|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2013 01:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 01:24 Sermokala wrote:
I feel like the pervasive element in the church of "young earth" ascientific nonsense is simple a combination of shitty literalist interpretation of the bible and some intent to distance themselves from "mainstream science". I still to this day don't see where evolution conflicts with my faith or why people accept being taught ignorance for the sake of ignorance.
They don't really deserve the hate they get I don't think. There will always be a strong reactionary element in response to any strong progressive element. Its just a function of an expressive society. I disagree, they absolutely deserve the hate they get. You don't see this shit with gravity. People don't turn around and go "well yes but the thing is my faith tells me that things fall up and God guides me and it's religion". There really is no difference between "things fall down because a force pulls them towards the mass of the earth" and "things have lower amounts of c-14 because it decays at a known rate over time" and yet people think it's fine to contest one of them. If carbon decay was visible to the naked eye nobody would claim the world was 8000 years old.
But you have to understand that your reasoning is the same reasoning that they use to hate on gays and common science. We don't know what cause's stuff to fall to the earth like that and its fairly easy to poke holes with some people over a complex calculation of the ammont of a certain kind of carbon to determine its absolute age. you can't just expect people to accept wild scientific theory's without any reasonable explanation for them and then spew hate and bile on them when they don't get it.
You have to understand just how much hate these people get from people spouting science at them and telling them that it disproves everything that they believe like its fact. Most of these people never got a college education and are lucky to get anything past a shitty high school education. And yet people are pushing into their face high science and useing it to justify their bigotry tword them. They're ignorant but they aren't necessarily hateful beacuse of that. Your hate for them is only breeding their hate for you.
|
On May 08 2013 00:24 DHD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 00:19 marvellosity wrote:On May 08 2013 00:14 DHD wrote:On May 07 2013 23:18 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 07 2013 22:55 DHD wrote:
the absence of religion equates to an absence of morality. many of the problems afflicting america today stems from a lack of morals brought forth by the counter culture movement of the 60s and 70s.
in short : blame the hippies
...
and rap music Are we back at the beginning of the XVIIIth century, or have I read something implying atheists are immorals ? at least back then people had principles and the common belief of morally right and wrong when religion was a fundamental staple of life... just to set a few examples : now a 14 year old girl can be legally slutty , get contraceptives without a parental consent , get abortions + get abortions without parental consent etc. etc. i can turn the TV on and witness over a dozen channels at any given time featuring rappers talking about selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole you think this current generation is bad? just wait when the ones inspired by lil wayne nicki minaj and obama take charge... you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects , but its undeniable that it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins)but is conservatism also morally corrupt? yes and no - some facets of it can be just as bad and possibly worse if allowed , but currently it is nowhere near as bad as what the liberalists stand for edit: why was i warned for saying liberals should be banned? i've seen much worse posted on this thread and no such warning given... Saying things unfortunately doesn't magically make those things true. Just thought I'd let you know <3 read a book or two about the such said things , ignorance isn't excusable - if you knew anything about the text you bolded....i wouldn't need to reply to you , just so you know <3
I would be interested to see some links to books on the above bolded statements. That would at least provide some sound evidence for your claims. Right now your argument is inductively weak at best and at worst, grossly fallacious.
I feel like stretching my Logic muscles, so let's have a look:
Conclusion 1: "at least back then people had principles and the common belief of morally right and wrong when religion was a fundamental staple of life..."
Premise 1.1: now a 14 year old girl can be legally slutty , get contraceptives without a parental consent , get abortions + get abortions without parental consent etc. etc.
Premise 1.2: i can turn the TV on and witness over a dozen channels at any given time featuring rappers talking about selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole
I can see through the haze of failed grammar and syntax that you are essentially claiming that back in the day, when religion was a fundamental staple of life, people had a common ground for what is morally right and wrong (Conclusion 1).
Premises 1.1 and 1.2 claim to support Conclusion 1 by saying that today, the moral fabric of society has essentially unraveled. 14 year old girls can get access to contraceptives and contraceptive treatment without parental consent (Premise 1.1) and television is filled with images of rappers "selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole" (Premise 1.2).
