Which one of these adjectives would you assign to clawing for the life jacket to prevent drowning?
Sorry, I can't pick just ONE. I'd assign most of them except for the sexual related. Did you ever see the movie Titanic? Recall the drowning scene with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio; not too much clawing for survival going on there. Leonardo, however did go down without a struggle - chivalry vs. selfish greed; or perhaps just loving your neighbor as He loved us. Good example of man being able to rise above acting on animal instinct.
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
Mountaineer wrote:
Sorry, I can't pick just ONE. I'd assign most of them except for the sexual related. Did you ever see the movie Titanic? Recall the drowning scene with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio; not too much clawing for survival going on there. Leonardo, however did go down without a struggle - chivalry vs. selfish greed; or perhaps just loving your neighbor as He loved us. Good example of man being able to rise above acting on animal instinct.
... Mountaineer
She wasn't greedy or selfish for not letting him climb on? His selflessness = her greed right?
Stewardship wrote:
Assuming you're talking about small militia groups throwing off government (and not government,) it just made me curious as to whether you rooted for the Empire, rather than the rebellion when you watched Star Wars...
I rooted for freedom. If the Empire had offered that as a genuine principle and not just talk, then I would have been on the side of the Empire.
But if you examine these milita's beliefs and makeup much more closely, you'l find they're miles away from being the Republic. Extremism of any kind is unhealthy to civilization unless it is truly for the good of the general public.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Kshartle wrote:
Governments and the use of them to solve problems worked out terribly for them.
I wasn't referring to their later evolution, but first contact. Their lack of any government for protection nearly obliterated them.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MachineGhost wrote:
What do you propse to do about that 1-2% that will exploit and rise to the top of any power pyramid and vanquish all you peaceful, pacifist, hippy-loving Anarcho-Capitalists?
I propose that you stop supporting them and building armies for them and swearing allegience to them and asking them to give you stolen goodies and make deals with them and worship them MG.
And stop voting for them. And stop pretending that you'll find a white knight amoungst them to banish the others.
Stop being part of the problem.
Just like banking. One swipe of a pen and they're back in business. Worse than weeds. Can we reason with weeds or must we use coercive violence to deal with them? Many human beings don't respond to reason.
And yes, you are an elitist... as am I. It's not a bad label so long as you're for the welfare of the general public and not out for yourself at the expense of others.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
doodle wrote:
Now I can support that! I don't agree with it necessarily, but at least it's consistent...the only trouble is that it would be pretty darn hard to do and still kind of fit into society. Actually, it sounds a lot like a Christs message telling people not to use evil to combat evil....in other words take it on the cheek
Yep, its Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mohammed, Mandela, etc. all rolled into one. Trying to fight a negative with a positive. A futile task when coercive force is part and parcel of the cosmos.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue May 20, 2014 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Definitely disreputable ... I might be willing to negotiate on iniquitous though.
Nah, hang tough. Why compromise when you are firmly on the rock and not standing on sinking sand (or floating around with no foundation like an iceberg)?
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
Isn't it interesting, the English language? If one were to substitute only one vowel and one consonant in the title of this thread, we could be having a discussion about "Proving Moronity" instead of "Proving Morality".
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
doodle wrote:
Reading this immediately reminded me of Kshartle....for anyone who has debated with him you will understand: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Oh that's wonderful.
The only thing worse than someone who doesn't use logic correctly, is someone who doesn't use it correctly, but constantly condescendingly corrects you on your hiccups like you didn't have anything valuable to say around it, and ignores the rest...
However, we're making some awesome progress. I look forward to the next set of premises...
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Mountaineer wrote:
Isn't it interesting, the English language? If one were to substitute only one vowel and one consonant in the title of this thread, we could be having a discussion about "Proving Moronity" instead of "Proving Morality".
... Mountaineer
Duckin' B.
It took me a moment!
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
doodle wrote:
Reading this immediately reminded me of Kshartle....for anyone who has debated with him you will understand: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Oh, my. That is quite excellent!
I've often thought someone ought to be like Fallacy Man in regards to debating religious believers; because they suffer from sooo many fallacies that they're unaware of. Do hard core athiests specialize in doing that kind of thing?
