Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,941 Year: 9,689/23,288 Month: 704/1,544 Week: 96/322 Day: 16/80 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal morality
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 106 of 196 (393621)
04-06-2007 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 12:31 AM


brilliant man. absolutely confounding.

you come back here as "ignatius". when he gets banned, you start "ethics", claiming to not be "prophex". "ethics" get's banned. you post as MOO (a second time), referring crash to a post by "ethics" by saying "I wrote".

why not just use your real account? And why try to hide who you are?

foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 12:31 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 04-06-2007 1:46 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 107 of 196 (393622)
04-06-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by fallacycop
04-06-2007 1:10 AM


quote:
I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?

That behaviour is immoral for a variety of reasons. You destroy any self-worth you had. You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth. Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value. You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love. By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself. You make yourself sick. Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 1:10 AM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 1:44 AM a servant of Christ has responded
 Message 112 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:07 AM a servant of Christ has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18354
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 108 of 196 (393623)
04-06-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 1:32 AM


moo writes:

You destroy any self-worth you had.

"Self-worth", by definition, is determined by the person himself, not by you.

This degrades the value of love.

No more than ice cream degrades the value of food. An occasional one-scoop stand isn't the end of the world.

Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.

Humanity has gotten by for a while without the support of your beliefs. I expect it will continue to do so.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 1:32 AM a servant of Christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 1:58 AM ringo has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 109 of 196 (393624)
04-06-2007 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by kuresu
04-06-2007 1:16 AM


kuresu writes:

foolish.

Or possibly even amoral.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by kuresu, posted 04-06-2007 1:16 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 2:04 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 110 of 196 (393627)
04-06-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
04-06-2007 1:44 AM


quote:
No more than ice cream degrades the value of food. An occasional one-scoop stand isn't the end of the world.

This is not true at all. Granted, it takes a great deal of reasoning to understand this it is no excuse for this peddling of perversion.
It is not okay for man to do good and bad. A truly good man has the knowledge, can measure the good and the bad and can never do wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 1:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 04-06-2007 2:42 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 111 of 196 (393628)
04-06-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by anglagard
04-06-2007 1:46 AM


If I didn't consider their well-being I would've stopped posting by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 04-06-2007 1:46 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 112 of 196 (393629)
04-06-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 1:32 AM


You destroy any self-worth you had

That`s not ut to you to decide. Every person has to decide by themselves what gives them self worth.

You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth

Just your opinion. I, for instance, am very proud of being an animal.

Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value.

I couldn`t care less about Mill`s (who the heck is him?) opinion.

Besides being an instance of "appeal to authority" fallacy, what you said makes no sense.

You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love.

There are many forms of love. Besides, love is stronger then you are implying.

By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself.

Who are you to decide what`s hurtfull to other people? That`s their prehogative, not yours.

You make yourself sick

Not necessarily.

Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.

A completely irrelevant conclusion to your post. (which, by the way, is not entirely surprising...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 1:32 AM a servant of Christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 2:22 AM fallacycop has responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 113 of 196 (393630)
04-06-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by fallacycop
04-06-2007 2:07 AM


Definition from Doing Philosophy.

quote:
Appeal to Authority- We often try to support our views by citing experts. This sort of appeal to authority is perfectly valid provided that the person cited really is an expert in the field in question.

LOL

"appeal to authority" fallacy? Judging that J.S. Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty. Is this a joke? This is a joke. I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.

Your immorality will catch up on you.

Maybe, if you have time, you can mix the study of human knowledge in with your memorization of fallacies. Especially because you can't reason out the fallacy you incorrectly memorized.

Edited by -messenjah of one, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:07 AM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:42 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Member
Posts: 1760
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 114 of 196 (393631)
04-06-2007 2:36 AM


I'm sorry fallacy cop I didn't mean to hurt your feelings if you were hurt. My tone in the previous post was a little judgmental. I'm not sure why I became so defensive. Well, you will see the flaw in your memorization.

I think I'm going to stop posting now at this point. Thanks for listening.


Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 2:53 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18354
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 115 of 196 (393633)
04-06-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 1:58 AM


moo writes:

A truly good man has the knowledge, can measure the good and the bad and can never do wrong.

To "never do wrong", to "measure the good and the bad", a man would have to have perfect knowledge. That is not possible, no matter how "truly good" he might be.

... it takes a great deal of reasoning to understand this it is no excuse for this peddling of perversion.

Nobody is talking about "perversion" here - we're talking about one-night stands. If you don't understand the terminology, no amount of "reasoning" will help you.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 1:58 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 116 of 196 (393634)
04-06-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 2:22 AM


Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty.

Sorry, but I just don`t buy that. Your arguments in these fora must stand on their own. Besides, as I pointed out, what you said made no sense. No external "Authorities" will change that. (May be you just misstyped?)

Is that all you could come up with against my previous post?

I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.

Your immorality will catch up on you.


Unecessary prsonal attacks. Your debating style isn`t doing much to further your points, in case you haven`t noticed...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 2:22 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 117 of 196 (393635)
04-06-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by a servant of Christ
04-06-2007 2:36 AM


Well, you will see the flaw in your memorization.

I do more then simply memorizing fallacies. I think critically about them.

I think if is quite funny that you brought in a second appeal to authority in order to justify the first.

But that was really the least important point I made in my post because a statement can still be true even if all that was given to support it was an empty appeal to authority.

Why don`t you address some of my other more relevant points?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by a servant of Christ, posted 04-06-2007 2:36 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 118 of 196 (393690)
04-06-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ethics
04-05-2007 4:11 PM


Knowledge of morality
I don't really know anymore writes:

The man that has the knowledge cannot do wrong. For the man that has the knowledge of pleasure and pain, good and bad will be able to measure the good and the bad of an action. This man will not succumb to the illusion of immediate gratification because he can measure the good from the bad wholly.

So, what you're saying is... as long as one knows what's good from bad, they won't do bad? That doesn't sound very correct.

And this "knowledge" that one needs to learn. You seem to be of the stance that everyone learns the same knowledge. I would agree that this is theoretically possible. Yet, in practice, I don't see how it could possibly work with any level of normally functioning society.

I mean, yes... if two people have the same knowledge, if they've learnt the same things... then yes, of course they are going to make the same decisions with that knowledge. That seems... trivial.

But, that's really the whole point. There are no two people who have the same knowledge. And it's that knowledge that shapes what we think is good and bad in the first place.

There cannot be more than one truth. If a culture believes good of the practice of suttee and another doesn't, it cannot be both right to some and wrong to others. Knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. Relativism destroys tolerance and the meaning thereof. Relativism is bullshit.

I agree that knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. But which man's knowledge is better, or true, as you put it? Is it only true when two or more people agree on it? That's the whole problem. Some people's knowledge will tell them something's wrong, another's will tell them something's right.

Maybe you're correct, and only 1 of them is true. Yet, how do we tell which one? More knowledge? Who's knowledge says which is correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ethics, posted 04-05-2007 4:11 PM ethics has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2007 3:00 PM Stile has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 196 (393716)
04-06-2007 2:58 PM


Talkin' 'bout my morality...
There are behaviors that my conscience tells me are immoral that I enjoy doing. I try to avoid these behaviors for some of the following reasons:

  • The affects they have on other people.
  • The affects they have on me.
  • The affects they have on God.

Sometimes I avoid the behaviors for all three reasons sometimes for just one.

If I lost my faith and became atheist, the immoral behaviors that I avoid because of their affects on God alone would have no reason to be avoided anymore.

If I became an atheist, I would behave more immorally.


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 04-06-2007 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Trae, posted 04-06-2007 9:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 126 by fallacycop, posted 04-06-2007 10:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Max Power, posted 04-07-2007 12:16 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Neutralmind, posted 04-08-2007 11:15 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 196 (393718)
04-06-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Stile
04-06-2007 12:14 PM


Hi Stile,

I never got a chance to reply to your last message to me in the Athiesm Examined thread. Do you want me to write one and slap it up somewhere or just forget about it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Stile, posted 04-06-2007 12:14 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 04-06-2007 6:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020