|
| 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» |
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:06 PM |
|
|
No, I don't. I'm positive you didn't comprehend what you quoted. That quote alone is correct, I don't see why it wouldn't be. The fact that I consider God to change that at least for me is totally another subject, but you clearly can't distinguish between the two.
Heck, even JJ said your answer is not relevant to what you quoted. So take a step back, read it again, then reconstruct your argument for a world with human morality. I do not need God to point to you that your happiness is equal to mine regardless of what each of us understands by that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:17 PM |
|
|
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.
A lot of your argument rests on this claim. I'd like to see you defend it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:21 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:21, 17 Oct 2014.
|
|
So you want me to defend human equality?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:23 PM |
|
|
No attacking that.
The question was, though, whether a GROUP-oriented morality was more morale than an INDIVIDUAL morality, and if you would answer yes, whether that was a nod to group being morally more important than individual - which is what moral is all about, essentially: can you defend your life risking the lives of others in the process?
But that wasn't what artu answered to.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:31, 17 Oct 2014.
|
That's because I didn't feel the need to carry the rest here:
Stevie said:
You're supposed to conclude that the WAY in which I keep on living is because of my faith in God. Otherwise I'd do anything that I see fit. I wouldn't care if I kill or rape or give someone a flower as long as it makes me happy. And I'd certainly not get behind all the restrictions that get in the way of my personal interests. If I can't live happy then I'd rather die pursuing happiness than living unhappy.
artu said:
I would not prefer to kill or rape and I need no god to prevent me from such things, a lot of Christians dont treat their god as a cop either, you are shallow.
Stevie said:
I didn't think I needed to further explain myself. Whatever makes an individual happy goes. If I find my happiness in illegal things then I will do those things in order to achieve happiness. So what if I kill? What if I destroy? That's what makes me happy! Are you denying my existence happiness? Are you denying me my ultimate goal in life?! I'll freaking annihilate you! Nothing comes in between me and my happiness, none of your human laws that self serve your own happiness at the expense of mine.
artu said:
Just to arbitrarily claim something is above human morality, does not make it above human morality. On the contrary, it makes it ridiculously anthropomorphic.
Stevie said:
That's the kind of reasoning resulting from disbelief in the act of creation by a divine being.
This is not reaching nirvana here exactly, is it? You are saying to justify feeling restricted from doing X or Y hideous act, (whether you actually want to do them or not does not matter), you would need some divine power telling you not to and that would be the only acceptable restriction that can be justified beyond any doubt. The only thing that rules out "whatever makes an individual happy goes" is divine intervention. Basically, you are bringing in an overwhelmingly subjective faith to claim it removes subjectivity from the equation.
@JJ
Nothing he says suggests his comparison is between the social and the individual, human law is social. His comparison is between the divine and secular.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:30 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:32, 17 Oct 2014.
|
Well I avoided group vs individual morality because that's, let's say, a more special case in the sense that is not as evident as individual vs individual.
But ultimately I consider that an argument from quantity is not valid to suppress individual morality. A group can not decide what's moral over me because morality does not follow from numbers. If that's the case then we can have any kind of absurd scenarios where murder is moral because the majority decides it.
@artu, could you please shut up? You're disrupting my conversation with your quote mining.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:37 PM |
|
|
|
No, I wouldn't shut up and you can thank me for that because most probably the only reason the subject is being talked about other than the usual "lol @ Stevie" is because I quoted it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:44 PM |
|
|
@ artu
I don't understand what you are arguing against with Stevie. He says - we agree that human moral povs are all equal; so I base my morality on what an assumed higher being (with a higher morale) says.
No arguing against that either - remember: HIS morality is equal to yours - you can't tell him what he should or should not do, morally.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:54, 17 Oct 2014.
|
You quoted my argument for individual human morality to then proceed to talk about God.
You purposely misquoted me to hide the distinction which I specifically made for you.
artu said:
Just to arbitrarily claim something is above human morality, does not make it above human morality. On the contrary, it makes it ridiculously anthropomorphic.