And for the record, I'm not unaware of when I use fallacies to make my point about facts; I relish doing that because it leaves no avenues of escape in theory. I just never like to intentionally use it for faith (non-facts) of which there is very little left for me anymore anyway; too dishonest.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue May 27, 2014 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Getting back to the subject of this thread, I wonder which "ethics" system Kshartle will end up attempting to prove, one of these, or will an entirely new one emerge?
... Mountaineer
The Word of God, the Bible, is the basis for Christian ethics (what we understand to be right and wrong). There are, however, many competing ethical systems in our world today:
Relativism: Right and wrong is based on a person’s preference. What is right for one person may not be right for another, and so forth. There are no absolutes, though such a claim is itself absolute. Ultimately, this position is self-contradictory.
Utilitarianism: What is right is based on what will do the least harm while promoting the greatest good for the most people. The big question is who or what determines what the “greatest good”? is. “Right”? becomes a matter of public opinion, and an entire society may approve of what is immoral or evil.
Situationism: There is only one law: the law of love. What is right is doing the most loving thing in a given situation. The problem comes in knowing how to make this determination. What if, in a given situation, two people disagree about what is the most loving thing to do?
Naturalism: Moral standards are attempts to apply religious values to human behavior. Since everything comes from purely natural causes, all morality is contrived. However, this view accepts agreed-to moral standards for the sake of societal peace and the avoidance of unnecessary violence and destruction.
Absolutism: There is an objective moral standard that communicates moral absolutes. For the Christian, this standard is the Holy Bible, the Word of God. For example, the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes that reveal the Creator’s holiness, so that “right”? and “wrong”? are unchanging as God is unchanging. “Conflicting absolutism”? is the view that, by virtue of sin entering into the world, there are times when, no matter which way we turn in a situation, we will experience the pain of living in a fallen world. This reality makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more precious to the sinner confronted by his or her limitations. What is maintained, however, is that, because of the Creator, there are moral absolutes.
From: Engelbrecht, Edward A. (2010-07-02). The Lutheran Difference: An Explanation & Comparison of Christian Beliefs (Kindle Locations 3146-3151). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
Absolutism: There is an objective moral standard that communicates moral absolutes. For the Christian, this standard is the Holy Bible, the Word of God. For example, the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes that reveal the Creator’s holiness, so that “right”? and “wrong”? are unchanging as God is unchanging. “Conflicting absolutism”? is the view that, by virtue of sin entering into the world, there are times when, no matter which way we turn in a situation, we will experience the pain of living in a fallen world. This reality makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more precious to the sinner confronted by his or her limitations. What is maintained, however, is that, because of the Creator, there are moral absolutes.
There are a lot of "Gods laws" in the Old Testament especially that I think you would probably disagree with.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Absolutism: There is an objective moral standard that communicates moral absolutes. For the Christian, this standard is the Holy Bible, the Word of God. For example, the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes that reveal the Creator’s holiness, so that “right”? and “wrong”? are unchanging as God is unchanging. “Conflicting absolutism”? is the view that, by virtue of sin entering into the world, there are times when, no matter which way we turn in a situation, we will experience the pain of living in a fallen world. This reality makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more precious to the sinner confronted by his or her limitations. What is maintained, however, is that, because of the Creator, there are moral absolutes.
There are a lot of "Gods laws" in the Old Testament especially that I think you would probably disagree with.
Probably right given I commit sins that I'm aware of and that I'm not aware of. I do know for sure that I cannot keep God's Law even if I agree with it; I am a sinner and, “Sin is everything that is contrary to God’s Law”?. That is why I so desparately am in need of a Savior and thanks be to God, I have one and I know that I'm forgiven.
... Mountaineer
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
Mountaineer wrote:
Probably right given I commit sins that I'm aware of and that I'm not aware of. I do know for sure that I cannot keep God's Law even if I agree with it; I am a sinner and, “Sin is everything that is contrary to God’s Law”?. That is why I so desparately am in need of a Savior and thanks be to God, I have one and I know that I'm forgiven.
Red herring, circular logic.
