|
On May 03 2005 22:17 ItchReliever wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2005 22:09 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 03 2005 21:49 ItchReliever wrote:
What seems right to you might not seem right for somebody else. You might have noticed that this is the case here. And since it is presumptuous and ignorant to say which side has the moral supremacy, reasoning such as "it's not hurting anyone" is perfectly fine.
How do you determine what is actually right or wrong anyway?
What else does right and wrong mean besides pleasure and pain? In the end, doesn't everything come down to that?
Reasoning such as "it's not hurting anyone" is moral reasoning, junior! Can't you see that you divested yourself of all authority to make a moral judgement ONE SENTENCE BEFORE you made one. Does that strike you as "presumptous"? How about "ignorant"? I said that it was “fine”, as in it’s an acceptable way of thinking. You said that it was wrong, I said it was “fine”. I never claimed that it was the one and only right philosophy. You, on the other hand, seem to be rather bigoted. 
What does "acceptable" even mean? Who are you to tell me whether or not a given way of thinking is "acceptable"?
All I gathered is you telling what I should or should no do, even if all that you told me that I should do is accept the fact that "reasoning like 'it's not hurting anyone' is perfectly fine." And if you're telling me what I should do it's a moral imperative. You can retreat and water down your wording all you want, but you're still making a claim that something is better or more right in some sense than something else.
|
On May 03 2005 22:21 ItchReliever wrote:
I’m actually kind of regretting that I responded to you in the first place. I’m getting the impression that you are one of those brick wall type of people.
Meaning what? I won't agree with you for no good reason?
How much of our modern, bullshit phraseology is geared towards avoiding adhering to any definite belief just stuns me.
|
On May 03 2005 22:24 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2005 22:17 ItchReliever wrote:On May 03 2005 22:09 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 03 2005 21:49 ItchReliever wrote:
What seems right to you might not seem right for somebody else. You might have noticed that this is the case here. And since it is presumptuous and ignorant to say which side has the moral supremacy, reasoning such as "it's not hurting anyone" is perfectly fine.
How do you determine what is actually right or wrong anyway?
What else does right and wrong mean besides pleasure and pain? In the end, doesn't everything come down to that?
Reasoning such as "it's not hurting anyone" is moral reasoning, junior! Can't you see that you divested yourself of all authority to make a moral judgement ONE SENTENCE BEFORE you made one. Does that strike you as "presumptous"? How about "ignorant"? I said that it was “fine”, as in it’s an acceptable way of thinking. You said that it was wrong, I said it was “fine”. I never claimed that it was the one and only right philosophy. You, on the other hand, seem to be rather bigoted. What does "acceptable" even mean? Who are you to tell me whether or not a given way of thinking is "acceptable"? All I gathered is you telling what I should or should no do, even if all that you told me that I should do is accept the fact that "reasoning like 'it's not hurting anyone' is perfectly fine." And if you're telling me what I should do it's a moral imperative. You can retreat and water down your wording all you want, but you're still making a claim that something is better or more right in some sense than something else.
... yup, brick wall.
|
because the only possible way someone could disagree with you is if they're mentally deficient in some respect.
|
i dont think that is what he means.
i think he means that they are so stubborn that they never will consider someone elses opinion before rejecting it.
you should change your name to ironmentality after all 
|
I have just one question. How can you be sure I didn't consider his opinion before I rejected it?
|
On May 03 2005 22:42 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I have just one question. How can you be sure I didn't consider his opinion before I rejected it?
Do you even know what my main point was? because you sure as hell didn't address it.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2005 22:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:
because the only possible way someone could disagree with you is if they're mentally deficient in some respect.
While I think that you are basically right, you are making a big deal out of nothing. I would pull out of this argument if I were you.
|
Fair enough, boss. If you'd be so kind as to outline your "main point" in terms simple enough for me to understand, I'll certainly "address" it for you.
|
Instead of addressing the question why any reasoning other than "because God said so" is wrong, you kept telling me some bs about how I’m not being tolerant…
|
On May 03 2005 22:47 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2005 22:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:
because the only possible way someone could disagree with you is if they're mentally deficient in some respect. While I think that you are basically right, you are making a big deal out of nothing. I would pull out of this argument if I were you.
Maybe you're right. It's just that I'd go to war over the philosophical issues at the root of this squabble in a heartbeat - not that the other side would ever cowboy up enough to fight over it, mind you.
|
On May 03 2005 22:50 ItchReliever wrote:
Instead of addressing the question why any reasoning other than "because God said so" is wrong, you kept telling me some bs about how I’m not being tolerant…
Did you read this part?
"I'll tell you how you go about determining right and wrong. You determine whether or not the universe exists through the power of a supreme being or processes of sheer chance. If it's the latter, you conclude that right and wrong are bullshit and do whatever the hell you feel like. If not, you determine whether or not there is, in the nature of that supreme being, some characteristic or group of characteristics which behoove you to conform yourself to its standards. You decide whether there is a moral lawgiver, champ. Then you decide whether or not that moral lawgiver is worth your time."
You've either got "because God said so and there is reason for me to do so" or you've got "there is no good reason for me to do anything other than what I feel like doing (even though there's no good reason for me to do that either)." I responded to that little inquiry of yours with a very clear answer, but I'll break it down for you here:
1) Any moral law must be universally binding or it ceases to be a moral law in the accepted sense of the phrase. Instead you should call it preference or whimsy.
2) Any binding moral imperative requires a universally binding moral law.