Followed by my quote which you didn't present in full and in which you can clearly see me making a distinction 
Stevie said:
That's the kind of reasoning resulting from disbelief in the act of creation by a divine being.
But that aside, 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.
Followed by you selectively addressing the first part only
artu said:
Exactly. Except the fact that anybody doesn't especially need to "disbelieve" in God just like anybody doesn't especially need to "disbelieve" in dragons or titans or Medusa. Make no mistake, your faith is as mythological as them.
Followed by me answering back, reiterating the distinction and addressing your selectivity
Stevie said:
That's what you think. Don't serve it like it's the truth. I'm not sure where your audacity comes from when you're obviously an ignorant of the subject.
But another interesting thing is that you chose to quote only that part of the discussion which is more or less off topic, while the real issue I was addressing with the part you didn't quote. Or should we understand something from that?
Followed by you beating it around the bush again
artu said:
God is not a very deep idea, it does not deserve any special treatment, that's my idea, just like water is not coca cola is my idea.
So again:
- I argued that human individual morality is equal no matter what one understands it to be. This is what you quoted.
- I expressed my subjective idea that for me God changes that. That's highly personal and can hardly be subject for debate.
So stop being a troll and address the issue. Everyone else gets it, only you don't.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:53 PM |
|
|
JJ, first of all, I think we both understand that saying any concept of morality is equal is an oversimplification, the social stability and affects of it matter a lot, we've discussed that: Some moral conducts will have a sociologically higher chance of sticking around.
And that's not all he says, he says his is divine and therefore categorically different, what I object to is that part which seems quite obvious to me, it does not become divine when you claim it is divine and that claim is as subjective as someone who has a secular understanding of morality.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:13, 17 Oct 2014.
|
|
Who's being the troll here, Stevie. I quote the part you accuse me of ignoring, you take it out of context, I then present the rest, not requoting the part I brought here in the first place, then you say I skip that part, do you have the memory span of a golden fish?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:59 PM |
|
|
You're being the troll for mixing my argument for human morality with my beliefs which are highly subjective. And I have made the distinction between the two.
Do you want to debate me on human morality, or me on God? Because you quoted me on human morality to then proceed with me on God.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:07 PM |
|
|
I will ask you something, do you think your morality should justify its code of conduct just like any other morality or is it just so because according to you "God said so." Now, since recently you just wrote "Only problem I have with homosexuality is God says its bad" I'm guessing the second one.
I'm not mixing anything, when you claim that all secular codes of morality (or lack of them which counts) are equal, you also hint that while on the other hand your God driven morality is not, that's why you emphasize divine, your faith and your ethics are related, it's not me who mixes them up, it's you who presents one as the source of the other. What I'm telling you is, faith is not a legitimate concept to by-pass the subjectivity that you complain about.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:12 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
So you want me to defend human equality?
I want you to defend the claim that if two people disagree about morality, and there's no God, then neither human can be more right about morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:14 PM |
|
|
Let me get something straight about this whole ordeal:
Tell me if I'm getting something wrong, I need to have a correct vision, because you're giving me a bad idea about this discussion.
It all started when Stevie said that he believes in God, and that is what makes him have hope in life, followed by Artu who questioned if that was really the case
Then Stevie replies that he would be doing crimes if he wasn't restrained by his beliefs, after that, you make a discussion because you think that morality is not determined by a higher power, shifting the conversation from human morality to the existence and the reason to worship God.
I await your response, tell me if I understood correctly or else things will get messy.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:15 PM |
|
|
|
MV, there is no attack, he don't need to defend -there is no doubt about that.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:18 PM |
|
|
you got it right, neraus. at least from my understanding. i'm a little off today. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:22 PM |
|
|
Well, Neraus the critical part is this:
"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."
This indicates that without faith in some super-natural we might as well shift into this dog-eat-dog chaos, which is not the case both empirically and theoretically, ethics is not as simple as suggesting "if there's no god, everything goes." I enlisted the reasons for it, in my first post.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:25 PM |
|
|
|
Doesn't indicate that at all.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:26 PM |
|
|
|
So, all this talk about killing people if it makes you happy etc are just random examples? C'mon JJ...
|
|
|
|