Anyway, I see the world has been moving away from absolutism for some time to more of a composite of the other -isms. Star Trek was prophetic.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Kshartle wrote:
So we left off with a dissagreement about whether or not there exists an imperative to do what is "right".
I will re-fresh myself on the point of contention but I think it centered around not being certain that there are universal preferences.
Morality is a man made concept. As a "concept" it doesn't exist outside of the imagination of men.
There is no universal morality. The only thing that would come close to being defined as such would be the laws of nature as they cannot be violated.
Because life has no clear objective or goal it is impossible to even say what the preferable course of action is. Our present day morality operates based either on behavior which helps promote human survival or is related to some culturally created concept of what constitutes right/wrong.
I think it is important to look at this topic of morality from a couple of different levels...
At the universal level there is no morality (at least not in the sense that man thinks of it)
At the global level there is morality but it's definition is broad and related to the beliefs and concepts of each particular culture.
At the tribal/ national level there is morality that is based on that individual groups beliefs and customs
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
An action, to even be possible, must be "in accordance with reality" in some sense. You need to be more specific about what "in accordance with reality" really means.
To me, an action can't be correct or incorrect... or at least it is not self-evident. Action is either taken or it is not. If it is taken, in the sense that it is even possible, it must be "in accordance with reality." If it isn't possible, that action wasn't taken.
An action, however, does contain a decision to act. The decision is a conclusion of a set of premises. If one of the premises leading to a conclusion is not true, it is unsound. If the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises, then it is invalid. This is no different, really, than any "argument" one might make attempting to use deductive or even inductive logic.
However, EVERY decision conclusion HAS to contain an "ought" premise, otherwise there is no value system to drive behavior.
For instance, this conclusion is NOT valid:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
There's no decision-driving value system. No imperative.
Neither is this one:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I prefer to live
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
This isn't valid because there is no logical connection between a preference and an action. I may prefer something, but it doesn't follow AUTOMATICALLY that I should act in a manner to maximize my preferences. An imperative to act does not necessarily follow a base desire.
This one is valid:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I ought to take actions that improve my health
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
You NEED an ought premise. It can't just be assumed. That is not how logic works.
Further, one must ask, if every decision conclusion MUST contain an ought premise, is that "ought premise" self-evident, or does it flow from some other set of premises. My argument is neither...
- Any "ought conclusion" needs an "ought premise" to base itself on, which is circular, because every premise, insofar as it is a conclusion about reality, would need another ought premise.... and so on and so forth, to infinity, and beyond.
- "Oughts" are not self-evident. There is no "self-evident" imperative to do anything.
--- So you really can't build an ought argument without some sort of unprovable (unsound) premise that must guide behavior. Even to have a preference is not an imperative to act. A preference is just that... a preference. Unless you include a (unprovable) premise that we OUGHT to maximize our preferences, you have not built a valid argument.
Regarding Truth, it is preferable in the realm of logic and reason. Why? Because the entire goal of logic and reason is to develop conclusions and likelihoods about Truth. Truth may not be preferable in some of situations, but in the practice of logic, it is the ultimate goal, so it is, obviously, preferable.
To say that truth may be unpreferable in some situations ("Sir, it's the Gestapo... have you any Jews in your home?"), this doesn't mean that falsehood is universally preferable. A negation doesn't imply an opposite.
I hope this serves to enrich the debate, and not confuse...
Last edited by moda0306 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
An action, to even be possible, must be "in accordance with reality" in some sense. You need to be more specific about what "in accordance with reality" really means.
To me, an action can't be correct or incorrect... or at least it is not self-evident. Action is either taken or it is not. If it is taken, in the sense that it is even possible, it must be "in accordance with reality." If it isn't possible, that action wasn't taken.
An action, however, does contain a decision to act. The decision is a conclusion of a set of premises. If one of the premises leading to a conclusion is not true, it is unsound. If the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises, then it is invalid. This is no different, really, than any "argument" one might make attempting to use deductive or even inductive logic.
However, EVERY decision conclusion HAS to contain an "ought" premise, otherwise there is no value system to drive behavior.
For instance, this conclusion is NOT valid:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
There's no decision-driving value system. No imperative.
Neither is this one:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I prefer to live
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
This isn't valid because there is no logical connection between a preference and an action. I may prefer something, but it doesn't follow AUTOMATICALLY that I should act in a manner to maximize my preferences. An imperative to act does not necessarily follow a base desire.
This one is valid:
- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I ought to take actions that improve my health
--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano
You NEED an ought premise. It can't just be assumed. That is not how logic works.
Further, one must ask, if every decision conclusion MUST contain an ought premise, is that "ought premise" self-evident, or does it flow from some other set of premises. My argument is neither...
- Any "ought conclusion" needs an "ought premise" to base itself on, which is circular, because every premise, insofar as it is a conclusion about reality, would need another ought premise.... and so on and so forth, to infinity, and beyond.
- "Oughts" are not self-evident. There is no "self-evident" imperative to do anything.
--- So you really can't build an ought argument without some sort of unprovable (unsound) premise that must guide behavior. Even to have a preference is not an imperative to act. A preference is just that... a preference. Unless you include a (unprovable) premise that we OUGHT to maximize our preferences, you have not built a valid argument.
Regarding Truth, it is preferable in the realm of logic and reason. Why? Because the entire goal of logic and reason is to develop conclusions and likelihoods about Truth. Truth may not be preferable in some of situations, but in the practice of logic, it is the ultimate goal, so it is, obviously, preferable.
To say that truth may be unpreferable in some situations ("Sir, it's the Gestapo... have you any Jews in your home?"), this doesn't mean that falsehood is universally preferable. A negation doesn't imply an opposite.
I hope this serves to enrich the debate, and not confuse...
It does. Every decision implies a preferred outcome. So "correct" or "in accordance with reality" means that the decision can be judged as correct or incorrect based on the expected/desired outcome correct? Can we agree on that to start?
Regarding truth, let me be clear I am not saying that telling the truth is always better or moral. I'm saying the truth has value and lies to not. If you examine the statement from the person being questioned by the Gestapo, when they lie about not hiding Jews in their home, they are saying "It is true and correct that there are no Jews in my home". They are expressing the universal preference for truth or correctness and assuming (correctly) that the NAZI also prefers the truth and values it. The fact that it's a lie or incorrect is immaterial and not the point. We all express a preference for truth (a universal preference) all the time.
Why are you arguing with me? Why do you try to, as you see it, correct me, or anyone. What is implicit in any statement about reality or any correction you make ever? You would never say "I want you to beleive my lie. You should act on what I am saying because it's wrong/false". You would never say this, except as a joke becuase there is no value in what is false/incorrect.
Kshartle wrote:
Is it obvious that when I say "I don't exist", or "you don't exist" that these statements are incorrect?
No, but who are "you" and "I"? That's a serious question that I think merits some digging.....after all, morality is founded on the idea that duality exists and that one entity can act upon another. This isn't obvious and frankly depending on how you choose to organize "reality" it is just as valid to argue that the universal unity is acting upon itself and if that is the case can a single entity acting upon itself ever be immoral?
Proving morality to me seems about as futile as trying to prove that chocolate pudding tastes better than vanilla pudding. But I'm enjoying the discussion and willing to be swayed
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Kshartle wrote:
Is it obvious that when I say "I don't exist", or "you don't exist" that these statements are incorrect?
No, but who are "you" and "I"? That's a serious question that I think merits some digging.....after all, morality is founded on the idea that duality exists and that one entity can act upon another. This isn't obvious and frankly depending on how you choose to organize "reality" it is just as valid to argue that the universal unity is acting upon itself and if that is the case can a single entity acting upon itself ever be immoral?
Proving morality to me seems about as futile as trying to prove that chocolate pudding tastes better than vanilla pudding. But I'm enjoying the discussion and willing to be swayed
Doodle, I cannot say that I don't exist if I don't exist. I can't identify a "you" to say that "you" don't exist if I don't at least beleive "you" exist, whether or not you in fact to. These are self-contradicting statements and therefore they MUST be incorrect. You can't not exist, else there is no you to not exist
