Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,143 Year: 5,400/9,624 Month: 425/323 Week: 65/204 Day: 7/34 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 9 of 438 (504466)
03-29-2009 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
03-28-2009 8:28 AM


Hi Cedre,
Quick question before I reply to the entire post, just to get a direction of where to go with my reply.
Cedre writes:
The question that recurred in my mind was why there is goodness or in other words why righteous men exist who strive day by day to become less selfish and more selfless.
Would you say that 90% of society, as a whole if you wish, acts the opposite way of what you say above, and only very few act in that manner?
The point of my babbling is that we shouldn't strive to be good to others and even worse feel good after being good.
I would agrue that most people don't strive to be good at the individual level, they strive to survive and their/our survival depends on our society being orderly and non-aggressive toward one another.
This ensures a better survival rate for our young. These traits are passed on to fuure generations who will also be less aggressive to ensure survival. And if you take history as an example, you would have to agree that in the last 6000 years society has become less aggressive toward one another - to include government punishment - and thus you can see how successful our species has been at procreating in the last 6000 years*.
*don't feel like researching the numbers.
Simply put, a society that is less aggressive will have a better success rate and pass these traits to their offspring. The decrease of aggression and increase of altruism will insure the future success of the species as a whole.
So we are altruistic because as a whole it is a better environment for us to live in and raise children.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 8:28 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Stagamancer, posted 03-29-2009 4:32 AM onifre has replied
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 03-29-2009 2:16 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 15 of 438 (504492)
03-29-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stagamancer
03-29-2009 4:32 AM


Natural selection is never directed by the future success of the species as a whole
That was not my point.
and to use this argument puts you in a dangerous position (in terms of debate)
Not my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stagamancer, posted 03-29-2009 4:32 AM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stagamancer, posted 03-29-2009 9:39 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 16 of 438 (504493)
03-29-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kuresu
03-29-2009 2:16 PM


I know you didn't feel like researching the numbers, but you really should have.
I knew you'd tke care of that.
The number of known wars in the 20th century is staggering.
Yet, not one in the US, Canada, Sweden, UK, etc. Where a less agreessive people reside.
Of the places where these wars are taking place, how many are first world countries, have a lawful government, or even a structured government?
Why are people from counrties where wars are taking place trying to get to the US, where no wars are taking place? - Would you not agree that it's for a better living condition, for the raising of their children in a non-hostile environment, for the safety of their families, etc?
My point was that people/families/social groups, will always seek a less agreessvive, less hostile environment to raise their children. If their current environment is not representative of this then they migrate to one that is.
You can reduce these causes of death and still wage war and fight increasing number of conflicts and see the population increase.
Yes but you raise the wars else where, where living conditions are not good to begin with. Not one war has been started on US soil in a long period of time, this type of non-aggressive environment that we enjoy in the US - (and else where too) - is protected and nurtured to stay that way. It is governed with laws to ensure it's success. It is sought after by people around the world. It is where people want to live, and why, because, like I stated:
Oni writes:
Simply put, a society that is less aggressive will have a better success rate and pass these traits to their offspring. The decrease of aggression and increase of altruism will insure the future success of the species as a whole.
So we are altruistic because as a whole it is a better environment for us to live in and raise children.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 03-29-2009 2:16 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by kuresu, posted 03-30-2009 1:58 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 438 (504499)
03-30-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stagamancer
03-29-2009 9:39 PM


In one sentence you argue that altruism would be selected for by natural selection, and the next you state that this increase in altruism would ensure the success of the species as a whole.
Yes, that was my point.
But you said:
Stagamancer writes:
Natural selection is never directed by the future success of the species as a whole
Which I never said it did.
Would you not agree that those who have these traits and pass it on to their offspring will have a better success rate than those who do not have these traits? - In other words, would a society that was not altruistic survive for a long period of time given todays more modern standards of living?
I would argue that they would not, as shown by our current rate of success in altruistic societies vs. non-altruistic socities.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stagamancer, posted 03-29-2009 9:39 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stagamancer, posted 03-30-2009 7:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 438 (504521)
03-30-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by kuresu
03-30-2009 1:58 AM


Catching a flight so I'll just respond quickly.
