|
On May 11 2011 12:50 Sight- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:19 Moonling wrote:On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote:
Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry. Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.) A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have. B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong. EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go".
Lol, what if they think you're wrong? ^_^
|
On May 11 2011 12:52 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:50 Sight- wrote:On May 11 2011 12:19 Moonling wrote:On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote:
Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry. Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.) A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have. B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong. EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go". Lol, what if they think you're wrong? ^_^ Ok. So your saying all morality comes down to an opinion? We can go down this road.
Edit: Not trying to be combative.
|
On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote:
This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems that chemists are having. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too.
On May 11 2011 12:53 Sight- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:52 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:50 Sight- wrote:On May 11 2011 12:19 Moonling wrote:On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote:
Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry. Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.) A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have. B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong. EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go". Lol, what if they think you're wrong? ^_^ Ok. So your saying all morality comes down to an opinion? We can go down this road. Edit: Not trying to be combative.
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
|
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote:
This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems about chemists. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too.
I have no idea what your saying. Who are the super efficient problem solvers of the world's atrocities? And why isn't the marginal good you do when you donate, or sign better than nothing at all?
|
On May 11 2011 12:58 Sight- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote:
This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems about chemists. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too. I have no idea what your saying. Who are the super efficient problem solvers of the world's atrocities? And why isn't the marginal good you do when you donate, or sign better than nothing at all?
I'm saying there is too much focus on "us" (us meaning westernized nations) focusing on "helping" other nations which we know really not much about. It's a completely different culture. So if everyone worked on solving the problems around them, it's much more efficient because you know the full story behind the problems and what needs to be done to fix it. Obviously people need to help eachother but just because we now have the ability to travel 1000 miles to help people doesn't necessarily mean we should do that instead of helping someone a mile down the road, where you are much better suited to helping because of your knowledge of the culture, the intent of the people around you, etc. Basically you are better equipped to help them. Help is better allocated in a way where it'll be used most efficiently. It's pretty crazy how like people in the US see Africa. It's completely different than our perception forged by the media. A lot of people see Africa as NEEDING the US and other countries to help them do everything like they aren't capable of doing anything. This just isn't the case.
|
On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:24 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:20 jello_biafra wrote:
[quote]
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals. Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree. We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet. You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong  Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
|
You're looking at this too much from a moral relitivist's standpoint. Even if that's the case, preventing needless loss of life should be high on everybody's priorities.
State sovereignty is important, but that doesn't mean everybody turns a blind eye to other country's actions towards its citizens.
|
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
|
On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:24 Uhh Negative wrote:
[quote]
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree. We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet. You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law. I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
I'll also say one of my cousins is currently in Uganda teaching 5th grade. Not like this matters though. Just kind of interesting I guess.
|
On May 11 2011 13:18 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote:
[quote]
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet. You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand? I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
I don't think you have to worry about the US invading Uganda and carpet-bombing cities.
I remember, an episode of the West Wing. A character is asking why the US should give out a loan to the Mexican government, sending out taxpayer's money elsewhere. His response was basically, "There are too many things in the world we can't do. Mexico is on fire. Why help them? Because we can."
The US has the means and ability to help people around the world. We don't make it a priority at all time, but I think attempting to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians shouldn't be avoided just because we have our own problems.
|
On May 11 2011 13:18 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote:
[quote]
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet. You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand? I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it. Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law. I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically. Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about. I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist.
|
On May 11 2011 13:23 Sight- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:18 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:[quote] You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand? I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it. On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law. I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically. Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about. I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist.
Explain this further.
It's interesting to note that morality can never be objective.
It's also interesting to think about how things were different before the Information Age. Does merely the knowledge of information make us responsible for it's outcome?
Just some interesting things to think about. I'm not suggesting anything.
|
Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
|
On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote:
Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality.
It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals.
The two are so intertwined it's hard to say. Maybe intrinsic morality has spawned religion, thus the reason most religions are very similar at the core.
|
On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote:
Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
|
On May 11 2011 13:26 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:23 Sight- wrote:On May 11 2011 13:18 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:
[quote]
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand? I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it. On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law. I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically. Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about. I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist. Explain this further. Ugh I'm really tired.
But essentially this is how I think of it:
You prioritize rights of people. Meaning, you set up some sort of moral system which requires a minimum of protection for people. But say someone blatantly violates those. You have two options: you can violate your moral code, which seems to require interference if you value life, or not. But by not interfering you fail to fulfill your own morals. So I don't think the moral relativist position can function, if you believe in positive rights at all. Even if you only believe in negative rights, you should probably have some obligation to ensure that they are protected.
Also it's self defeating. You tell me I can't tell others what to do but that tells me how to prioritize my morals. Which goes against what you're saying in the first place.
|
On May 11 2011 13:34 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote:
Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality. It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals. The two are so intertwined it's hard to say.
It's not really hard to say. Our sense of morality is evolutionarily necessary to our communal way of life, with or without religion. There are clear examples of altruistic behavior even in the animal kingdom - one example that pops in my mind is certain squirrel species that give calls to warn nearby squirrels about predators, despite the fact that giving the call increases their own chance of getting killed. On top of that, you have the very concrete phenomenon of empathy which contributes to our moral sense.
All signs that I've seen point to a sense of morality not being a direct result of religion in any way.
|
That works in theory, but what if you cannot interfere with everyone who violates these basic rights. Does it make you responsible for the instances where you didn't interfere, simply because of time constraints, essentially?
I'm not really trying to argue a point, I'm just trying to stimulate thought and discussion.
|
On May 11 2011 13:39 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:34 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote:
Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality. It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals. The two are so intertwined it's hard to say. It's not really hard to say. Our sense of morality is evolutionarily necessary to our communal way of life, with or without religion. There are clear examples of altruistic behavior even in the animal kingdom - one example that pops in my mind is certain squirrel species that give calls to warn nearby squirrels about predators, despite the fact that giving the call increases their own chance of getting killed. On top of that, you have the very concrete phenomenon of empathy which contributes to our moral sense. All signs that I've seen point to a sense of morality not being a direct result of religion in any way.
Well religion can't be a direct cause of anything, because to believe in a religion.... you have to have reason to believe in it. But there are aspects of religion that kind of loop back intrinsic moral values, such as God created us with intrinsic moral values, or some idea like that. So yeah, there must be some intrinsic morality. Good point.
This is kind of way off-topic but if you think about it, our logic system is a construction of the mind, and while it appears to be consistent across all humans, who knows if our logic system is merely a small piece of what's actually real, something incomprehensible to us. So basically it's not productive to think about this, but interesting nonetheless.
|
On May 10 2011 12:32 Empyrean wrote:
Other countries should introduce bills that require capital punishment for being Ugandan.
troll?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
