User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 73

  1. #41
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    My point is that without religion (or at least a God for deists) moral relativism is the only logical stance. You might be able to develop and build a more complex belief system like you just provided, but I don't see how this means anything if at the bottom of it every good is totally subjective. Even words like "maximize" and "potential" would be subjective outside of a created order. Universal complexity wouldn't have a higher value than that which is simple it's just different. It just is.
    Perhaps morality is an abstraction of feeling, telling us how we must or rather did relate to others in the past. Perhaps feelings correlate with physical processes upon which an objective morality can be built.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  2. #42
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    I see no way to navigate this space with enough respect toward both of the different religions, unless you're just culturally religious. But I sincerely hope that you figure it out!
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  3. #43
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Can you say that anything is objectively bad or good?
    No, but neither can you. You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?

    To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.

  4. #44
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Imo, parents should let their children think for themselves. They should not force or induce their children to go to churches or pray for Allah or God or Thor or Zeus unless he/she actually decided to believe the given deity does exist.
    Wait until he/she gets old enough and tell him/her:
    ''I believe in God, your father believes in Allah, some people don't believe in any of those. Since I can't prove you that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and neither can your dad, you should try to find your own truth. If you wanna hear more about my views, I'm willing to share them with you in an informative tone.''
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  5. #45
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Imo, parents should let their children think for themselves. They should not force or induce their children to go to churches or pray for Allah or God or Thor or Zeus unless he/she actually decided to believe the given deity does exist.
    Wait until he/she gets old enough and tell him/her:
    ''I believe in God, your father believes in Allah, some people don't believe in any of those. Since I can't prove you that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and neither can your dad, you should try to find your own truth. If you wanna hear more about my views, I'm willing to share them with you in an informative tone.''
    And then the result of an anti-authoritarian education is your child dressing as Darth Vader and going to Star Trek conventions... ok thats prolly better than him dressing with a bomb belt.

    The point is, no authority is no solution as well. Most people wouldnt know what to do with themselves without an authority or a goal. Thats why religion is so popular.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #46
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Perhaps morality is an abstraction of feeling, telling us how we must or rather did relate to others in the past. Perhaps feelings correlate with physical processes upon which an objective morality can be built.
    Perhaps that's true.
    If you were a Judge what would you think about sentencing a murderer to death or life in prison based on what you believed were your and society's feelings?

    What if you were judged a heretic by a Christian theocracy and put to death?
    Would you think it's unfair and unjust or would think it was unfortunate society had different feelings from you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    No, but neither can you.
    By what authority do you tell me what I can and cannot do?
    Why would you tell a madman who wants to nuke the world "whatever you feel like." Yet, you presume to tell me what I can and cannot believe. Even if I'm being illogical why the hell does it matter in a world where it's ok to blow up the world?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?
    Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.
    Utility and purpose serve a role in determining what is good, but I believe there is a standard for what is good outside of ourselves and that some things have inherent value.

    A hammer may seem good to an individual for smashing in a human skull, but it is bad because it violates a higher law and ignores the inherent value in humans.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #47
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.
    That particular example confuses me, as the outcome is still the same if you've got two moral relativists arguing vs two people with concrete but different valuesets. In the first game, no one scores and both go home without anyone having won; in the second game, both sides claim that they've scored goals and are the victor, and by objective standards STILL both go home with their balls and a lack of objective acknowledgement of victory.

    There's no real difference to the outside observer, because there is no observable and agreed-up "final standard" by which to evaluate who won the game. Just because the captain of each football team declares for himself what his particular goal is / should be doesn't change anything in regards to the external observer's view; you can only play a game if both people agree on what constitutes victory or if an authority outside the game imposes the requirements for victory.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #48
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    By what authority do you tell me what I can and cannot do?
    Why would you tell a madman who wants to nuke the world "whatever you feel like." Yet, you presume to tell me what I can and cannot believe. Even if I'm being illogical why the hell does it matter in a world where it's ok to blow up the world?
    You cannot not because it is not allowed, but because it is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Sure they can say their truth is the objective truth. We wouldn't agree on what that truth was, but at least when we argue it would be over a truth we both agree actually matters outside of ourselves. Two moral relativists arguing is like playing soccer without goals. In the end both take their ball home and neither is a winner by any objective standard.
    Two moral relativists do not argue about what is objectively good. They argue about ends, means and consequences.