Oh geez, how many wars is the US responsible for in the past century? How many wars have we actually fought in the past century? It doesn't really matter if we haven't had any wars within our own borders, because that does no measure non-aggression.
Answer me this Kuresu, a young man from a poor family finds himself enlisting into the military so he can get some cash for college. Along the way his overly greedy governement decides to invade yet another country, for political reasons unknown to the young soldier, and he is called into battle. He finds himself in a situation where he either kills or gets killed, but fuck, all he wanted was to study medicine in school but had no other means for financial backing. The young man is in a war. He is shooting people, he is killing people. However, would you really label this person aggressive?
Remember, you claimed that we were less aggressive in total, not that we simply weren't aggressive within our own borders (which is questionable itself: how many gun deaths do we have each year due to violence?).
Our governement is aggressive, for reasons that we can argue but you would not say that they are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive, would you?
Your second point is again curious...how many deaths due to violence do we have in upper class neighborhoods?
Are the people in the inner cities simply being aggressive for the sake of aggression or have they fouund themselves in a struggle where you are either killed or be killed just to make some money and feed your family?
I think you have confused aggression with neccessity.
A soldier at war, who joined for a GI Bill, but is now unloading a 50cal. on a building is not being aggressive, he is in survival mode.
A young kid in an inner city who has no other means to make money, that he can see for himself, is not being aggressive for the sake of it, he too is in survival mode.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kuresu, posted 03-30-2009 1:58 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 03-30-2009 9:10 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 438 (504533)
03-30-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kuresu
03-30-2009 9:10 AM


As long as admin lets us roll with this...
And if he is killing people, at that moment he is being aggressive, whether or not he generally isn't.
He could be, but he could also be in a defensive mode. However, the reason for him being in the situation to begin with was not due to his aggression, it was due to his necessity - (as I stated, for the GI Bill).
Um, Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney? What about the whole doctrine of flexing our muscle just so everyone knows we still have some fight left in us?
The euphamisms they spew on the airways to rally the get-R-done patriots in no way reflects their true intents. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney did not commit the henious crimes they did just to show the world how big our aggressive balls are, they did it for money, power and greed. These are not aggressive men, these are pussies who send fit young men/women to battle for financial gain...a battle they themselves don't posses the balls to fight physically.
Aggressive men get a cage closed behind them and go at it knuckle-to-knuckle, men who send people to battle while they sit in an air conditioned office lack the ability to be aggressive in that manner, but they can still be intelligent, dishonest and manipulative - which is what those 3 fucks are, IMHO.
If you resort to war to settle an issue, you are being aggressive.
I agree. But the people who declare the war are few in comparison to the rest of the citizens who didn't declare war on anyone, except maybe a douche bag neighbor. Nor are the soldiers fighting the war doing so because of their aggressive nature, IMO.
Because that is one of the ways for them to survive, which you rightly point out. But that doesn't mean they are not being aggressive.
You are right, the actions they are taking are aggressive actions as opposed to being passive, but my point, and perhaps we just disagree on this, is that they are not acting on the basis of their aggressive nature, they are acting aggressively because of obstacle they see before them that, in their minds, requires that they act agressively.
In other words, if the person who joined the military for the GI Bill had a rich uncle wo would have covered the bill for school, he wouldn't have joined the military and would never have been firing on a building. - The aggressive action is gone.
Just as the inner city kid, say he gets adopted as an infant by a rich family, he would not be in the streets robbing and shooting people. - The aggressive action is gone.
My point: I don't think, in general, most peoples aggressive behaviour is based solely on their will to want to act aggressively, many people find themselves in situations where aggression is the only way to survive.
*Sadly, most of the violence in the US can be attributed to economic and educational struggles. Rid ourselves of these and watch our streets get safer.
*Rid the world of poverty and hunger and help them acheive a decent living condition and watch the violence go down.
*just my opinion.
My original counter-point again: we have not gotten any less aggressive over the past 6000 years. We have just gotten better at protecting lives from deaths.
I still haven't seen anything which really counters my counter-point. I hope I'm not simply being dense here.
No, I do not think you are being dense. And I would agree that you make a good counter point if we are simply looking at death toll and wars caused by power hungry nations.
However, I think that society as a whole demands a less aggressive living condition where people are not stoned to death and witches burned alive, only to go back to business as usual moments after burning the witch.
Example: We have people in todays society that try to remove the death penalty even when the convicted fellon has murdered children and/or raped them. People advocate for less aggressive actions to be taken. Not just a small few, there is a huge portion of our society that would like to see the death penalty done away with. Do you know of any empire in the last 6000 years that has not had a death penalty?
In the US we may eventually do away with it. This is, to me, a sign of a society that wants a less aggressive government, law system and in turn less aggressive outlook on society as a whole. We almost don't want to punish anymore but rather we want to teach and help to better the person.
In our day to day lives we live in a less aggressive society than, I would say, has been experienced in the last 6000 years.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 03-30-2009 9:10 AM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 47 of 438 (504622)
03-31-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Stagamancer
03-31-2009 2:19 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Basically, my point is that as a whole, I think we are neither more nor less aggressive, the way we do things has simply changed do to the delimiting nature of technology.
Political powers continue as they have always done, force themselves on weaker nations.
As a whole our society is clearly a less aggressive society, at least at what is acceptable and not acceptable.
Example: If you see someone getting stoned in the middle of the street today, no matter what they did, even if they just killed someone, would you not intervene and tell the stoner - (no pun intended) - to call the proper authorities to handle the situation in a less aggressive but still just, manner?
I would wager that most of us would intervene - (given of course that we do not put ourselves in danger in the process).
Ask that same question 1000 years ago and what do you think would be the answer? - "stone the sinner!" - would it not?
Society as a whole demands a less aggressive living condition, that was my only point.
Governments, political forces, deranged megalomaniacs will always try to conquer as they have in the past. This however is not reflective of what the average citizen deems proper behaviour. In fact, we usual object to such military actions, however, the power to rally people behind a false cause is also the strength of the oppressor/governing body/political force. Just because we rally behind a cause to invade another country under false pretenses does not make us, the gullable citizen, aggressive/non-aggressive, we are simply being lied to a follow blindly.
We are stupid and easily convinced of bullshit, yes, but we are not naturaly aggressive - in general.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 2:19 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 03-31-2009 5:13 PM onifre has replied
 Message 52 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 7:48 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 438 (504627)
03-31-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taz
03-31-2009 5:13 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Hi Taz,
Actually, have you ever heard of the bystander effect?
Yes, but that would require there be many people around. The greater the number the less people are likely to react.
My example was one-on-one.
quote:
When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses.
That is why in CPR class you are instructed to point to a specific person and say "You, call 911", because of the bystander effect.
-Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 03-31-2009 5:13 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 57 of 438 (504666)
04-01-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stagamancer
03-31-2009 7:48 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
But you cannot say that this is true for all civilizations.
Of course not, I have not stated that it was. But it is true that even if one lives in a civilization that is not prosperous, due to violence and aggression from their government, like Haiti, Cuba, etc, one is seeking a less aggressive society to migrate to. Like the US.
In fact your whole point is that this is only true of prosperous societies, but these are hardly the norm.
Huh?
But we only object to military action when we, either (a) don't really feel threatened, or (b) identify with the enemy.
Or when we realize that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war. Or for religious belief. Or if one is passive. People object for many reasons not just those 2. But I don't know where you're going with that.
Whether you're rallying people with a false or true cause is not the issue, your still playing on people's desire to divide the world into "Us-es" and "Thems".
You're going to have to be a bit more specific than "peoples desire to divide the world into Us-es and Thems" - I get what you mean but I don't think I recognize this desire, at least not in myself or people I know. I grant you that we are a sociel species but we also exclude those who don't share in our opinion, but I don't think this is a global desire, this is just us trying to look cool as the only memebers of a certain group; we like to fit in.
So whether or not people are gullible, it doesn't matter, your still playing on their aggression to get them to agree to war.
I have to disagree. I don't think they play to our aggression, I think they play to our desire for things to be just. We all have a sense of right and wrong, when you are told that a certain group has wronged you your first action is to retaliate; eye for an eye. But, if we realize that we were lied to about the conditions for the invasion we quickly realize that we are the ones that are in the wrong and feel shameful for having attacked.
On a day to day basis, most people treat their neighbors and kin well, and this is true for pretty much all social animals, so I can't see how it would've been different back in the day.
Easy, people are less aggressive toward one another today.
