- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/31/14 at 5:12 pm to constant cough
quote:
I mean you can toss up all the statics you like but it still just doesn't seem believable compared to what I see out in the world
I guess that settles it then. Constant coughs view of the world >>>>>> objective data
Posted on 7/31/14 at 5:21 pm to Korkstand
quote:That may be one aspect to morality, but there are "moral" issues that extend beyond an individual's interaction with or impact on other humans (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "society"). There are people who believe it is immoral to "harm the planet", regardless of its impact on humanity. Some believe it is immoral to kill animals, regardless of the impact on other individuals (people). Some believe it is immoral to do certain things to your own body, regardless of whether or not it impacts others.
Morality has no meaning outside the context of a society and the interaction between its participants, so the standard for objective morality is whether or not an action by one negatively impacts the participation of another.
If morality was only relegated to cause and effect in relation to other people in society, then these types of issues should not exist.
quote:But why? Even within the context of simple existence, those examples of logical moral standards are not applied universally. Does "do not kill" or "do not harm" apply in all situations, or just when my own existence is involved (meaning, can I harm/kill someone else to preserve my life)? What about theft? Is it logically immoral to steal from someone else if it means saving my own life?
When you eliminate all subjective goals of a society (advancement, prosperity, etc) and strip it down to the essence of what a society is (simply coexisting), what remains is a very basic set of logical morals: do not kill, harm, steal... Everything else is subjective.
Who determines the circumstances around those moral conundrums in regards to what is acceptable and what is not?
I would proffer the notion that even these "logical" moral standards are still subjective based on your own subjective standard of "do no harm". There is nothing logical in nature that states that "do not kill", "do not harm", and "do not steal" are necessary moral conclusions. In fact, we can see those moral standards being violated all the time in nature (and we are supposedly just more evolved animals). What makes us different and why should we even care about morality? Why exactly should "do not harm" be my moral standard?
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 7/31/14 at 5:46 pm to NC_Tigah
Your "critical thinking" needs some fleshing out, my friend.
From where do you derive the "fact" that the essence of society is "simply coexisting"?
Furthermore you need to outline exactly how you jump from that "fact" to the conclusion that killing, stealing, and harming are objectively wrong.
quote:
When you eliminate all subjective goals of a society (advancement, prosperity, etc) and strip it down to the essence of what a society is (simply coexisting), what remains is a very basic set of logical morals: do not kill, harm, steal... Everything else is subjective.
From where do you derive the "fact" that the essence of society is "simply coexisting"?
Furthermore you need to outline exactly how you jump from that "fact" to the conclusion that killing, stealing, and harming are objectively wrong.
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 7/31/14 at 6:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:There are different ways to harm the planet, but obviously certain methods can disrupt or even destroy a society, so objective morality is dependent on whether a particular action can be proven objectively immoral. Killing animals for sport, or modifying one's body, are subjective.
That may be one aspect to morality, but there are "moral" issues that extend beyond an individual's interaction with or impact on other humans (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "society"). There are people who believe it is immoral to "harm the planet", regardless of its impact on humanity. Some believe it is immoral to kill animals, regardless of the impact on other individuals (people). Some believe it is immoral to do certain things to your own body, regardless of whether or not it impacts others.
quote:We are differentiating between objective and subjective morality. There will always be issues to discuss.
If morality was only relegated to cause and effect in relation to other people in society, then these types of issues should not exist.
quote:Because morality only has meaning in a society (even if it's only two people), thus any action that threatens the very existence of society threatens morality itself. As long as humans have an innate desire to live and to be free, then certain actions can be logically determined to be immoral.
But why?
quote:I should have said "do not murder" rather than kill. Anyway, killing to prevent murder, or theft to prevent death, must be justified, and this is stepping out of the realm of objective and into the realm of subjective morality.
Even within the context of simple existence, those examples of logical moral standards are not applied universally. Does "do not kill" or "do not harm" apply in all situations, or just when my own existence is involved (meaning, can I harm/kill someone else to preserve my life)? What about theft? Is it logically immoral to steal from someone else if it means saving my own life?
quote:Society and its participants, of course.
Who determines the circumstances around those moral conundrums in regards to what is acceptable and what is not?
quote:Animals generally only kill to survive, and also they generally do not kill their own kind. That said, we should care about morality because we can care about morality. That's what makes us different.
I would proffer the notion that even these "logical" moral standards are still subjective based on your own subjective standard of "do no harm". There is nothing logical in nature that states that "do not kill", "do not harm", and "do not steal" are necessary moral conclusions. In fact, we can see those moral standards being violated all the time in nature (and we are supposedly just more evolved animals). What makes us different and why should we even care about morality? Why exactly should "do not harm" be my moral standard?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 6:25 pm to Kracktastic
quote:From the definition of the word. Different societies have different sets of goals, but the one thing that participants of each society share is a desire to coexist and/or cooperate. Do you not agree? If not, what would you say is the essence of a society?
From where do you derive the "fact" that the essence of society is "simply coexisting"?
quote:To kill is to deprive another of his innate desire to live, and also his implied desire to participate in society. This one shouldn't be much of a "jump". "Do not harm" was meant to cover things like rape, slavery, violence, etc. These actions deprive another of his innate desire to be free and unharmed, and also his implied desire to participate in society. I considered not including theft, but I did because personal property, space, and a place to call "home" seem to be innate desires of not only humans, but also for many animals. Depriving another of his belongings is detrimental to his participation in society. This is probably the biggest "jump", because there are surely cases that are subjective.
Furthermore you need to outline exactly how you jump from that "fact" to the conclusion that killing, stealing, and harming are objectively wrong.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 7:57 pm to amsterdam
quote:
Consider that if a new country sprung up and decided over time it was prudent for the success of the country to kill all first born children
An example of something God apparently did in the bible.
So, you claim that objective morality exists because of God.
Then, you list an example (one of many) where God takes a subjective view of his stated morality, and kills all first born children for some greater purpose.
If what God does is always moral, then morality is not objective.
If what God does is not always moral, then God is a major a-hole, unworthy of being worshipped.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 8:22 pm to benhamin5555
once it's legal, will churches be forced to bake the proverbial homo cake?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 9:51 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
Okay, I really want to understand your position here. I am pretty sure I will disagree with you, but I want to clarify.
Is it your stance that objectively moral behavior is defined by human reason, and human reason alone?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 10:04 pm to RTOTA
quote:
Then, you list an example (one of many) where God takes a subjective view of his stated morality, and kills all first born children for some greater purpose. If what God does is always moral, then morality is not objective
It is not an objective moral truth that God should not kill. It is an objective moral truth that people should not murder.
You see we exist for no reason other than God willing it. If he wills our bodies to die that's his call. Also, if He wills a sinless person to die that person will end up in a much better place very quickly.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 10:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Some believe it is immoral to do certain things to your own body, regardless of whether or not it impacts others.
Just because a belief exists doesn't mean there is any good reason to accept it. There is nothing in our existence which objectively points to the kind of morality you speak of, not one damn thing.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 10:56 pm to Kracktastic
quote:
You see we exist for no reason other than God willing it. If he wills our bodies to die that's his call. Also, if He wills a sinless person to die that person will end up in a much better place very quickly.
Using this kind of reasoning, one can convince themselves of literally anything by invoking God. It's a pointless way to got through life, because it completely removes logic, common sense and sensory perception from the equation.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:08 am to Kracktastic
quote:This whole sidebar started because amsterdam claimed that god is the only source of all objective moral values, and that non-believers can only live by their own subjective morals. It is my claim that a basic set of universal objective morals can be deduced logically, given the innate human/animal desire to live and be free. The extended set of morals many of us live by, while subjective, are defined by human reason, compassion, and empathy. Further, it seems clear that the morals laid out in the bible are similarly defined by human reason, compassion, and empathy, making them somewhat subjective, and therefore no different than any other set of human morals. They are a reflection of the people and society that wrote them, and generally accepted moral values are likely to change as society does. To hang on to two thousand year old principles is to ignore reason and logic in the name of supposed objectivity. They didn't have much of a problem with slavery back then, and that is reflected in the bible. Slavery advocates even used the bible to justify their practices. It's just a poor choice of text to base your moral values on.
Okay, I really want to understand your position here. I am pretty sure I will disagree with you, but I want to clarify.
Is it your stance that objectively moral behavior is defined by human reason, and human reason alone?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:04 am to benhamin5555
Marriage has been a social and religious arrangement for thousands of years that has supported the continuation of the human race by creating the best environment for raising offspring.
Just because a bunch of you clowns now want to suck dick and not feel guilty about it doesn't in my opinion seem like a good reason to change.
Just because a bunch of you clowns now want to suck dick and not feel guilty about it doesn't in my opinion seem like a good reason to change.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:52 am to SquatchDawg
If marriage is for the continuation of the human race then why let people who cannot bear children marry?
I have news for you, gay people will have sex with or without marriage.
And if you want marriage to stay the same as it has been for thousands of years then you'll make divorce illegal a women the chattel of men.
There is no non-religious reason against same sex marriage which means the state has no legitimate reason to ban it which means it's done. There will be same sex marriage in every state by 2016.
Deal with it.
I have news for you, gay people will have sex with or without marriage.
And if you want marriage to stay the same as it has been for thousands of years then you'll make divorce illegal a women the chattel of men.
There is no non-religious reason against same sex marriage which means the state has no legitimate reason to ban it which means it's done. There will be same sex marriage in every state by 2016.
Deal with it.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:09 am to Vegas Bengal
Don't stop at same sex marriage.
Keep expanding the definition. Plural marriage for example.
Keep expanding the definition. Plural marriage for example.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:13 am to Semaphore
The state actually has legitimate reasons to ban plural marriage because of problems with laws dealing with inheritance, child support, spousal benefits for social security and VA, insurance... Lots of reasons all nonreligious.
Me I don't care but I'm answering your question
Me I don't care but I'm answering your question
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:21 am to Vegas Bengal
There are plenty of unmarried people with kids from multiple partners. We have laws that already deal with them.
The days of 'illegitimate' kids not inheriting are long gone. Baby mamas get support anyway why not let 3 or 4 of them live under the same roof and call themselves married to baby daddy?
The days of 'illegitimate' kids not inheriting are long gone. Baby mamas get support anyway why not let 3 or 4 of them live under the same roof and call themselves married to baby daddy?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:22 am to amsterdam
quote:
Buddhism moral values are based on betterment of oneself and enlightenment only.
+
Which would support a subjective moral value set
Absolutely wrong because again you know nothing about my religion. Our moralities or 8-fold path as it is called is based on the 4 noble truths.
The truths are permanent and set in stone as your God is in your religion (not arguing the existence of god. A God may or may not exist I don't know).
A lot of Buddhism is discovering your own path and some morals gained through this can be subjective Ill grant you, but to say every single one is subjective based on the fact my religion doesn't worship a God is being very close minded and ignorant of things that exist outside of your own beliefs.
Your basically saying my morals are better than yours because I believe in God. Which considering some of the morals taught in religions based on a God is laughable.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:43 am to Semaphore
Ok what happens when a man with 5 wives divorces one in a community property state?
What happens at the death of one wife?
Of the husband?
How do you divide property?
Again, I don't care. I'm just telling you the state has legitimate reasons.
What happens at the death of one wife?
Of the husband?
How do you divide property?
Again, I don't care. I'm just telling you the state has legitimate reasons.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News