The above argument, while poorly worded and inductively weak at best, does at least stand as some form of argumentation. However, when we add in the next statement, things begin to fall apart.
you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects , but its undeniable that it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins)
We'll throw out the first part of this statement which reads "you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects" because it doesn't actually make sense, as "this and that" fails to indicate any kind of actual subject.
Moving on to the bolded text, you go on to claim that "it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party". Let's call that your second conclusion.
Conclusion 2: "it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party"
Again translating to English, we can derive the following meaning: "The liberal party is basically full of amoral and deprived sycophants, and it all stemmed from them."
I'm not really sure what you mean by "it all stemmed from them", as "it" is again a word that does not indicate an actual subject. However, looking at the post as a whole and reaching back to the beginning, it can be safely assumed that "it" is referring to the depravity and degradation of society referred to in Premises 1.1 and 1.2 of the previous argument.
So what we actually have here is an argument within an argument. Argument 1 is made, and is then used as supporting evidence for Argument 2, which begins with the second conclusion listed above.
Reading on, we find an additional premise to support the second conclusion.
Premise 2.1: "aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins)"
Putting this through our translator, we can work out the following:
"The liberal party consists of socalistic nutcase hippies and communists like Mr. Obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over. Mr. Obama is obviously a communist, anyone who looks into his past will discover his Marxist political origins".
So, in English, the second argument looks something like this:
Premise: The liberal party consists of socalistic nutcase hippies and communists like Mr. Obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over. Mr. Obama is obviously a communist, anyone who looks into his past will discover his Marxist political origins
Conclusion: The liberal party is basically full of amoral and deprived sycophants, and it all stemmed from them.
Combining the two arguments gives us your original post, but far more clearly worded:
"Back in the day, when religion was a fundamental staple of life, people had a common ground for what is morally right and wrong (Conclusion 1). Today, the moral fabric of society has essentially unraveled. 14 year old girls can get access to contraceptives and contraceptive treatment without parental consent (Premise 1.1) and television is filled with images of rappers selling drugs, raping women, murdering, women stripping, acting like $2 tricks, being bastards (literally and figuratively), making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole" (Premise 1.2).
The liberal party is basically full of amoral and deprived sycophants, and it all stemmed from them (Conclusion 2). The liberal party consists of socalistic nutcase hippies and communists like Mr. Obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over. Mr. Obama is obviously a communist, anyone who looks into his past will discover his Marxist political origins (Premise 2.1).
Reading your argument in The Common Tongue makes it quite obvious that it suffers from a logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad Ignoratio Elenchi" or "Missing the Point".
This fallacy occurs when a person draws a completely different conclusion from the one that is obviously intended. If you had stopped with your first argument, it would have been an inductively weak argument (specifically an argument from generalization) but it would not have been fallacious. However, by taking Argument 1 and using it as a premise for Argument 2, you arrived at a conclusion that was not only completely off track, but also entirely non sequitur to the entire point you were originally trying to prove - that point being that the world is, in fact, better with religion.
You're right. Ignorance isn't excusable. I believe that if you knew anything about the text that your fellow TL poster bolded, I wouldn't have had to reply to you.
Just so you know <3
|
United States42674 Posts
On May 08 2013 02:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 01:53 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 01:24 Sermokala wrote:
I feel like the pervasive element in the church of "young earth" ascientific nonsense is simple a combination of shitty literalist interpretation of the bible and some intent to distance themselves from "mainstream science". I still to this day don't see where evolution conflicts with my faith or why people accept being taught ignorance for the sake of ignorance.
They don't really deserve the hate they get I don't think. There will always be a strong reactionary element in response to any strong progressive element. Its just a function of an expressive society. I disagree, they absolutely deserve the hate they get. You don't see this shit with gravity. People don't turn around and go "well yes but the thing is my faith tells me that things fall up and God guides me and it's religion". There really is no difference between "things fall down because a force pulls them towards the mass of the earth" and "things have lower amounts of c-14 because it decays at a known rate over time" and yet people think it's fine to contest one of them. If carbon decay was visible to the naked eye nobody would claim the world was 8000 years old. But you have to understand that your reasoning is the same reasoning that they use to hate on gays and common science. We don't know what cause's stuff to fall to the earth like that and its fairly easy to poke holes with some people over a complex calculation of the ammont of a certain kind of carbon to determine its absolute age. you can't just expect people to accept wild scientific theory's without any reasonable explanation for them and then spew hate and bile on them when they don't get it. You have to understand just how much hate these people get from people spouting science at them and telling them that it disproves everything that they believe like its fact. Most of these people never got a college education and are lucky to get anything past a shitty high school education. And yet people are pushing into their face high science and useing it to justify their bigotry tword them. They're ignorant but they aren't necessarily hateful beacuse of that. Your hate for them is only breeding their hate for you.
I could explain this to someone with a primary level of education.
"Imagine a candle that burns at an even rate"
"Okay"
"Do you understand that you could see how much of the candle was burned and use that to see how long it'd been alight"
"Yes, makes sense"
"All dead plants and animals (and anything made from them) have candles like that which can be seen with a special kind of pair of glasses so you can actually see how old they are"
"Can I check?"
"Yes"
|
On May 08 2013 00:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 00:14 DHD wrote:On May 07 2013 23:18 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 07 2013 22:55 DHD wrote:
the absence of religion equates to an absence of morality. many of the problems afflicting america today stems from a lack of morals brought forth by the counter culture movement of the 60s and 70s.
in short : blame the hippies
...
and rap music Are we back at the beginning of the XVIIIth century, or have I read something implying atheists are immorals ? at least back then people had principles and the common belief of morally right and wrong when religion was a fundamental staple of life... just to set a few examples : now a 14 year old girl can be legally slutty , get contraceptives without a parental consent , get abortions + get abortions without parental consent etc. etc. i can turn the TV on and witness over a dozen channels at any given time featuring rappers talking about selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole you think this current generation is bad? just wait when the ones inspired by lil wayne nicki minaj and obama take charge... you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects , but its undeniable that it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins) but is conservatism also morally corrupt? yes and no - some facets of it can be just as bad and possibly worse if allowed , but currently it is nowhere near as bad as what the liberalists stand for edit: why was i warned for saying liberals should be banned? i've seen much worse posted on this thread and no such warning given... User was temp banned for the unsourced claim that Obama is a communist. I find it odd that violence in media is being used as an argument for why modern times are immoral compared to the 18th Century when we had actual violence in the streets. I mean yes, there was less violence on television two centuries ago but violence and death were still a much greater and much more real part of the average persons life back then. I also am somewhat confused about the bit where the argument was supposed to be in the statement "a 14 year old girl can legally be slutty". Slutty is, in this case, not explained and could amount to letting 14 year olds dress how they like or be around boys who are not members of their direct family. This could amount to a criticism of the lack of sharia law in the United States, something which, incidentally, was not present in the 18th Century. The singling out of girls is curious in this moral crusade, rather than, for example, calling for an end to pre-marital sex. Instead the point is centred around how the law does not force female sexuality to conform with your specific desires whereas most sane people who really, really care about this issue would instead blame society, poor role models and bad parenting. I'm not sure if you know how law is supposed to work but legally forcing a specific group to act sexually in a given way is generally frowned upon.
you should not compare it to the 18th century morals, that was a completely different time. you should compare it to the morals in say the 50,s and early 60,s and if you do that you could probably see that morals have detoriated.
Tv violence and porn have a huge impact on morals,they are the poor rolemodels you are speaking off. Much more so then parenting, the influence of parents on their children has decreased because children not only see their parents as a role model, but also the things they see and watch on tv and when going out to the clubs.
