An experiment
-
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.
-
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.
-
For that to happen, we would all have to take a pledge not to respond to Iilion or anyone else who wants to hijack the thread. What is your definition of moral law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
For that to happen, we would all have to take a pledge not to respond to Iilion or anyone else who wants to hijack the thread. What is your definition of moral law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Good question. I guess it's the mechanism that causes us to treat others in a particular way, and expect them to treat us in a particular way. It's a sort of standard of behavior that's recognized even when it's not upheld. In other words, if someone stole something, it does not mean they don't recognize the part of the "moral law" that condemns thievery. They likely still recognize that stealing is wrong - and they'd certainly underscore this understanding the moment someone stole from them! That's not a perfect definition, but I think it's something like that.
-
That's the problem, you're asking for his definition of moral law, which implies it's just an opinion (no offense to that opinion).
You make a good point: in order for the discussion to get off the ground, there must be a fundamental axiom on which we can base our arguments. I'm assuming two axioms: 1. There is a moral law 2. The moral law is something like my definition Perhaps it would have been better to start a thread with the hopes of developing the axioms for the future discussion on moral law...
-
That's the problem, you're asking for his definition of moral law, which implies it's just an opinion (no offense to that opinion).
-
Good question. I guess it's the mechanism that causes us to treat others in a particular way, and expect them to treat us in a particular way. It's a sort of standard of behavior that's recognized even when it's not upheld. In other words, if someone stole something, it does not mean they don't recognize the part of the "moral law" that condemns thievery. They likely still recognize that stealing is wrong - and they'd certainly underscore this understanding the moment someone stole from them! That's not a perfect definition, but I think it's something like that.
Edmundisme wrote:
I guess it's the mechanism that causes us to treat others in a particular way, and expect them to treat us in a particular way. It's a sort of standard of behavior that's recognized even when it's not upheld. In other words, if someone stole something, it does not mean they don't recognize the part of the "moral law" that condemns thievery. They likely still recognize that stealing is wrong - and they'd certainly underscore this understanding the moment someone stole from them!
I can live with that. Would you agree that its a rephrasing of the Golden Rule - which is not unique to Christianity, of course, but thats the phrasing many of us are familiar with.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ro0ke wrote:
That's the problem, you're asking for his definition of moral law
No, asking for a definition of terms is an attempt to understand what the other fellow means when he says something.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I guess it's the mechanism that causes us to treat others in a particular way, and expect them to treat us in a particular way. It's a sort of standard of behavior that's recognized even when it's not upheld. In other words, if someone stole something, it does not mean they don't recognize the part of the "moral law" that condemns thievery. They likely still recognize that stealing is wrong - and they'd certainly underscore this understanding the moment someone stole from them!
I can live with that. Would you agree that its a rephrasing of the Golden Rule - which is not unique to Christianity, of course, but thats the phrasing many of us are familiar with.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I think the Golden Rule is a fair summary.
-
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.
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
-
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.'