3) Any universally binding moral law requires a transcendant being to act as the moral lawgiver.
|
I'd rather stick a note on my forehead that reads "I'm a smartass" and save my time
|
|
|
Yeah, at any rate, I think I'm going to go with HnR's advice on this one. I've said my piece. And I'd be willing to bet he has a leveller head than I do at this moment anyway.
|
On May 03 2005 22:58 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2005 22:50 ItchReliever wrote:
Instead of addressing the question why any reasoning other than "because God said so" is wrong, you kept telling me some bs about how I’m not being tolerant… Did you read this part? "I'll tell you how you go about determining right and wrong. You determine whether or not the universe exists through the power of a supreme being or processes of sheer chance. If it's the latter, you conclude that right and wrong are bullshit and do whatever the hell you feel like. If not, you determine whether or not there is, in the nature of that supreme being, some characteristic or group of characteristics which behoove you to conform yourself to its standards. You decide whether there is a moral lawgiver, champ. Then you decide whether or not that moral lawgiver is worth your time." You've either got "because God said so and there is reason for me to do so" or you've got "there is no good reason for me to do anything other than what I feel like doing (even though there's no good reason for me to do that either)." I responded to that little inquiry of yours with a very clear answer, but I'll break it down for you here: 1) Any moral law must be universally binding or it ceases to be a moral law in the accepted sense of the phrase. Instead you should call it preference or whimsy. 2) Any binding moral imperative requires a universally binding moral law. 3) Any universally binding moral law requires a transcendant being to act as the moral lawgiver.
even if god doesnt exist that in no way invalidates right and wrong. It simply removes the punishment.
If you do things because you fear the eventual consequences of your actions that I hope to hell there is a god to punish you. Essentially the god argument presupposes that right and wrong only have meaning if a higher power arbitrates or defines them for you. While it is convient to not have to think--and let a higher power do it for you--it presents a minor difficulty for those of us that dont have god talking in the back of our heads.
Without the existence of god the "moral imperative" simply becomes the social or accepted imperative. Not really a big downstep considering that morality is not a universally agreed upon doctrine but rather an evolving set of beliefs based upon the place and time. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you study up on the morality of the jews around the second covenant. Maybe look at the massecre of Ai while you are at it.
|
On May 03 2005 22:58 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2005 22:50 ItchReliever wrote:
Instead of addressing the question why any reasoning other than "because God said so" is wrong, you kept telling me some bs about how I’m not being tolerant… Did you read this part? "I'll tell you how you go about determining right and wrong. You determine whether or not the universe exists through the power of a supreme being or processes of sheer chance. If it's the latter, you conclude that right and wrong are bullshit and do whatever the hell you feel like. If not, you determine whether or not there is, in the nature of that supreme being, some characteristic or group of characteristics which behoove you to conform yourself to its standards. You decide whether there is a moral lawgiver, champ. Then you decide whether or not that moral lawgiver is worth your time." You've either got "because God said so and there is reason for me to do so" or you've got "there is no good reason for me to do anything other than what I feel like doing (even though there's no good reason for me to do that either)."
The only problem I had with that was that you were trying to impose the "because God said so" belief on others. If both ways of thinking (God and no God) are acceptable, then you are in no place to determine what is right and what is wrong, because such things are subjective.
The reasoning "it doesn't harm anybody" seemed good enough to justify Trident's showing off his gf.
I didn't see a good enough reasoning justifying why you and Molt were trying to reprimand Trident.
I responded to that little inquiry of yours with a very clear answer, but I'll break it down for you here:
1) Any moral law must be universally binding or it ceases to be a moral law in the accepted sense of the phrase. Instead you should call it preference or whimsy.
2) Any binding moral imperative requires a universally binding moral law.
3) Any universally binding moral law requires a transcendant being to act as the moral lawgiver.
I'm glad you thought you responded to my little inquiry.
But how does this relate to the discussion? Are you saying that because the reasoning "it doesn't harm anybody" is not an universal truth that it's not a good enough justification? And in that case, I would say almost nothing is truly universal... certainly not Christianity.
And I disagree with #3. The others I don't fully understand. :O
Why do morals require a deity? I've seen atheists who live by their own set of morals...
|
In his definition it requres a diety because he believes that morals are universal.
obviously nothing humans do is absolute or universal. So he invents this handy diety to solve that problem that morals are neither universal nor objective.
its a nice solution since no one can prove otherwise. of course he cant prove that its true either. personally, im holding out that aliens from a distant planet are behind the "intelligent design" of life. (im assuming you believe in it, ironmentality #2 since you betray all of the characteristic moronicies of that cult). Obviously these aliens didnt leave an objective and universal moral code.
|
morals are universal? what a freaking idiots.
thats the last thing moral is... in some place homosexuality is horrible, in other place you freaking give a BW to the tribe leader to fortify your hunter habilities, in one part of the world eating human flesh is horrible, in other is a very common practice.
In a very easy and less drastic geographic moral changes... topless girls in europe, i want to see topless girls in public american beaches hah.
|
On May 03 2005 23:26 maleorderbride wrote:
In his definition it requres a diety because he believes that morals are universal.
obviously nothing humans do is absolute or universal. So he invents this handy diety to solve that problem that morals are neither universal nor objective.
its a nice solution since no one can prove otherwise. of course he cant prove that its true either. personally, im holding out that aliens from a distant planet are behind the "intelligent design" of life. (im assuming you believe in it, ironmentality #2 since you betray all of the characteristic moronicies of that cult). Obviously these aliens didnt leave an objective and universal moral code.
I'm pretty sure you wanted to make a point here, but I'd advise speaking for yourself -- or at least not speaking for the guy you were disagreeing with. Especially when he said he would be following an advice and let this thread rest in .. pictures.
Because you really didn't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