Most stonings in the past were simply the punishment dolled out after a judgement by a recognized authority. Just because people were allowed to take part in the punishments doesn't mean they were more aggressive. I'm sure you could find plenty of people in our society who would participate in capital punishment if given the chance.
Just the fact that public stonings took place then and they don't now shows a society that is less accepting of such a violent act. In fact, no execution today is shown to the public, except where? - In highly hostile and aggressive places.
I don't see how my point is being missed here???????
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 7:48 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2009 9:42 AM onifre has replied
 Message 65 by Stagamancer, posted 04-01-2009 8:04 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 172 by jasonlang, posted 06-13-2009 6:38 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 438 (504681)
04-01-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by dronestar
04-01-2009 9:42 AM


"Execution with the Stars"
Hey Dronester,
Would you ALMOST agree that if it was legal, the USA would televise executions? On Fox News? AND get great numbers?
Initially I was thinking yes. But as I think a bit more about it I would be inclined to believe that such a televised event would initially captivate audiences but after a while it may be viewed as too barbaric to continue, and may even spell the end of executions all together.
In any case I think advertisers would be weery of investing, I don't know who would sponser such an event...maybe Energizer?
Maybe the energizer bunny can roll by beating his drum as some person behind him is shaking to death on the electric chair, as you here: "Energizer batteries, they keep going and going and going..."
Also, here's a paper on just such a case when Timothy McVeigh wanted his execution televised: Publicly televised executions
quote:
Conclusion:
Timothy McVeigh has not made a formal request to have his execution televised, but the convicted Oklahoma City bomber has questioned the fairness of limiting the number of witnesses to his execution.[57] Given the crime for which McVeigh was convicted, it seems logical to assume that his motives in wishing to have his execution televised are simply to undermine the legitimacy of the federal government by broadcasting a horrific act that the government sanctions. However, if the government sanctions such an act, then by definition (at least in this country), the people sanction it. Clearly, if the public wishes to continue to sanction executions, it is going to have to come to grips with the nature of the procedure. It is gruesome. Executions behind closed doors serve one legitimate purpose; that is protecting the privacy and the dignity of the condemned individual. For that reason, courts have rightly held that prisoners cannot be forced into public executions.
However, for those individuals who wish to have a public execution, courts should not stand in their way. The public has a right to know the true nature of a procedure it sanctions. Moreover, public executions serve as a check on the prison officials conducting the execution. If the public is going to sanction an execution, it should be assured that the execution is being carried out in as humane a manner as possible given the situation. If the procedure is gruesome, so be it. If execution horror stories[58] are shown on television, then so be it. The public has a right to know what it is authorizing. Some people may find the procedure barbaric and may be moved to protest further executions. Some people may see the execution as a just and rightful end to a barbaric human being. Either way, if the condemned individual wishes to have his message broadcast, if the news media wishes to facilitate that broadcast, and if citizens choose to watch that broadcast, then they should be able to exercise that choice free from any unreasonable restrictions placed on them by the state.
It does however note many reasons for public executions, but none seem to have an aggressive nature about them. It's almost like a scared straight program to keep would be offends from commiting further crimes. Like the Say No to Drugs campaign...but for serial killers.
One point that isn't taken into account in the paper is the fact that lunatics would be more inclined to commit more henious acts just to get themselves on tv. They'll probably have a speech already prepared for their execution day, before they even get caught.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2009 9:42 AM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 166 of 438 (506194)
04-23-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Granny Magda
04-23-2009 1:26 PM


Re: A selfish nitpick for the good guys
This is an interesting subtopic, hope you don't mind me jumping in.
In that example you are quite right to call the action basically unselfish, since it has no selfish motivation of which you would be aware. At the same time, you can't get away from the fact that your brain is going to reward you with a dose of serotonin. That leaves us in a quandary of sorts; was the noble motivation of helping your wife the root cause if the action?
This seems like a micro vs. macro situation.
At a micro level the action seems selfish because of the serotonin "reward", but at the macro level the action, seen by others, would be considered unselfish. - Aren't both relatively correct?
Also, at the micro level, should actions be given characteristics like "selfish" or "unselfish"? A selfish or unselfish act really only makes sense, to me, at the macro scale. In our experienced reality. So, IMO, that neuro functions predetermine the reasons why one may open a car door at the micro level, it does not affect the action at the macro level - it is unselfish because the micro actions are not made consciously.
