(May 23, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Fair enough; sometime I would be very interested in hearing how you derive your concept of how things ought to be from the way things really are. The Hefner reference killed me; that was very good by the way.

Glad you enjoyed it.

I wanted to respond to the bolded part above and wanted to be sure that I understood what you are asking. When you refer to things as they really are, do you mean the world we live in that we can see and interact with, or does this include areas where our beliefs do not overlap?

Thank you for the response to the other questions/points that I did not quote here.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:25 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Where do they stone homosexuals in the Middle East? I've been there and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Homosexuality is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and United Arab Emirates. I guess today they hang them more than anything, I should have just said capital punishment.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: My morals are based on my societal norms which means that, to me, it would be morally wrong to rape and murder anyone, regardless of society.

Are people allowed to adopt their own system of morals? Do we have the right to punish someone for murdering or raping another person?

Quote:
From their point of view, yes.

So to you this sentence is impossible, “The entire society willfully condoned the moral atrocities committed by their government”?

Is it morally wrong for someone to disagree with the social norms of the society they live in?

(May 30, 2013 at 12:47 pm)Tonus Wrote: Glad you enjoyed it.

I wanted to respond to the bolded part above and wanted to be sure that I understood what you are asking. When you refer to things as they really are, do you mean the world we live in that we can see and interact with, or does this include areas where our beliefs do not overlap?

Thank you for the response to the other questions/points that I did not quote here.

Hello my friend,

I just do not think it’s possible to construct a proof that establishes the validity of normative statements by appealing to purely descriptive statements.

For example, you said that people ought to get justice for their actions, but I want to know why you think that is true when we live in a world where if God does not exist people never do get justice. Or another example would be, how do you arrive at the statement people ought to not kill one another when people do kill one another quite often. Just wondering, thanks!

(May 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Homosexuality is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and United Arab Emirates. I guess today they hang them more than anything, I should have just said capital punishment.

Not true. Homosexuality is only a capital crime in Iran perhaps, but definitely not in the kingdom, the yemen or the emirates. Sodomy however, is a capital crime in the kingdom and also the yemen. Not sure about the emirates. They behead them in Saudi Arabia.

(May 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: My morals are based on my societal norms which means that, to me, it would be morally wrong to rape and murder anyone, regardless of society.

Are people allowed to adopt their own system of morals? Do we have the right to punish someone for murdering or raping another person?

SOCIETIES are certainly allowed to adopt their own morals and norms. And yes, we have the right to punish them because that is our societal norm.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: From their point of view, yes.

(May 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So to you this sentence is impossible, “The entire society willfully condoned the moral atrocities committed by their government”?

Is it morally wrong for someone to disagree with the social norms of the society they live in?

Not at all. That is entirely possible. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it still makes it acceptable, from their point of view, within their society.

There is not a society on Earth that doesn't have moral dissenters. That doesn't make them morally wrong, but it does make them moral outsiders.

(May 30, 2013 at 6:30 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Not true. Homosexuality is only a capital crime in Iran perhaps, but definitely not in the kingdom, the yemen or the emirates. Sodomy however, is a capital crime in the kingdom and also the yemen. Not sure about the emirates. They behead them in Saudi Arabia.

When I use the term homosexuality I mean sexual relations between people of the same gender, you seem to be using it to mean simply an attraction between two members of the same gender. That's why we are missing each other on this one.

---

(May 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: SOCIETIES are certainly allowed to adopt their own morals and norms. And yes, we have the right to punish them because that is our societal norm.

Ok, so where does the right for societies to adopt their own morality come from?

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: From their point of view, yes.

Not at all. That is entirely possible. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it still makes it acceptable, from their point of view, within their society. [/quote]

Well we’re talking about what is morally right and what is morally wrong are we not? So it is possible for an entire society to act in a manner that is morally wrong?

Quote: There is not a society on Earth that doesn't have moral dissenters. That doesn't make them morally wrong, but it does make them moral outsiders.

What’s the difference between someone behaving in a manner that is morally wrong and someone being a moral outsider?

(May 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: For example, you said that people ought to get justice for their actions, but I want to know why you think that is true when we live in a world where if God does not exist people never do get justice. Or another example would be, how do you arrive at the statement people ought to not kill one another when people do kill one another quite often. Just wondering, thanks!

I was raised Christian, and when I left religion and religious beliefs, I did not change my morals or behaviors for the most part. While I take (or try to take) a more practical approach to those questions, most of the morals I developed during my earlier years have stayed with me because I have not seen reason to abandon them. They served me well as I was growing up and I didn't want to discard them along with religion, that would be like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I think that one factor is that I did not leave religion angrily or bitterly; I just drifted away and after a few years came to terms with what I did and did not believe. I didn't feel a need to rebel against a god that wasn't there or to 'sample the Devil's wares' as it were. The morals that got me safely this far remain useful and are not a reminder of any bad experience. I don't know if that answers your question. I haven't gone through my morals and determined which I retain and which I redefine, I kind of deal with those questions as they come.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This fails for two reasons…


1. Simply because we do something a particular way in this country does not mean that is the just way of doing something.

