RE: There is no objective Morality
March 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2013 at 5:58 pm by Violet.)
(March 23, 2013 at 8:58 am)Tonus Wrote: Or evolutionary advancements. I, for one, welcome our nitrogen-breathing overlords.
And I'm looking forward to you staying fairly similar, with some various cybernetic updates. Don't really have our eyes set on a million years from now... think we can manage to break this stalemate within the next 100,000 years. Hoping Humans will be a part of that.
(March 23, 2013 at 8:32 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Without making any kind of judgement of whether objective morality exists or not, I hope you all agree about this one proposition:
1. If objectivity morality exists, to deny that it exists is one of the worst possible crimes
Would anyone dispute that statement?
If objective morality exists: why should it be followed? Lots of things are 'crimes', but let's get real here: what's a crime?
(March 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm)Sagasa Wrote: What makes their culture outmoded and misguided? How about the fact that they treat women as mere property upon which rape is treated to be an insult to their supposed owners: the husbands?
If you think a culture that thinks of its women that way is good, then I can see that we're not going to find any sort of common ground here.
And we treat nonbiological machines as mere property upon which vandalism is considered a crime against the supposed owner of the property. This discrimination must stop: include the biological machine, as for ages has been effective, and would be effective again!
There are benefits to women being property, just as there are benefits to slavery, an occasional murder or hundred, and to sending millions of your people off to die so you can convert your agricultural society into an effective industrial one.
Whether or not it is 'good' or 'bad' should be irrelevant, given that every value judgement is subjective. Your society has a collection of shared value judgements which not all of it agrees to, but which the majority (or the otherwise powerful) agree with to an extent. Their society has a collection of shared value judgements which not all of it agrees to, but which the majority (or the otherwise powerful) agree with to an extent.
You suggest that they are outmoded, misguided... you should not be surprised when others find you to be quasi-religious. Whether I believe the actions of another culture to be moral or amoral is also irrelevant. Even if I disdain the actions of a particular culture, I am glad it is around up-to the point of it interfering with my culture. At which time we kill them
Quote:I don't even know what possessed you to somehow relate rape and oranges together. I'm going to assume that it's lack of sleep. If you had actually read the post, you'd notice I was replying to the claim that rape is bad purely because it destabilized society. I said it didn't. It was bad because it hurt the victim. Now if you don't agree with that, that the victim isn't actually hurt by the rape, then you're a terrible person.
Nonetheless, you came to the misguided conclusion that rape is a bad thing. I would be the first to agree that rape does not cause destabilization of society... unless it is systematic to the point that the system tears itself apart. Anything can do this, if it's particularly prevalent and in a destructive enough manner: hence illustration.
I counter: Rape is good because it hurts the victim. Very handy in a number of situations. It is bad in your culture, which fears pain and will always fear pain... envision now a culture which embraces pain, which fights every battle reveling in the pain inflicted by its foes, and relishes in delivering that suffering tenfold. The brutality of the culture would itself become a weapon in the psyche of its enemies.
Want to make some crazed psychotic bitches? Few better ways than to rape them. Also makes for a pretty good slave class with the rejects.
You should probably stop attempting to speak for all of us, regardless
Quote:What exactly is your point here, that humans can be bastards? Yes, we can. But we also display the capability to be emphatic, to recognize injustice even over cultural boundaries, that we can recognize when an act is horrible and should be condemned.
I wasn't aware any humans could be bastards... but I long for the day it is so. DOWN WITH MEN FOREVER! Ovaries to seed other ovaries!
Some of us do, some of us are sociopaths. What does it matter when we consider a thing to be unjust when it doesn't affect us? And even when it does, it is an emotional flailing... often a blind zealotry, and then you have whole congregations of people saying that Hurricane Katrina was a gods wrath at New Orleans and completely just because they engaged in such horrendous crimes as gay sex and mardi gras.
Obviously, my point is that when you blanket the entire race and say 'this is how we are!' and then are confronted with examples of humans who do not fit your stereotype: you'll move the goalposts back before you consider that the very having of exceptions makes your rule groundless... perhaps you should look for a new one?
Quote:Please read the damn thing before actually replying to it. I'm saying that because a lot of theists think that atheists don't have any absolute authority in moral matters, they claim that nothing prevents us from going around murder-raping everyone we can get our non-believing claws on. I said that no, because if that were the case, we would in fact go around doing that and we don't. Isn't that an indication that atheists can be just as moral and law-abiding as any other Joe on the street?
*Edited for grammar issues.
Hell no, it looks dry, it looks pointless, and worst of all: you don't have a sense of humor. Also, I don't believe I ever replied to it... because then I'd have had to read it. Maybe fewer pointless diagrams with words beneath them that show such a catastrophic philosophical fail that turn me off of reading the rest might get some more of us to read it. Now that you're talking though: why bother anyway?
Atheists as a whole group don't have any absolute authority in moral matters, some atheists do consider themselves to have an absolute authority in moral matters. Some atheists do kill people, some atheists do rape people. Some theists do kill people, some theists do rape people. Some politicians have been known to eat doughnuts. Doesn't do to use the same terrible blanketing as your 'opponents' are using... usually.
Just do what everyone else does, and make the argument we all love to believe, "Humans are generally on the good
(-side of neutral) to other humans in their society as a result of evolution, culture, and/or gods."
That is... if you're not looking for an all-inclusive theory which explains everything. I personally find great enjoyment in those
@that last hooker, given your insistance that I didn't read your post, I believed you to be the OP. Which means I did read your post, and you're just spouting nonsense
(March 24, 2013 at 2:00 am)jstrodel Wrote: (March 24, 2013 at 12:22 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Oh, and when last I checked, lying was not a crime, much less the greatest crime.
How different we are.
Here I thought the greatest crime was Xenocide... well, apparently that's only the opinion of my people
