Wake Up!

Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Wake Up!

Hi, I’m new here and I’d like to ask who determines what success is? Our own stupid society that’s what and the main concern of that society is to keep us sick. The sooner we take that on board the better.   Being rich and being the chairman of something or other hasn’t anything to do with being a success. You’re only a success when you WAKE UP!

After that you don’t have to apologise to anyone you don’t care if you’re not part of a group you don’t care what someone says to you or about you.  Then you don’t bother with your worries and how broken you feel at times - then you’re happy. That’s what I call being a success.

I’m an atheist I don’t believe there is anything out there (religion is just a metaphor for the inner life) and whether people believe in a god or not is not important to me, what’s important is whether you accept human fallibility as a given.  Then you’ve got something to work with.  Beliefs that science can be used to perfect human beings is as ridiculous as a belief in magic, angels or god’s intervention.

According to the four horsemen, reason and science, rather than religion will rid us of human conflicts and evil.  Since the Enlightenment we’ve heard that one so pull another.  No, there was a dark side to the Enlightenment as we’ve found, namely you can’t understand and control people with the rational mind. Knowledge may have increased but morally as a species we haven’t change at all, selfishness is our natural state but once you’re aware of that once you’ve OWNED it you’re not sleeping anymore you’ve become awake.


 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Hi, I’m

Peggotty wrote:

Hi, I’m new here and I’d like to ask who determines what success is? Our own stupid society that’s what and the main concern of that society is to keep us sick. The sooner we take that on board the better.   Being rich and being the chairman of something or other hasn’t anything to do with being a success. You’re only a success when you WAKE UP!

After that you don’t have to apologise to anyone you don’t care if you’re not part of a group you don’t care what someone says to you or about you.  Then you don’t bother with your worries and how broken you feel at times - then you’re happy. That’s what I call being a success.

I’m an atheist I don’t believe there is anything out there (religion is just a metaphor for the inner life) and whether people believe in a god or not is not important to me, what’s important is whether you accept human fallibility as a given.  Then you’ve got something to work with.  Beliefs that science can be used to perfect human beings is as ridiculous as a belief in magic, angels or god’s intervention.

According to the four horsemen, reason and science, rather than religion will rid us of human conflicts and evil.  Since the Enlightenment we’ve heard that one so pull another.  No, there was a dark side to the Enlightenment as we’ve found, namely you can’t understand and control people with the rational mind. Knowledge may have increased but morally as a species we haven’t change at all, selfishness is our natural state but once you’re aware of that once you’ve OWNED it you’re not sleeping anymore you’ve become awake. 

 Welcome to the forums.

I believe that every person determines what success is for themselves. By definition, success is reaching a goal, so the only question is what are those goals. It may be to become rich or famous, perhaps it is to make your parents happy, to raise a family, to maximize your free time, to become part of a group or whatever. It would be absurd to say that becoming a chairman of a board is the only measure of success, but it is equally absurd to deny that it is a success. The success of becoming famous or rich is certainly more visible to society as a whole than other goals, plus money is extremely flexible and can be used to pursue a large variety of goals which is probably why as a society we put a lot of emphasis on it. 

As for humans being perfected, I agree it will never happen. However, through understanding and technology we can be greatly improved. There is no question that we are significantly better off today in terms of comfort. As far as morality, we have changed radically since ancient times. How can you say we haven't changed at all? For example, I would consider the virtual elimination of slavery a huge moral improvement. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
In principle I agree with

In principle I agree with most of your personal philosophy.  Namely, that we shouldn't be influenced by others, follow your own goals, etc.  Morality and "success" are subjective concepts,  from a humanist perspective our overall morality has improved greatly as Beyond has pointed out.  The fact that it has improved only makes sense from a humanist perspective, cows and pigs are not so lucky of our western's society's "success" at farming them.  From their perspective we're evil predators, any "improvement" to our society only serves to exploit them further.  So much for objective morality...

As for human perfection... again, perfection, like all concepts, is subjective.  You have to first set a standard on which "perfection" is to be measured.  If you look at a eastern fundamental of being of one's nature, the only way we can perfect ourselves is to turn inward.  Become more human.  From a western perspective perfection would entail some sort of physical attribute, be it perfect physical shape, perfect health, etc.  