Or was it the more mechanistic and subconscious motivation of your selfish genes at work, rewarding you for helping protect your genetic investments?
Wouldn't protecting your genetic investment also be considered unselfish? I know we say we are trying to insure that our genes are passed on, but they were passed on to us once already, and to our parents before that, and so on. The genes just seem to be unconsciously repeating the process they are "wired" to do. This does not seem selfish to me.
I realise that this way of looking at personal motivation is depressingly deterministic, but I can't help but suspect that these types of subconscious motivations govern our actions far more than we would like to suppose.
Would you really call it "motivation" though, if it is subconscious? Wouldn't the way the genes act be considered more of a successful repetative process rather than a "motivated" process? The gene is not aware of the full scale of is actions, right?
So how, or what, is "motivating" it's actions if the gene is not conscious to know the outcome of such actions?
And there's the rub. We can't really know what motivates us to act, not ultimately.
I would disagree with that, but only if we seperate the micro from the macro. Like with quantum mechanics. How does what is happening at quantum scales affect macro scales? Likewise, how does what your neurons are doing, since they do it as repetition and not as a conscious act, affect how the actual act, at the macro level, is viewed to be?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Granny Magda, posted 04-23-2009 1:26 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 04-24-2009 8:30 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 174 of 438 (515839)
07-21-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by jasonlang
06-13-2009 6:38 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Hi Jason, just saw this reply.
Extreme aggression of Cuban govt to it people is very unlikely.
Well, I can tell you with some confidence that what the Cuban government has done to its people has been atrocious.
I have family and friends who have suffered a great deal at the hands of Castro and his henchmen. Those who fought against him during the Revolution, which included my father an 2 uncles (one didn't make it) felt the reprocutions of their, and others, failed attempt.
Currently there is no "freedom" for the people of Cuba. Freedom of speech, press, religion (sort of), are not granted, and certain rights to telephone and internet are also controlled. It is currently illegal to posses a TV satelite in Cuba, along with beef and pork products (you will receive 20 years in prison in Cuba if you have beef or pork products as a Cuban citizen). It is currently illegal in Cuba to say anything against the government and it is punishable by either death or life in prison to print such dissent.
You're from Australia, as it shows in your avatar, so I think for you guys Cuba is a vacation destination? For the millions of Cubans living in the US, Cuba is their home, that was taken away from them by an aggressive government under false pretenses and has ruined the lives of many, including many in my family. My father has had to hear of the passing of his mother and most of his siblings via scheduled phone calls and letters (he is not allowed back because he was a political prisoner). And I watched as my father broke down in tears when he saw the pictures of his remaining siblings after 30 years of not seeing them, and the knowledge that he will never see them again.
Perhaps I had a personal reason to include Cuba in my post, it is not the happy-go-lucky vacation spot that many enjoy, it is a horrible place where civil liberties and human rights do not exist.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jasonlang, posted 06-13-2009 6:38 AM jasonlang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-21-2009 5:16 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 188 of 438 (516769)
07-27-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Cedre
07-27-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
In fact it does, God is an absolutely moral being, meaning that whatever he does is moral and as a result is whatever he instructs us to do.
Which "god" specifically?
Is it all gods that are moral beings or just the one you subjectively chose to believe in?
Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Apollo, Zues...are these all moral beings, or just the one in the Christian Bible?
Please be specific.
Conversely, atheist cannot declare any act to be immoral for they are speaking only subjectively, their viewpoints do not transcend all cultures, nations and societies.
So when a Muslim blows himself up in the name of his "one true moral being," is this to be accepted as a moral act?
When a Christian kills an abortion doctor in the name of his "one true moral being," is this too a moral act?
Or are these acts subjectively interpreted by all people as immoral?
What is more God has every right to judge and condemn those who turn away from His absolute moral code
So would it be fair for Allah to judge you and condemn you for not being Muslim and turning away from his moral code?
Would it be fair for Zues, or Apollo, or Vishnu, or Thor, to condemn you for turning away from their moral codes?
Or is it just the moral code of the god you subjectively feel is the right one?
God does indeed solve any and all philosophical problems with ease for what is impossible with man is possible with the Lord God Almighty.
Which "god" specifically?
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 9:38 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024