    However, the point was that if you talk about the good in your book and the Crowleyist talks about the good in his book, you are both merely talking about the contents of books.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Utility and purpose serve a role in determining what is good, but I believe there is a standard for what is good outside of ourselves and that some things have inherent value.

    A hammer may seem good to an individual for smashing in a human skull, but it is bad because it violates a higher law and ignores the inherent value in humans.
    Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your belief that there is a higher law.

  9. #49
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    @Beefeater, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am advocating a set of universal principles on which morality should be based. So while all feelings have equal "weight" on an individual level the values which benefit the most individuals on a global (or larger) scale are more important in my opinion. I recognize this may piss you off, but in my opinion humanity > Christians alone.

    In the murder scenario, I would sentence the person to life imprisonment for several reasons. 1) It is cheaper than litigating for the death penalty. 2) The death penalty is irreversible and does not allow for the possibility of restitution 3) Often people are falsely convicted and if they are dead, then they cannot be freed so some semblance of justice can occur.

    In the case of the Christian theocracy, I imagine I would disagree with much of what would be decided there because I believe humanity should focus on integration to face global and universal challenges such as colonizing other worlds or curing disease.

    However, if you saw my post on creating "prosocial" communities I would be ok with a community dedicated to christianity however, I think it may turn out very different than you I'magine if all of the principles of pro-sociality were followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    No, but neither can you. You presume that you can because you have accepted the contents of an old collection of texts as truth. But would you say that someone who has accepted the contents of the 'Liber AL vel Legis' as truth can?

    To say that anything is good or bad, we need a standard or a goal. Is a hammer good? Not in itself, but for hammering. Is prostitution good? Not in itself, but for making easy money.
    Wouldn't you say this way of thinking promotes processes that are destructive for individuals and communities? Is it a way of justifying cruelty, where perhaps intervention is more appropriate, even at the risk of violating individual autonomy?
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  10. #50
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That particular example confuses me, as the outcome is still the same if you've got two moral relativists arguing vs two people with concrete but different valuesets. In the first game, no one scores and both go home without anyone having won; in the second game, both sides claim that they've scored goals and are the victor, and by objective standards STILL both go home with their balls and a lack of objective acknowledgement of victory.

    There's no real difference to the outside observer, because there is no observable and agreed-up "final standard" by which to evaluate who won the game. Just because the captain of each football team declares for himself what his particular goal is / should be doesn't change anything in regards to the external observer's view; you can only play a game if both people agree on what constitutes victory or if an authority outside the game imposes the requirements for victory.
    I think we can use logic and reasoning to approach what is objectively true. I think we can find areas of agreement in what is reasonable and logical and work from there. Outsiders who agree on what is reasonable and logical can perceive who's ideas are more coherent and thus more likely to be objectively true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    You cannot not because it is not allowed, but because it is impossible.
    Even if you're right given your worldview isn't such a statement purely pedantic?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Two moral relativists do not argue about what is objectively good. They argue about ends, means and consequences.
    How do they compare ends and consequences?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    However, the point was that if you talk about the good in your book and the Crowleyist talks about the good in his book, you are both merely talking about the contents of books.
    If I'm talking about Pauly Shore films and you're talking about Buster Keaton films are we both just talking about films?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your belief that there is a higher law.
    Do you believe in laws of logic?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  2. MBTI and children
    By Ivy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 01:30 PM
  3. [ISFP] ISFP females and children
    By KLessard in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 03:23 PM
  4. Gay rights, marriage, and adoption
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO