An experiment
-
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[^]
-
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.
History shows that any group of people will most often eventually develop a variation of one of two systems. A law system or an honor system. Mostly based on what people are willing to put up with, since they tend to go overboard in trying to dictate what others should do and light on how they themselves should be restricted. Which is a crude kind of version of the golden rule. In both cases, fear of punishment (or revenge) is the primary motivation for obeying the laws (written or collectively understood). Psychologists will tell you that positive reenforcement is much stronger than negative reenforcement. However, I don't know if there is a culture that's figured out how to use positive reenforcement for maintaining peace. And maintaining peace is pretty much the main reason that some form of law is needed for people to live with other people. Then comes religion. Where a belief system is set up to further dictate how people should and shouldn't interact. Which is good in that it helps some people take more pride in the fact that they are 'good' and makes the set of laws not just rules you will be punished for breaking, but a divine code that you should learn and practice and will be rewarded for doing so. It's interesting how almost all of the major religions have pretty much the same core rules. Personally, I believe that evil is causing harm for personal gain. Which covers theft, murder, rape, assault, pretty much all of the biggies... All the way down to picking on somebody to make yourself look cool, intimidation and just plain being rude. The extreme golden rule. With the distinction that self preservation isn't necessarily 'personal gain.' So killing animals for food, or killing in self defense isn't necessarily evil. But all instances take a judgment call, and that has to be done by the group. But an unwritten moral law? I don't think so. I think it's something that develops from people interacting and deciding what offends the majority of them and what's acceptable.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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
The problem with using the word, "murder," is that it means "unlawfully kill." Is that what you meant? Because then justification can be offered relatively easily.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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:
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.
But why does it matter what we derive it from, as long as we agree that it is a or the moral law?
Shog9 wrote:
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.
That suggests to me that on some level they are aware that they are breaking a moral law and use rationalization to avoid confronting that fact. It doesn't mean, does it, that there is no law - only that there are lawbreakers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
History shows that any group of people will most often eventually develop a variation of one of two systems. A law system or an honor system. Mostly based on what people are willing to put up with, since they tend to go overboard in trying to dictate what others should do and light on how they themselves should be restricted. Which is a crude kind of version of the golden rule. In both cases, fear of punishment (or revenge) is the primary motivation for obeying the laws (written or collectively understood). Psychologists will tell you that positive reenforcement is much stronger than negative reenforcement. However, I don't know if there is a culture that's figured out how to use positive reenforcement for maintaining peace. And maintaining peace is pretty much the main reason that some form of law is needed for people to live with other people. Then comes religion. Where a belief system is set up to further dictate how people should and shouldn't interact. Which is good in that it helps some people take more pride in the fact that they are 'good' and makes the set of laws not just rules you will be punished for breaking, but a divine code that you should learn and practice and will be rewarded for doing so. It's interesting how almost all of the major religions have pretty much the same core rules. Personally, I believe that evil is causing harm for personal gain. Which covers theft, murder, rape, assault, pretty much all of the biggies... All the way down to picking on somebody to make yourself look cool, intimidation and just plain being rude. The extreme golden rule. With the distinction that self preservation isn't necessarily 'personal gain.' So killing animals for food, or killing in self defense isn't necessarily evil. But all instances take a judgment call, and that has to be done by the group. But an unwritten moral law? I don't think so. I think it's something that develops from people interacting and deciding what offends the majority of them and what's acceptable.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
In both cases, fear of punishment (or revenge) is the primary motivation for obeying the laws (written or collectively understood).
Couldn't it be enlightened self-interest?
BoneSoft wrote:
However, I don't know if there is a culture that's figured out how to use positive reenforcement for maintaining peace.
I think the Mennonite "Shunning" is a step in that direction. Shunning, a terrible consequence in that culture to be sure, is still merely a lack of all reinforcement.
BoneSoft wrote:
But an unwritten moral law? I don't think so.
I would offer up the possibility that some form of the golden rule could have been derived by a pre-literate culture, possibly one with only very simplistic communication of any sort - on the level of dolphins or chimps.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface