Posts: 1601
Threads: 2
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
(This post was last modified: June 13, 2013 at 6:16 pm by Psykhronic.)
(June 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (June 13, 2013 at 5:38 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: People justify their morality with reasons - I judge those reasons. They're allowed to do whatever they want do to. Does not mean I agree with it.
Why do people have to justify their morality with reasons? Where does that rule come from?
Quote: And WHY is raping women morally good in society A? (fyi - I have never seen a decent reason for rape to be a-okay.)
I am sure rapists have a reason in their mind as to why they rape; but why do they need a reason anyways? I do not think that’s a necessity in social relativism.
That's not a rule, that's what people do when you ask them why they believe/ascribe to certain things (like morality). "Because it's always been that way" or "God" are reasons.
I could not tell you if people NEED a reason, but I think some shit lead a person to become a rapist. And you're right, that's not really a thing of social relativism. But my degree of social relativism does not go far - just descriptive.
And even if society A has a reason for rape- that does not make it moral. Just making sure that is clear.
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm
(June 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: *Copy….*Paste…We are not talking about my beliefs; we are talking about yours. If you cannot defend your beliefs (as I suspected you would not be able to) then that is fine.
Why do I need to defend my beliefs? Against what am I defending them? What is your objection to my beliefs?
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm
(June 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I could not tell you if people NEED a reason, but I think some shit lead a person to become a rapist. And you're right, that's not really a thing of social relativism. But my degree of social relativism does not go far - just descriptive.
How do you know your degree of social relativism is right?
Quote: And even if society A has a reason for rape- that does not make it moral. Just making sure that is clear.
Why doesn’t it? I thought you were suggesting that morals were determined by societies.
(June 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Why do I need to defend my beliefs? Against what am I defending them? What is your objection to my beliefs?
Well if you want to be rational, then you’ll have to defend your beliefs by giving rationales for them. If you wish to be irrational then you do not have to defend them at all (but also lose the ability to criticize anyone else’s beliefs), but I personally prefer rationality myself. I always find it interesting how atheists claim to love and value rationality, reason, and logic, but only until they are required to be rational, reasonable, and logical.
Posts: 1601
Threads: 2
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm
I don't know if it is right for sure. But societies do seem to make their own moralities.
Why DOES it make rape okay?
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm
(June 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if you want to be rational, then you’ll have to defend your beliefs by giving rationales for them. If you wish to be irrational then you do not have to defend them at all (but also lose the ability to criticize anyone else’s beliefs), but I personally prefer rationality myself. I always find it interesting how atheists claim to love and value rationality, reason, and logic, but only until they are required to be rational, reasonable, and logical.
Well then, if you feel that I should have to defend my beliefs against yours, then you will tell me precisely what your dispute is regarding my beliefs and then I will defend them.
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm
(June 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I don't know if it is right for sure. But societies do seem to make their own moralities.
Why DOES it make rape okay?
It seems we have to options here, either…
1. Rape is always wrong, no matter when or where it is committed.
OR
2. Rape is only wrong if a society (or people) deems it wrong.
Your relativistic definition logically leads to the second option, however you seem to be hinting at or acting like the first option is what is true, I’d agree with that, but in an atheistic universe I do not see how you can demonstrate that the first option is in fact true. Does that make sense?
(June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Well then, if you feel that I should have to defend my beliefs against yours, then you will tell me precisely what your dispute is regarding my beliefs and then I will defend them.
Sure, the fact that you claim morals are relative, but then you also believe you are justified in criticizing morals that differ from yours upon moralistic grounds; how do you reconcile that apparent contradictory behavior?
Posts: 1601
Threads: 2
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 7:40 pm
(June 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (June 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I don't know if it is right for sure. But societies do seem to make their own moralities.
Why DOES it make rape okay?
It seems we have to options here, either…
1. Rape is always wrong, no matter when or where it is committed.
OR
2. Rape is only wrong if a society (or people) deems it wrong.
Your relativistic definition logically leads to the second option, however you seem to be hinting at or acting like the first option is what is true, I’d agree with that, but in an atheistic universe I do not see how you can demonstrate that the first option is in fact true. Does that make sense?
But I do not think what society deems right and wrong makes something absolutely right and wrong - i merely believe that people create morality. Hence, morals are relative. But we can still analyze those morals and the justification for the morals. For example - Where do they come from? What purpose do they serve? Do people within society actually benefit from a particular moral stance?
Rape leads to all sorts of problems - what purpose does rape have in any universe, atheistic or otherwise?
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 8:20 pm
(June 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure, the fact that you claim morals are relative, but then you also believe you are justified in criticizing morals that differ from yours upon moralistic grounds; how do you reconcile that apparent contradictory behavior?
1. I don't claim that morals are relative; this is simple fact.
2. Just because I acknowledge the above fact does not mean I am not allowed to consider any moral system better than any other, on any grounds I wish. What I do not do evaluate moral standards based upon what a fictional character is said to think of the specific practices, because that is the point of the entire debate: your moral system is no more objective or superior to anyone else's.
Obviously, I will find nothing in a moral code I like when that moral code does not place the highest priority on human happiness and progress. That doesn't mean my specifics are objectively superior, but I know under which system I'd prefer to live.
Sorry I doused your strawman.
Posts: 302
Threads: 9
Joined: March 27, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm
(June 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (June 13, 2013 at 12:55 am)FifthElement Wrote: Russia having nukes is more dangerous now then EVER 
Can you name a theocracy that has used nuclear weapons against another country? I cannot.
No theocracy had them yet (which is a good thing), as far as I know ...
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
June 19, 2013 at 12:09 am
Putting it very simply:
Rape is wrong, morally or otherwise. Why? It hurts people.
Blasphemy is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.
Homosexuality is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.
|