There are a few statistics wich could proove detoriating morals, like murder and rape rates and maybe also teen pregnancys. Now i dont have these statistics at hand but my guts tell me that the murder and rape rates and teen pregnancys are now way higher then they where in the 50,s.
|
On May 08 2013 02:27 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 00:42 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 00:14 DHD wrote:On May 07 2013 23:18 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 07 2013 22:55 DHD wrote:
the absence of religion equates to an absence of morality. many of the problems afflicting america today stems from a lack of morals brought forth by the counter culture movement of the 60s and 70s.
in short : blame the hippies
...
and rap music Are we back at the beginning of the XVIIIth century, or have I read something implying atheists are immorals ? at least back then people had principles and the common belief of morally right and wrong when religion was a fundamental staple of life... just to set a few examples : now a 14 year old girl can be legally slutty , get contraceptives without a parental consent , get abortions + get abortions without parental consent etc. etc. i can turn the TV on and witness over a dozen channels at any given time featuring rappers talking about selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole you think this current generation is bad? just wait when the ones inspired by lil wayne nicki minaj and obama take charge... you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects , but its undeniable that it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins) but is conservatism also morally corrupt? yes and no - some facets of it can be just as bad and possibly worse if allowed , but currently it is nowhere near as bad as what the liberalists stand for edit: why was i warned for saying liberals should be banned? i've seen much worse posted on this thread and no such warning given... User was temp banned for the unsourced claim that Obama is a communist. I find it odd that violence in media is being used as an argument for why modern times are immoral compared to the 18th Century when we had actual violence in the streets. I mean yes, there was less violence on television two centuries ago but violence and death were still a much greater and much more real part of the average persons life back then. I also am somewhat confused about the bit where the argument was supposed to be in the statement "a 14 year old girl can legally be slutty". Slutty is, in this case, not explained and could amount to letting 14 year olds dress how they like or be around boys who are not members of their direct family. This could amount to a criticism of the lack of sharia law in the United States, something which, incidentally, was not present in the 18th Century. The singling out of girls is curious in this moral crusade, rather than, for example, calling for an end to pre-marital sex. Instead the point is centred around how the law does not force female sexuality to conform with your specific desires whereas most sane people who really, really care about this issue would instead blame society, poor role models and bad parenting. I'm not sure if you know how law is supposed to work but legally forcing a specific group to act sexually in a given way is generally frowned upon. you should not compare it to the 18th century morals, that was a completely different time. you should compare it to the morals in say the 50,s and early 60,s and if you do that you could probably see that morals have detoriated. Tv violence and porn have a huge impact on morals,they are the poor rolemodels you are speaking off. Much more so then parenting, the influence of parents on their children has decreased because children not only see their parents as a role model, but also the things they see and watch on tv and when going out to the clubs. There are a few statistics wich could proove detoriating morals, like murder and rape rates and maybe also teen pregnancys. Now i dont have these statistics at hand but my guts tell me that the murder and rape rates and teen pregnancys are now way higher then they where in the 50,s.
But you can't just jumble that up with "deteriorating morals." Find me some stats that can link the two, and not from some religious or "family values" think tank, but something academic. THEN you can cry about morality all you want.
|
United States42674 Posts
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
1980 was a high at 10.2 per 100,000. 2007 (where the data ends on that site) was just over half that at 5.9.
Data in the UK shows that the homicide rate is at a 30 year low although it peaked recently in 2002 when 172 deaths were attributed to a single very prolific serial killer.
|
Ah, nothing like a discussion of moral deterioration written as though no one but straight white males ever existed.
Of course everyone was much more moral back in the 50s. It's not like entire classes of the human race were being treated (even more) like shit.
|
Idunno, Kant's categorical imperative (if you want to call that a sort of "morality" is pretty incompatible with religion. Still works pretty well though.
Whatever, don't feed the troll.
|
On May 08 2013 02:27 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 00:42 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 00:14 DHD wrote:On May 07 2013 23:18 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 07 2013 22:55 DHD wrote:
the absence of religion equates to an absence of morality. many of the problems afflicting america today stems from a lack of morals brought forth by the counter culture movement of the 60s and 70s.
in short : blame the hippies
...
and rap music Are we back at the beginning of the XVIIIth century, or have I read something implying atheists are immorals ? at least back then people had principles and the common belief of morally right and wrong when religion was a fundamental staple of life... just to set a few examples : now a 14 year old girl can be legally slutty , get contraceptives without a parental consent , get abortions + get abortions without parental consent etc. etc. i can turn the TV on and witness over a dozen channels at any given time featuring rappers talking about selling drugs +raping women+murdering , women stripping , acting like $2 tricks , being bastards (literally and figuratively) making bastards and generally degrading society as a whole you think this current generation is bad? just wait when the ones inspired by lil wayne nicki minaj and obama take charge... you can argue on and on about this and that in regards to causes and effects , but its undeniable that it all stemmed from the amoral and deprived sycophants that is basically the liberal party aka left wing socialistic nutcase hippies and sometimes communists like mr. obama and his merry band of cultists he presides over ( he is a communist , anyone who looks into his past will discover his marxist political origins) but is conservatism also morally corrupt? yes and no - some facets of it can be just as bad and possibly worse if allowed , but currently it is nowhere near as bad as what the liberalists stand for edit: why was i warned for saying liberals should be banned? i've seen much worse posted on this thread and no such warning given... User was temp banned for the unsourced claim that Obama is a communist. I find it odd that violence in media is being used as an argument for why modern times are immoral compared to the 18th Century when we had actual violence in the streets. I mean yes, there was less violence on television two centuries ago but violence and death were still a much greater and much more real part of the average persons life back then. I also am somewhat confused about the bit where the argument was supposed to be in the statement "a 14 year old girl can legally be slutty". Slutty is, in this case, not explained and could amount to letting 14 year olds dress how they like or be around boys who are not members of their direct family. This could amount to a criticism of the lack of sharia law in the United States, something which, incidentally, was not present in the 18th Century. The singling out of girls is curious in this moral crusade, rather than, for example, calling for an end to pre-marital sex. Instead the point is centred around how the law does not force female sexuality to conform with your specific desires whereas most sane people who really, really care about this issue would instead blame society, poor role models and bad parenting. I'm not sure if you know how law is supposed to work but legally forcing a specific group to act sexually in a given way is generally frowned upon. you should not compare it to the 18th century morals, that was a completely different time. you should compare it to the morals in say the 50,s and early 60,s and if you do that you could probably see that morals have detoriated. Tv violence and porn have a huge impact on morals,they are the poor rolemodels you are speaking off. Much more so then parenting, the influence of parents on their children has decreased because children not only see their parents as a role model, but also the things they see and watch on tv and when going out to the clubs. There are a few statistics wich could proove detoriating morals, like murder and rape rates and maybe also teen pregnancys. Now i dont have these statistics at hand but my guts tell me that the murder and rape rates and teen pregnancys are now way higher then they where in the 50,s.
Morals such as abject racism and homophobic tendency? 'morals' should be concrete if 'the one true god' decided to make them thousands of years ago yet we seem to think "it was a different time" is adequate...
I have no idea how you can think blatant racism and homophobia matched with general bigotry was our moral high ground.... Do tell us more about how amazing the slave era was as well.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
Also you mean this?
Violence is going DOWN in the world, especially in non-religious countries such as the Nordic regions so I fail to see your 'moral' argument.
|
On May 08 2013 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
Idunno, Kant's categorical imperative (if you want to call that a sort of "morality" is pretty incompatible with religion. Still works pretty well though.
Whatever, don't feed the troll.
It's so uncompatible with religion that Kant tries to convince the reader of the Critic of Rractical Reason that religion can be derived from the categorical imperative
|
Quote instead of edit, sorry
|
The best thing I got out of having to take Latin in high school was translating a "back in the old days..." passage from the Aeneid. Never taken those arguments as more than a bad joke since. Also I love anyone who attempts a serious discussion with "my gut tells me..." Personally I blame my deteriorating morality on Fallout.
Does anyone else get scared when they see their area in the national news? Every time something begins with "Louisiana governor" or "In the Louisiana town of ..." I shudder because it's so often awful.
|
On May 08 2013 02:54 Trumpet wrote:
The best thing I got out of having to take Latin in high school was translating a "back in the old days..." passage from the Aeneid. Never taken those arguments as more than a bad joke since. Also I love anyone who attempts a serious discussion with "my gut tells me..." Personally I blame my deteriorating morality on Fallout.
Does anyone else get scared when they see their area in the national news? Every time something begins with "Louisiana governor" or "In the Louisiana town of ..." I shudder because it's so often awful.
Well my gut feeling is that guys gut feeling happens to come up a lot in discussions because he doesn't take the time to check his sources.
I think... in this instance, my gut trumps his, in size likely and in being right  "looks down at tubby gut".
|
I think that society in general is much more moral than it was 50 years ago. For some reason, discussions about failing morality always descend into the territory of the sexual revolution. I think that, taken as a whole, the sexual revolution accomplished far more good things than it did bad, and that while obviously 14 year olds probably don't possess the maturity to warrant having intercourse, it seems to me that this sort of sexualization is less awful than blatant discrimination against homosexuals/women/etc that existed some decades ago.
|
I think it just goes to show that "morality" is incredibly subjective. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex (except the argument of "God says so"), and so I wonder why the sexual revolution and hippies get the blame for immorality in today's society. If only advocates of "50 years ago morality" could show data of how increases in sexuality increase crime rates....
The fact of the matter is, more people are becoming secular (religious or atheist), and this is seen as being immoral. I think, as was stated earlier, that the best possible grasp on a definition of morality comes from the categorical imperative. And when we use the cat imp as a guideline for morality, I think it shows our society becoming more moral as secularism rises. That's my opinion anyway.
|
On May 08 2013 02:56 Shiori wrote:
I think that society in general is much more moral than it was 50 years ago. For some reason, discussions about failing morality always descend into the territory of the sexual revolution. I think that, taken as a whole, the sexual revolution accomplished far more good things than it did bad, and that while obviously 14 year olds probably don't possess the maturity to warrant having intercourse, it seems to me that this sort of sexualization is less awful than blatant discrimination against homosexuals/women/etc that existed some decades ago.
Agreed, that one step back seems to be worth the several steps forward.
|
On May 08 2013 04:41 renoB wrote:
I think it just goes to show that "morality" is incredibly subjective. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex (except the argument of "God says so"), and so I wonder why the sexual revolution and hippies get the blame for immorality in today's society. If only advocates of "50 years ago morality" could show data of how increases in sexuality increase crime rates....
The fact of the matter is, more people are becoming secular (religious or atheist), and this is seen as being immoral. I think, as was stated earlier, that the best possible grasp on a definition of morality comes from the categorical imperative. And when we use the cat imp as a guideline for morality, I think it shows our society becoming more moral as secularism rises. That's my opinion anyway.
To be honest, I don't think Kant would have much love for young teenagers (i.e. not like 17 year olds or something) having rampant, no-strings-attached sex.
|
On May 08 2013 04:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:41 renoB wrote:
I think it just goes to show that "morality" is incredibly subjective. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex (except the argument of "God says so"), and so I wonder why the sexual revolution and hippies get the blame for immorality in today's society. If only advocates of "50 years ago morality" could show data of how increases in sexuality increase crime rates....
The fact of the matter is, more people are becoming secular (religious or atheist), and this is seen as being immoral. I think, as was stated earlier, that the best possible grasp on a definition of morality comes from the categorical imperative. And when we use the cat imp as a guideline for morality, I think it shows our society becoming more moral as secularism rises. That's my opinion anyway.
To be honest, I don't think Kant would have much love for young teenagers (i.e. not like 17 year olds or something) having rampant, no-strings-attached sex.
What the categorical imperative prescribes and what Kant claims it prescribes are two different things, and his coming up with it doesn't change that. Kant's applied ethics is a pile of non sequiturs and rationalizations.
|
On May 08 2013 04:49 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:46 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 04:41 renoB wrote:
I think it just goes to show that "morality" is incredibly subjective. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex (except the argument of "God says so"), and so I wonder why the sexual revolution and hippies get the blame for immorality in today's society. If only advocates of "50 years ago morality" could show data of how increases in sexuality increase crime rates....
The fact of the matter is, more people are becoming secular (religious or atheist), and this is seen as being immoral. I think, as was stated earlier, that the best possible grasp on a definition of morality comes from the categorical imperative. And when we use the cat imp as a guideline for morality, I think it shows our society becoming more moral as secularism rises. That's my opinion anyway.
To be honest, I don't think Kant would have much love for young teenagers (i.e. not like 17 year olds or something) having rampant, no-strings-attached sex. What the categorical imperative prescribes and what Kant claims it prescribes are two different things, and his coming up with it doesn't change that. Kant's applied ethics is a pile of non sequiturs and rationalizations.
I actually think Kant's interpretation of the CI as relating to remembering to treat human beings as an end rather than merely as a mean is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think it's much of a non-sequitur to see why meaningless, unconsidered intimacy isn't really faithful to the idea that human beings are fundamentally worthy of dignity because they are moral agents.
Not saying that I agree with Kant's puritanical stance on sex, but I don't think it's particularly hard to deduce that emotionally undeveloped youth are probably best-advised to avoid unnecessarily entangling themselves with what can be a very powerful experience without careful consideration.
|
On May 08 2013 04:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:49 frogrubdown wrote:On May 08 2013 04:46 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 04:41 renoB wrote:
I think it just goes to show that "morality" is incredibly subjective. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex (except the argument of "God says so"), and so I wonder why the sexual revolution and hippies get the blame for immorality in today's society. If only advocates of "50 years ago morality" could show data of how increases in sexuality increase crime rates....
The fact of the matter is, more people are becoming secular (religious or atheist), and this is seen as being immoral. I think, as was stated earlier, that the best possible grasp on a definition of morality comes from the categorical imperative. And when we use the cat imp as a guideline for morality, I think it shows our society becoming more moral as secularism rises. That's my opinion anyway.
To be honest, I don't think Kant would have much love for young teenagers (i.e. not like 17 year olds or something) having rampant, no-strings-attached sex. What the categorical imperative prescribes and what Kant claims it prescribes are two different things, and his coming up with it doesn't change that. Kant's applied ethics is a pile of non sequiturs and rationalizations. I actually think Kant's interpretation of the CI as relating to remembering to treat human beings as an end rather than merely as a mean is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think it's much of a non-sequitur to see why meaningless, unconsidered intimacy isn't really faithful to the idea that human beings are fundamentally worthy of dignity because they are moral agents.
When I think of the CI, I think of the first formulation ("act only according to a maxim..."), as it is mildly less hopelessly imprecise than the other two. And again, Kant's claiming that the three formulations are equivalent doesn't mean they are.
I don't see any reasonable way of ruling out "meaningless" intimacy on the first formulation, so long as it is uncoerced (though maybe a lot hinges here on exactly how "unconsidered" unconsidered sex is). I can vaguely see how you could rule it out under the second, but only vaguely. The problem with the second, among other things, is that subjects are a kind of object. I have no clear idea of what it is to treat a subject as an object such that doing so is always objectionable.[1]
That said, you are right that I may have been too hasty in assuming the earlier poster meant the first formulation.
[1]
+ Show Spoiler +
Here I'm assuming that "treating people as ends" means the same as "not treating them as objects", though the two could come apart. In either case, one of the main worries is whether your act has to be motivated by them being ends or you merely have to be prepared to act differently depending on how their being ends might create morally relevant considerations. The first would label a number of trivial acts immoral. The second is better, but it doesn't seem to restrict sex lives in a significant way. It also can't count as a reduction of morality since we have an unexplained use of "morally relevant" within it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