Personally I consider myself to be a relatively happy individual.  I find pleasure in things subjectively, and I define perfection in my own way.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:How can

Beyond Saving wrote:
How can you say we haven’t changed at all?

I don’t think we have changed morally and animal 'death camps' is an example but I was thinking more of the 160 million or so humans killed during the 20th century, particularly the Nazi death camps and the Soviet gulags. Fascists and communists were bred on visions of perfectibility and they told us what was right and wrong not in God’s eyes but from the purity of the rational mind.


 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Morality and

Ktulu wrote:
Morality and "success" are subjective concepts,  from a humanist perspective our overall morality has improved greatly as Beyond has pointed out.  The fact that it has improved only makes sense from a humanist perspective, cows and pigs are not so lucky of our western's society's "success" at farming them.  From their perspective we're evil predators, any "improvement" to our society only serves to exploit them further.  So much for objective morality...

So if I propose a law that makes enslaving black people legal again you'll just shrug and say it's all subjective? If not, then what standard are you going to use to declare my racist perspective somehow not as valid as your speciecist perspective?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome. Nazis and Soviets

Welcome.

Nazis and Soviets aren't the only ones who ran torture camps. The US has had a few as well. At least one is still running.

The irrational hatred of the viable system of socialism needs to end.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:So if I

Manageri wrote:
So if I propose a law that makes enslaving black people legal again you'll just shrug and say it's all subjective? If not, then what standard are you going to use to declare my racist perspective somehow not as valid as your speciecist perspective?

See my reply to BS above, animals do count.
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:So if I

Manageri wrote:
So if I propose a law that makes enslaving black people legal again you'll just shrug and say it's all subjective? If not, then what standard are you going to use to declare my racist perspective somehow not as valid as your speciecist perspective?

I am not condoning slavery. But what universal standard are you going to base your right and wrong off of  and how can you prove that it is applicable to everyone ?

My speculation, is that a lot of things like racism and sexism are not necessarily born out of ignorance, but born out of that tribalistic sense of us vs. them that we have not evolved out of ourselves completely yet.

But, I do feel that we are making a progress past that, because we are evolving past that. I feel that equal rights for everyone is a good thing, but I can not claim that from an infallible standard that is set in concrete for everyone.

I think this is a bit of a strawman to imply that anyone would shrug their shoulders over human and animal abuse because morality is subjective.

I am unaware that anyone has made that argument on here.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:I don’t

Peggotty wrote:

I don’t think we have changed morally and animal 'death camps' is an example but I was thinking more of the 160 million or so humans killed during the 20th century, particularly the Nazi death camps and the Soviet gulags. Fascists and communists were bred on visions of perfectibility and they told us what was right and wrong not in God’s eyes but from the purity of the rational mind.

 

I would have to disagree that they were acting solely out of a "purity" of rational mind.

Hitler's Mein Kampf makes several references to the "creator" and god. Hitler even stated in a 1928 speech that he admired Jesus because Jesus was the first man to stand up against the Jews.

Stalinist barbarism was a complete and total distortion of what Marx originally stood for ( there's a book about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, name eludes me, that points out several differences between them and the assasination of Trotsky).

Stalin was even elevated to a type of Godhood status by the people. The same thing could be said for Pol Pot and the almost theistic adoration that was required by his people.

Their is nothing rational or pure about tyranny, be it religious or otherwise.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
Morality and "success" are subjective concepts,  from a humanist perspective our overall morality has improved greatly as Beyond has pointed out.  The fact that it has improved only makes sense from a humanist perspective, cows and pigs are not so lucky of our western's society's "success" at farming them.  From their perspective we're evil predators, any "improvement" to our society only serves to exploit them further.  So much for objective morality...
So if I propose a law that makes enslaving black people legal again you'll just shrug and say it's all subjective? If not, then what standard are you going to use to declare my racist perspective somehow not as valid as your speciecist perspective?

Of course morality is subjective, all concepts are subjective.  Morality is simply our way to judge a certain object/action's moral weight, good or bad is only relevant to the tautological system based on a society's contemporary values.

