|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:43 AM |
|
|
|
Happiness is COMPLETELY relative and subjective. Easy to check: happiness is when the pain fades away.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:45 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:46, 23 May 2013.
|
|
Frienship is good for you, let's say that's unconditionally right, what's the universal moral norm that comes out of this? How will it in any fashion be legalized. I'm not even mentioning the fact that sometimes moral norms and legal rights contradict: You have a right to be very ungenerous.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 12:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You asked about objective human nature and happiness, and I provided some examples. Some of what I listed, such as justice and rationality, does apply to rights, albeit indirectly. Of course, "What is good for a human?" and "What rights exist, if any?" are separate questions, although the answer to the second depends on the first. In particular, because self-preservation is vitally important for a human, it is good to have non-aggression. There are other things that are good for humans, some of which I listed, but they do not necessarily have anything to do with rights (although some of them do). As far as justice goes, it is conducive to one's happiness to act justly, assuming one is a mentally healthy human. That does not mean that someone who is unjust cannot be happy - someone who smokes can live to an old age, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for your health - but that lack of justice in personal conduct reduces happiness, and the presence of justice increases it. Though you're right in that what is just is determined by principles, what I'm saying by listing justice is that it is a fact about human nature that being just is conducive to happiness.
This is so completely and utterly wrong because it misses the fact that humans are not seeing things in a rational and objective way, but in a completely subjective way that is based on one's feelings. If your feeling says, you have been wronged, your brain can say a thousand times that this is just your subjective impression, but in fact no one wanted you harm - you will still feel very bad and very unhappy (which is the reason why you cannot try and solve an argument by explaining your counterpart why he has no objective reason to be pissed.)
In truth, the overwhelming majority of humans would characterize as being and acting just. In truth, most aggression is viewed as a REACTION. Most people think of themselves as being GOOD. In truth, only a minimum of people would explain an unhappiness as their own fault.
We have that phenomenon discussed with other issues. For the sinner, a sin can be sin only (and repented) when the sinner admits (or realizes) that they are sinning.
If you ask any number of people about how they experienced a situation, what actually happened, who did what and who was right and who was wrong, who started what, and so on, you will get any number of different answers. That's what makes justice such an elusive idea.
Which means, if there IS a human nature at this point, then it's determining factor is subjectivity and that means differences in perception which in turn leads to confrontation.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 05:21 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:26, 23 May 2013.
|
There's just not much to support that we're like robots in the sense that we are all programmed with some common values on what makes us happy or what we perceive as right or wrong. If there is such a human nature then I'll continue on JJ:s track and say that it is defined by subjectivity. As threads like this clearly prove.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 08:51 PM |
|
|
artu:
The universal moral norm that comes from friendship being good is that everyone who doesn't have friends should be at least somewhat open to meeting new people and getting to know them. It may be somewhat counterintuitive to think of having friends as a moral issue, but if morality is about how to live the good life, then some of it is personal - it's not entirely interpersonal.
JJ:
Aggression isn't as pervasive as you think, because you're defining it too broadly. It's true that not all aggression is physical (for example, fraud is aggression), but competition is not aggression. Also, being insulted is not aggression either. Aggression is felt subjectively in that if someone consents to having physical pain inflicted on them (say, BDSM people), it's not aggression, but otherwise, it's objective. If you feel that you've been wronged, it does not necessary mean that you've actually been wronged. For example, some people think homosexuals are harming them by having gay sex in private - just knowing that it happens is unpleasant to them. Does it mean that that these people are actually being harmed? Of course not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:00 PM |
|
|
What happened, Mvass, abduction by aliens?
I haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about, actually. BDSM? What has that got to do with anything?
It would seem, that you don't understand the concept of subjectivity. It doesn't matter whether you are objectively a victim of an aggression or not. What matters is what you THINK. And if you think, YES, well...
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:02 PM |
|
|
When you say how the people should behave, your point automatically becomes invalid. People behave like they want to behave, period. There's no moral code or official law which can make everyone to behave in the same manner. That is why the laws and their enforcement are based on what is practically achievable and even if they function as intended, they still presume that there will be people who will break them. No such people means no necessity for such laws.
And by the way, you can ignore me as much as you want but your arguments won't gain any extra weight because of this. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:26 PM |
|
|
JJ:
The point about BDSM is that while it would normally be harmful to tie people up and whip them, consent makes it okay.
And if you think you're a victim of aggression but you're actually not, then you should revise your ideas of what aggression is. Bring your beliefs in line with reality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:04 PM |
|
|
|
Okay, it's now clear that you do not understand the concept of subjectivity, which is too bad, because it actually explains a lot.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 05:08 PM |
|
|
You know, I never really understood the basic concepts of morals and ethics, but since we already have a thread for it, I think I might as well ask here.
Is it true that moral is what you think is right?
Ethics is what society says is right? Or maybe rather what one think society should be like (chaos vs. order)?
After playing Dungeons and Dragons, I was told that the lawful/chaos alignment describes how ethical one is, while the good/evil alginment describes ones morality.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 05:33 PM |
|
|
|
There are many definitions for both but the most general and agreed upon difference would be, while morality is the values of right and wrong itself, ethics is a philosophical branch that studies and questions the nature and validity of those values. So its kind of like the difference between gardening and botanics.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 07:01 PM |
|
|
I believe I got morality right then. 
artu said:
ethics is a philosophical branch that studies and questions the nature and validity of those values.
Would be awesome if you could come with some specific examples of that 
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 07:09 PM |
|
|
Any philosopher (which is like all of them) that asks what is right and wrong, what is virtuous, how should one behave in life etc etc is in the field of Ethics. It is one of the 4 main branches, (the others being Ontology, Epistemology, Aesthetics).
Sokrates' Apology, Nietzsche's Ecce Homo, Kant's Metaphysics of Morals... There are too many examples to count...
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 07:13 PM |
|
|
Alright, thank you for elaborating. While I'm not entirely certain on it yet, I'm sure I'll be after having finished my recent started classes on philosophy in science and ethics.
I mean, imagine if I go to the exam without knowing what one of the words of the title of class really means
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 07:19 PM |
|
|
|
Wiki can be a good place to start for you. It's at least more elaborating than my three or four sentences.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:06 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:26, 17 Oct 2014.
|
Stevie said:
Inside a world where there's only human morality, my morality is not any lower or any higher than yours or anyone else's. And since we can't find common ground at an ideological level, then the only thing that's left is "might makes right". If you're happy living, then fight to live. If I'm happy killing you, then I'll fight to kill you. In the end it's my happiness vs. yours. There's no reason for me to put your happiness above mine like there's no reason for you to put mine above yours.
To answer why I skipped this part, the main reason I skipped it was, I was about to go to bed and I felt too sleepy to search for the proper thread, which the question was already answered by me and many others. Not that if I wasn't sleepy, the question would be especially intriguing or sophisticated enough to produce any intellectual challenge. On the contrary, it's very outdated and had been quite the bubble gum theists have been chewing only to convince themselves for quite a while now.
1- Even if being Godless resulted in a society that made all our actions arbitrary, that does not make God true, since the external reality of the universe is not determined by what is good or practical for humans.
2- That being said, not only human behavior but behavior of many high mammals that live in groups had been studied in the last century, showing clearly that we all posses varying degrees of affection, care and respect for our fellow group members. Not only post-modern societies where extreme majority of people are non-religious simply because they find the stories and the concept of an invisible cop too primitive, fit to that pattern, but also pre-modern societies which are not theistic, not monotheistic or where their gods don't specifically forbid to kill or rape, fit to that pattern. (Speaking of, I'm quite positive people who kill in the name of God easily outnumber potential murderers who prevent themselves from doing so because of him, through out the course of history.) Morality not being super-natural does not make morality absolutely arbitrary and the plain truth is if they don't have anti-social personality disorder of some sort, people don't kill or rape for happiness, no matter what their faith is. So there is absolutely no reason to even consider a causality between monotheism and morality, if anything, us having moral values already resulted in the monotheistic God to be imagined as a guardian of morality and looking at how any religious morality directly mirrors the morality of the specific time and society it has been created in, that's a no-brainer to observe.
3- The subjectivity you present won't vanish when someone arbitrarily claims their actions are the rules of God, since that claim is also as subjective as proposing "murder is wrong." One can easily claim to kill the heathens is the desired action from God just as well and that is not something very hypothetical, unlike claiming people would turn into monsters without God. As long as a god don't prove himself to everybody on a one on one basis, like we are all prophets who communicate with him directly, you will have subjectivity, interpretation and different outcome about what is moral or not even within the people of the same faith. (Just look at Christians debating about the death penalty.) Meanwhile, things as blatant as killing for fun or raping children will not be accepted by the extreme majority for socio-biological reasons alone.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:39 PM |
|
|
|
I don't see the relevance of your answer for what you quoted from Stevie.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:51 PM |
|
|
|
You are ignoring his context in that case, which is god changes that. He wrote that to defend the Abrahamic god. If you have anything to say about why it is irrelevant, be my guest.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:52 PM |
|
|
|
We'll debate when you start comprehending what you quote.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:54 PM |
|
|
|
You very well know I do, I can carry the rest of your posts here, too. The reality is you have no valid answer.
|
| |
|
|