Of course not, no one ever claimed that it did, but if we're comparing the two and using our (shared, btw) concept of justice - then the godly offering you felt compelled to put on the table falls far far short of the bar.

Quote:2. Even if that were the case, we do punish according to authority in the United States. If you assault a homeless man you’re going to receive a lot less time behind bars than if you assaulted the President of the United States. Shoot a gang member and you’ll receive a lot less time behind bars than if you shot a Police Officer. Crimes against an infinite authority under this same system would necessitate a punishment of infinite duration.

No, we do not. You mentioned two separate crimes with 4 possible victims and failed to realize that in every case the system doling out punitive measures remained the same while your hypothetical sentences were variable. In each example offered - the crime itself, and particularly the victims involved - is being used as the measure of what measure of punitive action is deemed appropriate. So, thank you for demonstrating my point so wonderfully. This is the point where I get to remind you that the best you could hope for with this particular line of bullshit was tq. So congratulations, you managed to fail at making so much as a vacuous argument............


You could, of course, move to some 3rd world shithole where this is how "justice" is handled...but you don't - because you know better. You're a bright guy, and obviously you know that I think you're more often full of shit than faith - but this little quibble has been a new low. How difficult would it have been to say "I mis-spoke", or "I don't know why go does what god does". Nope, couldn't bring yourself to it, you decided to try some garbage on me like A: I was novice, and B: you were a moron. Well, denied on both counts. You're smarter, and I expect better.

(May 30, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: SOCIETIES are certainly allowed to adopt their own morals and norms. And yes, we have the right to punish them because that is our societal norm.

Ok, so where does the right for societies to adopt their own morality come from?

There is no governing body that allows and approved a societies morals. The morals are a function of the society. It is not a "right" per se, it is a natural function or effect of organized society.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Not at all. That is entirely possible. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it still makes it acceptable, from their point of view, within their society.

Quote:Well we’re talking about what is morally right and what is morally wrong are we not? So it is possible for an entire society to act in a manner that is morally wrong?

Quote:Indeed we are. And from their perspective, they are morally right. They are not morally right by OUR societal standards, but right by theirs.

Quote: There is not a society on Earth that doesn't have moral dissenters. That doesn't make them morally wrong, but it does make them moral outsiders.

Quote:What’s the difference between someone behaving in a manner that is morally wrong and someone being a moral outsider?

Being a moral outsider does not necessarily mean they are ACTING immorally. For instance, the denizens Iran, by and large, are not out killing people in terrorist attacks. However, their societal norms allow that kind of behavior. My guess is that they DON'T do it because they find it morally wrong.

My point is that societal norms and morals do not necessarily dictate action or necessarily define morals for the individual.

Not sure that is a great example, but I think it gets the point across.

(May 30, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What’s the difference between someone behaving in a manner that is morally wrong and someone being a moral outsider?

That all depends on who you ask...

(May 30, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 30, 2013 at 6:30 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Not true. Homosexuality is only a capital crime in Iran perhaps, but definitely not in the kingdom, the yemen or the emirates. Sodomy however, is a capital crime in the kingdom and also the yemen. Not sure about the emirates. They behead them in Saudi Arabia.

When I use the term homosexuality I mean sexual relations between people of the same gender, you seem to be using it to mean simply an attraction between two members of the same gender.

Since that's what homosexuality means. Two heterosexual men can have sexual relations with each other - that doesn't make them homosexuals. (But proving homosexuality to any degree of certainty is almost impossible.)

Quote:

(May 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: SOCIETIES are certainly allowed to adopt their own morals and norms. And yes, we have the right to punish them because that is our societal norm.

Ok, so where does the right for societies to adopt their own morality come from?

There is no such "right" - they just do it.

Quote:

Quote:

(May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: From their point of view, yes.

Not at all. That is entirely possible. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it still makes it acceptable, from their point of view, within their society.

Well we’re talking about what is morally right and what is morally wrong are we not? So it is possible for an entire society to act in a manner that is morally wrong?

Only if you attempt to dictate some absolute morality. What a society considers moral is moral - within that society. That's what morality is - what's acceptable to some group. To Catholicism, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is moral.

Quote:

Quote: There is not a society on Earth that doesn't have moral dissenters. That doesn't make them morally wrong, but it does make them moral outsiders.

What’s the difference between someone behaving in a manner that is morally wrong and someone being a moral outsider?

Nothing - to that society, he's morally wrong. His being morally wrong would require an absolute morality - and there is no such thing.