If you passed a law enslaving any people, I would fight you to the death because that opposes my subjective interpretation of good/bad.  If you did that 200 years ago, I would have called you a dick, but it is what it is, my interpretation would have been completely different and would be directly proportional to how affected I would be by it.

I am a speciest (a racist by for my species) of the greatest degree.  I would kill every single other living thing if it ensured humanity's survival.  I don't condone this as being the correct approach, it is just what make sense to me.  If I could kill 1000 puppies and save one baby, I wouldn't hesitate.  

Edit:  As a side note, the movie Avatar is a good example.  It made absolutely no sense to me.  I kept rooting for the humans and consider the main protagonist to be a traitor.  The whole movie tone was irrational from a human's perspective, yet almost everyone went awwwwww over the aliens, refusing to rationalize that their survival dooms us.  The movie sucked for many reasons but for me that's what killed it.

Now you can see how subjectivity enters the equation.  Simply defining morality as a concept automatically makes it subjective because a concept can only exist as part of an observers interpretation.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Welcome. Nazis

Vastet wrote:
Welcome. Nazis and Soviets aren't the only ones who ran torture camps. The US has had a few as well. At least one is still running. The irrational hatred of the viable system of socialism needs to end.

I agree, this whole "communism = evil soviets" is due to a lingering cold war propaganda.  Communism is simply an idealized system that has failed because it was implemented by imperfect humans.  If we had a computer doing the implementing, the system may in fact work.  In any case, it is just an ideal, and a noble one at that.  I don't see why it is inherently evil, it is in theory the best system we can hope for.  (Beyond is getting mad now)

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I am

harleysportster wrote:
I am not condoning slavery. But what universal standard are you going to base your right and wrong off of?

There's really only one axiom I base all ethics on; Sentient welfare is what value is all about. If you don't agree to this then I really dont know what you could possibly be talking about when you invoke words like morality or right and wrong. If you wanna call that a subjective standard that's fine by me too (because it kinda is), I really don't care.

Quote:
and how can you prove that it is applicable to everyone?

Nothing enjoys suffering. Please don't bring up sadomasochism or I might facepalm so hard my glasses break and they're kinda expensive.

Quote:
My speculation, is that a lot of things like racism and sexism are not necessarily born out of ignorance, but born out of that tribalistic sense of us vs. them that we have not evolved out of ourselves completely yet.

Yes, it can be very hard to separate those strong emotions (or lack of emotions) from our rational side.

Quote:
But, I do feel that we are making a progress past that, because we are evolving past that. I feel that equal rights for everyone is a good thing, but I can not claim that from an infallible standard that is set in concrete for everyone.

I will. If there's no logical reason to discriminate then you are wrong for doing so.

Quote:
I think this is a bit of a strawman to imply that anyone would shrug their shoulders over human and animal abuse because morality is subjective.

I am unaware that anyone has made that argument on here.

If all morality is subjective then you have no grounds for condemning anything. I hold the value of sentient welfare to be as true as gravity or any other "hard science" phenomenon you wanna name. If you can't agree to that then I have no interest in discussing ethics with you as we have no common ground whatsoever to base a discussion on (plus I'll think you're a sadistic asshole).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Oh, I forgot to say welcome

Oh, I forgot to say welcome to the OP.  I hope you enjoy the forum.

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Of course

Ktulu wrote:
Of course morality is subjective, all concepts are subjective.

There's a difference between whatever subjective crap makes you happy and happiness itself. The fact eating cookies makes me happy is subjective. The fact that happiness is a better state than misery is not, at least not if you're gonna maintain that sentient welfare is what ethics is based upon. If you don't think that, and instead think ethics is about what color asteroids should be or some bullshit like that, then I really don't see any reason to discuss ethics with you.

Quote:
Morality is simply our way to judge a certain object/action's moral weight, good or bad is only relevant to the tautological system based on a society's contemporary values.

good or bad is a way of appraising an action/situation/whatever according to your moral standards. If you, for whatever fucktarded reason, were to accept the standard that people who fail to reach a certain height by their 15th birthday should be fed to tigers while they're still alive, then doing that would by your definition of good and bad be good. The question is, why would you adopt such a standard? Because society did? If I disagree with my society about something (and boy are there a million things in that category) then I'm gonna call their standards bullshit.

