I don't often agree with his definitions of terms like morality in the discussions.

What definition is that?

Quote:The odd thing is, unless you're just being dishonest; your comments and positions are relativist in their context to. You have stated you don't believe the Bible is inerrant and defend the actions of the Hebrews as fitting for their time. That's a relativist case you make.

The wrongness of torturing an innocent baby just for fun, is not relative. Some one claiming it is moral, is stating something factually incorrect, like claiming 2+2=5. If you agree with that, you're not a moral relativist, you're a moral realist.

The situational aspects which is likely what you're seeing is relative, does not mean that person is moral relativist. Situation can give rise to competing moral values, such as lying is wrong vs saving an innocent life. To not lie means an innocent life gets taken, while to lie means that an innocent life is saved. This does mean that lying is no longer wrong, or that taking an innocent life is right. But that in an imperfect world, people often find themselves having to commit a wrong, from the right reasons.

It's sort like acknowledging a speed limit, but having to exceed it to rush your critically wounded wife to the hospital. This doesn't mean that legal laws are relative. Nor is a judge who threw out the fine imposed on this speeding husband, showing a lack of respect or failing to acknowledge the law. But that he sees something about the law, beyond it's mere dictate. What is often referred to as the "spirit of the law", where one see why such a law exists in the first place, the concerns and intentions behind it, to see that the speeding husband did not violate it. If the law was designed to insure the safety of others, than his speeding saved the same purpose, to save the life of his wife.

Quote:Still what I was getting at before is that It seems you contrast or don't grasp the ideas due to disagreeing on the social and evolutionary impacts on people.

No, I agree with the social and evolutionary impacts of people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
07-05-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 09:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The wrongness of torturing an innocent baby just for fun, is not relative.

What, like circumcision? Evil_monster

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like houseofcantor's post
07-05-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(06-05-2015 08:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Now, you can accept my point, you can rebut my point, or you can set up another post from me where I point out your dodginess. The choice is yours.

Still waiting ... though you appear to have chosen avoidance; I clearly forgot the last refuge of those lacking an argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(06-05-2015 08:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Actually, when the point is made absent the gruesome imagery, it is rebutted handily. I could link you to plenty of threads on the topic, if you don't believe me; I could link you to in-depth rebuttals from well-known atheists, and eviscerating one-line replies from unknowns.

Free on any violent imagery, the point amounts to this:That when push comes to shove atheists who don't believe in right and wrong, will confess a belief in it.

What's the rebuttal? That they won't?

Quote:The point which you're desperately trying to avoid is one I've already made once: Christianity is itself based on moral relativism. Acts of the Christian god -- say, killing every human being who ever lived for the failings of the first two -- are considered good.

You mean relative to humans, and not the author of morality?

And which act of killing every human being are we talking about here? The Great Flood? If you didn't read the rest of the story, God repented of it, was remorseful of his actions, realized he didn't think it through before he did it, so he gave man a peace offering of a rainbow to make up for it, and promised not to repeat himself. I think that was a fair trade.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self." -Ted Bundy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
07-05-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
Morality is instinctual. It comes to us through evolution. We have the drive for preservation of the species, which causes us to be kind to others. We are also born with varying amounts of empathy, as well as instincts such as fight or flight, emotional responses to big eyes (babies) and all sorts of things. We all have these hereditary, evolutionary traits in varying amounts, as they are still evolving and subject to some change. Individuals with no empathy, for example, are pushed aside by society, their behavior is sociopathic. When imprisoned, they will not procreate and the lack of empathy will not be passed on. That's the idea, anyway. They are not evil, they are an evolutionary failure and society will take care of them. They are not successful evolutionary products.

You can see empathy and all other traits each on a curve, and we all fall on some level on that curve.

You act as if all this was free will. It is not. There is only a very small window for free will, it has to be allowed to permit learning in the present life and further evolution. But mostly our behavior is dictated by instincts, personality traits and hormones and chemicals. Actual free will decisions are minute in comparison to predetermined ones.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 05:23 PM)Dom Wrote:  Morality is instinctual.

There's amazonian tribe who murder their handicap children, by burying them alive, seeing them as less that other children. A woman from the same tribe rescued one of these children, seeing the actions of the tribe as wrong. (a true account)

It's easy to see her those emotions, her empathy as instinctual here, as pushing her to save that child's life. But how about the perception that the actions of her tribe were morally wrong?

Do you believe this perception is also instinctual? A product of countless years of biological evolution selecting for such a perception?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 05:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 05:23 PM)Dom Wrote:  Morality is instinctual.

There's amazonian tribe who murder their handicap children, by burying them alive, seeing them as less that other children. A woman from the same tribe rescued one of these children, seeing the actions of the tribe as wrong. (a true account)

It's easy to see her those emotions, her empathy as instinctual here, as pushing her to save that child's life. But how about the perception that the actions of her tribe were morally wrong?

Do you believe this perception is also instinctual? A product of countless years of biological evolution selecting for such a perception?

All this is based on how much empathy you are endowed with. The other side of empathy is anger, it takes anger to drive you to save that child. I am endowed with an excess of empathy, people like me often either take up causes or kill themselves because they cannot stand the pain. You get the energy and motivation to take up a cause from anger about the status quo. Your woman rescuer is an overly (more than her society) empathetic person, and she is angry.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: