An experiment
-
I think the Golden Rule is a fair summary.
Edmundisme wrote:
I think the Golden Rule is a fair summary
It has always seemed to me to be an expression Randian healthy self-interest. I used to design games and one of the things I learned very early on is that cheaters are always outraged if anyone else cheats. Cheating, I think, can be defined as doing to them as you don't want them to do to you. Thus cheating becomes synonymous with lying, stealing, giving 1 votes gratuitously, and just about every other 'crime' or 'sin' or whatever, you want to name.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral l
I dated this lady many years ago who was a Political Science major. They taught her in one of her political science classes that there is no moral law only consequences of actions. Of course this is in the context of national relationships and not personel relationships, but I believe many, especially in the political world believe this applies to every aspect of a person's life. So I have to disgree with you, you can not ass-u-me that every one believes there is a moral law, unless personel gratification no matter the imapact on others is a valid "moral law".
MrPlankton
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral l
I dated this lady many years ago who was a Political Science major. They taught her in one of her political science classes that there is no moral law only consequences of actions. Of course this is in the context of national relationships and not personel relationships, but I believe many, especially in the political world believe this applies to every aspect of a person's life. So I have to disgree with you, you can not ass-u-me that every one believes there is a moral law, unless personel gratification no matter the imapact on others is a valid "moral law".
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
So I have to disgree with you, you can not ass-u-me that every one believes there is a moral law, unless personel gratification no matter the imapact on others is a valid "moral law".
I kind of addressed this when talking about cheaters. It would seem that those who look for personal gratification regardless of impact on others are often the ones who scream the loudest when others act the same way. Indeed, for their gratification to be achieved, they pretty much depend on there being a moral law and most other people obeying rather than flouting it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war.
No it isn't. Fuck off
led mike
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Edmundisme wrote:
If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute?
A person's own morals are shaped by his/her past and influenced by their environment. A person with good morals* can be pushed to commit murder for whatever the reason. Whether it's justified or not is subjective. And so goes the whole conversation. There's no moral law written in the sky that tells us what's right and wrong. We're influenced by just about everyhing as we grow up, and it's the parents/guardians job to put it into context. Of course, it's possible to break the cycle of morally irresponsible parents, but generally I'm accustomed to believe criminals have a greater chance to raising criminals. *I mean socially accepted norms (i.e. doesn't kill, steal etc..)
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law.
Heh. Of course you know that plenty here would argue just that, and have. ;) The golden rule is probably as close to a moral "law" as we can get. Of course, even there you can find plenty of back-and-forth as to whether it derives from empathy, fear, or cold, calculated self-interest. And plenty of folks who'll cheerfully classify those they wish to hurt as unreasonable/insane/sub-human in order to avoid feeling guilty over hurting them. Which just tells you that even a measure built in to our very nature can and will be subverted.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war.
No it isn't. Fuck off
led mike
-
I did select the joke icon but Bob or CPHog decided to ignore it. I'll try again
led mike
-
Edmundisme wrote:
If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute?
A person's own morals are shaped by his/her past and influenced by their environment. A person with good morals* can be pushed to commit murder for whatever the reason. Whether it's justified or not is subjective. And so goes the whole conversation. There's no moral law written in the sky that tells us what's right and wrong. We're influenced by just about everyhing as we grow up, and it's the parents/guardians job to put it into context. Of course, it's possible to break the cycle of morally irresponsible parents, but generally I'm accustomed to believe criminals have a greater chance to raising criminals. *I mean socially accepted norms (i.e. doesn't kill, steal etc..)
Ro0ke wrote:
A person with good morals* can be pushed to commit murder for whatever the reason.
Heh... Forget murder - a person with "good morals" can be pushed to ignore those in need, take from those who are weak, and condemn those seeking redemption. It's a good idea to be very, very careful around anyone your society commends as moral, especially if they believe it themselves...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war.
No it isn't. Fuck off
led mike
-
My bad. With the re-write, CP likes to ignore the icon unless i pass a proper VIEWSTATE along with it. Of course, i don't, because i'm making up the whole response on the fly. I've tried a couple of things, and it is possible to fake the viewstate without too much trouble... i just need to find a bit of free time to actually code up a proper serializer in Javascript.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
gET BENT. oNE VOTES FOR ALL!
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law.
Heh. Of course you know that plenty here would argue just that, and have. ;) The golden rule is probably as close to a moral "law" as we can get. Of course, even there you can find plenty of back-and-forth as to whether it derives from empathy, fear, or cold, calculated self-interest. And plenty of folks who'll cheerfully classify those they wish to hurt as unreasonable/insane/sub-human in order to avoid feeling guilty over hurting them. Which just tells you that even a measure built in to our very nature can and will be subverted.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
The golden rule is probably as close to a moral "law" as we can get.
Well just to beat Stan to the mark, there's nothing more worthless than morals without authority, or something like that. :-D
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer - German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
-
Shog9 wrote:
The golden rule is probably as close to a moral "law" as we can get.
Well just to beat Stan to the mark, there's nothing more worthless than morals without authority, or something like that. :-D
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer - German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
-
My bad. With the re-write, CP likes to ignore the icon unless i pass a proper VIEWSTATE along with it. Of course, i don't, because i'm making up the whole response on the fly. I've tried a couple of things, and it is possible to fake the viewstate without too much trouble... i just need to find a bit of free time to actually code up a proper serializer in Javascript.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Sure. But without authority, calling them "law" is a bit of a stretch.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Shog9 wrote:
because i'm making up the whole response on the fly.
You fit the whole thing on a fly? You must have some large flies where you live. ;P
led mike
Gigantic, they are! Next time you're posting a long, rambling response to someone, thank the insane trout fishermen of Colorado for building flies big enough to carry it. ;)
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. ... I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
It may be possible in some places, but probably not in this forum, because the God-haters who frequent it think they own it and will not abide a real exchange of ideas, and will certainly not tolerate a rational examination of their faulty metaphysics. Just look at a fuller context of the statement you found interesting (including the full statement itself):
Brady Kelly wrote:
Brady Kelly: How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism? . Ilíon: How is it not consistent? . If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." . If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.) . Brady Kelly: Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
My point here is that you people do not mind, but rather applaud, when one of your fellows misrepresents Christianity, or misrepresents points I make. My point here is that you people do not mind, but rather encourage and applaud, that some of your fellows *always* try to start a "flame-war" with their very first response.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. ... I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
It may be possible in some places, but probably not in this forum, because the God-haters who frequent it think they own it and will not abide a real exchange of ideas, and will certainly not tolerate a rational examination of their faulty metaphysics. Just look at a fuller context of the statement you found interesting (including the full statement itself):
Brady Kelly wrote:
Brady Kelly: How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism? . Ilíon: How is it not consistent? . If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." . If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.) . Brady Kelly: Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
My point here is that you people do not mind, but rather applaud, when one of your fellows misrepresents Christianity, or misrepresents points I make. My point here is that you people do not mind, but rather encourage and applaud, that some of your fellows *always* try to start a "flame-war" with their very first response.
You had me at rock.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]