|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why do teachers ask questions? To get the students to think of the answers themselves, maybe? How could the creator of all seen and unseen need a dope slap from a human? If "God" is being portrayed as a dope that needs a slap, people should question the portrayal, maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dogmafood writes:
You remind me of Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies who invented an anti-smog device for cars. The device was simple, he explained, but the filter filled up the back of truck. The formula is simple. It is the quantification of harm that is difficult and complex. Interstellar travel is simple. Only the vehicle is difficult and complex. Hypothetical morality is simple. Only real morality is difficult and complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
You can be objectively observed to be experiencing pain when you are subjectively not experiencing pain. Can you really tell me when I am experiencing pain and when I am not? That's the trouble with worshiping Holy Objectivity: sometimes objective observations are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
It's the same thing. We can only observe what you seem to be feeling, not what you "are" feeling.
ringo writes: No. I can be objectively observed to act in a way that implies I am experiencing pain. You can be objectively observed to be experiencing pain when you are subjectively not experiencing pain. Straggler writes:
We could hypothetically observe the signals in your brain that "should" produce a feeling of pain but we can't directly observe the feelings themselves.
Furthermore you could objectively observe the physical mechanism that leads to the sensation of pain. Straggler writes:
Yes, by definition.
However whether or not I am actually experiencing the sensation of pain is purely subjective. Straggler writes:
I can only tell other people how you seem to feel. That's the basis of objectivity.
How can you possibly tell me what I feel?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
You'd have the same problem in robot society as we have in human society: the conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the group. Imagine that we were trying to program a robot to behave morally in any society. Some societies would want to destroy the robot because it threatened their jobs, etc. The robot would want to avoid that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Tyrants have always done that - and their minions have always used it as an excuse for "just following orders". ______ has convinced me that all His judgments are righteous whether I am able to see how or not. Lack of personal conscience is the ultimate example of having no morality at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
I am of the opinion - illusion or not - that we can and ought to try to change the bad parts of reality. If reality included a tyrannical god then the moral thing to do would be to challenge his tyrany, not kowtow to it. You must be under the liberal illusion that you can avoid reality.... Morality requires trying to do what's right, whether it's possible or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
Then why do believers have such bizarre irrational "explanations" for his supposed commandments? Like justifying slavery. ("Slavery was fun in the Bible. It was like a ride at Disneyland. There were long lineups to get in.") The grace of this God is that "he" is rationally understandable. The problem with having an external source for morality is that you don't have an internal understanding. The source of the message is irrelevant (i.e. "God' is irrelevant). You have to understand the message. It's called "empathy".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GrimSqueaker writes:
I'd call it a commonly-believed fantasy. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have threads like this.
I would go a step further and say that an external source for morality is an oximoron
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
The operative word there is "was". The Law was considered moral by the people who devised it. However, it is not considered moral by people of conscience today. BUT,... the Law was the list of what was moral. That's the problem with prescribed morality. People who accept the prescription don't internalize the morality; they don't understand the morality and/or immorality of the prescription. Thus, we have people trying to justify outrages like slavery because it "must" be moral - even if they themselves can't understand how it could be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
Not at all. I accept the Bible for what it says, instead of trying to re-interpret plain language to be more palatable. If the Bible tells people to treat their slaves well, then I take it as condoning slavery. (And don't be confused by the word "servant". The practice described in the Bible is definitely slavery.)
You believe you fully understand the Bible and have found it wanting and erroneous and wrong. kofh2u writes:
The behaviour that the Bible describes is wrong for any person of conscience. If you're saying that I refuse to put a book ahead of my own conscience, you're right.
Nothing will persuade you either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You're using the word "free" like an advertising man: "Here's a FREE gift for you... but you have to buy our product to get it."
I have explained to you twice now, that the choice is not what constitutes free will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
You're redefining the word for your own purposes. What's supposedly "free" has a lot of conditions attached. We have "free will" but if we make the wrong choice, we get punished. A choice between apple pie and a punch in the face isn't a free choice; it's a loaded one.
ringo writes:
Maybe you could elaborate on this a bit and show how it actual applies to this discussion. You're using the word "free" like an advertising man: "Here's a FREE gift for you... but you have to buy our product to get it."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You can't change the reality of gravity but you can describe gravity in terms that do not fit the reality. For example, you could say that gravity causes objects to fall in parallel lines toward the surface of the earth (implying a flat earth). Similarly, you could describe a decision process as "free will" when in reality there is no freedom at all. Simply put, I could not redefine free will any more than I could redifine the principles of gravity. A choice between apple pie and a punch in the face isn't a free choice; it's a loaded one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Paul Serup writes:
Does the book you wrote have paragraphs? Do you think it's possible for someone to be a moral person without using paragraphs?
My name is Paul Serup and I will address a number of statements that Theodoric has made about myself and the book I wrote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024