Quote:
If you passed a law enslaving any people, I would fight you to the death because that opposes my subjective interpretation of good/bad.

Well if you're gonna maintain that it's subjective then this statement is just as meaningful as "if you're gonna declare chocolate is the best ice cream flavor then I'm gonna fight you to the death FOR STRAWBERRY!!!"

Quote:
If you did that 200 years ago, I would have called you a dick, but it is what it is, my interpretation would have been completely different and would be directly proportional to how affected I would be by it.

But you don't think time changes what actually is the right thing to do, do you? Slavery was just as wrong as it is now, whether people understood what assholes they were being or not. The understanding of the moral evaluator does not change the weight of the moral circumstance any more than the fact that doctors can now see a broken arm with more detail thanks to X-rays changes how much a broken arm used to hurt before that technology.

Quote:
I am a speciest (a racist by for my species) of the greatest degree. I would kill every single other living thing if it ensured humanity's survival.

So if stopping one pin prick on a human meant torturing 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 turtles for eternity then you'd do it? Then you're a majestic asshole and I hope you get eaten alive by piranhas.

Quote:
I don't condone this as being the correct approach, it is just what make sense to me.

Right, so the correct approach doesn't make sense to you? What the fuck am I supposed to say here? What do you say to someone who admits they don't care about doing the right thing, seriously?

Quote:
If I could kill 1000 puppies and save one baby, I wouldn't hesitate.

I'd do the same actually, not to save the baby but to spare the puppies from this shithole.

Quote:
Simply defining morality as a concept automatically makes it subjective because a concept can only exist as part of an observers interpretation.

Having a concept of my weight in my head doesn't mean my weight is actually subjective.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
 harleysportster wrote:I

 

harleysportster wrote:
I would have to disagree that they were acting solely out of a "purity" of rational mind.
Hitler's Mein Kampf makes several references to the "creator" and god. Hitler even stated in a 1928 speech that he admired Jesus because Jesus was the first man to stand up against the Jews.
Stalinist barbarism was a complete and total distortion of what Marx originally stood for ( there's a book about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, name eludes me, that points out several differences between them and the assasination of Trotsky).
Stalin was even elevated to a type of Godhood status by the people. The same thing could be said for Pol Pot and the almost theistic adoration that was required by his people.
Their is nothing rational or pure about tyranny, be it religious or otherwise.


Dead right, after the Enlightenment a belief in moral superiority was adopted as a veneer for murder by various totalitarian monsters under both religious and secular banners destroying those that wouldn’t conform to their vision. Any knowledge that has a claim to be absolute becomes a type of faith.
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
First of all, you need to

First of all, you need to answer why you believe morality is objective, you keep yammering on about some interpretation that YOU have, but that's just what YOU believe.  I'm not sure you understand the terms subjective/objective.  

Quote:

There's a difference between whatever subjective crap makes you happy and happiness itself. The fact eating cookies makes me happy is subjective. The fact that happiness is a better state than misery is not, at least not if you're gonna maintain that sentient welfare is what ethics is based upon. If you don't think that, and instead think ethics is about what color asteroids should be or some bullshit like that, then I really don't see any reason to discuss ethics with you.

Actually, there is no difference between what makes me happy and happiness, that's stupid.  What makes me happy is happiness itself.  Should my happiness be what makes you happy?  I've never said I would rather not be happy then miserable, that's your strawman.  What I said is that what makes me happy is subjective.  You show me an OBJECTIVE standard and I would concede to your rambling.  What colour asteroids are is not an ethical question unless pink makes you happy.  As for discussing ethics, it sounds more like you're preaching, not discussing.  Are you sure you're not a theist?  Theists have an objective moral standard, it is "whatever god says goes".  How is this different then what you are saying?

Quote:

Well if you're gonna maintain that it's subjective then this statement is just as meaningful as "if you're gonna declare chocolate is the best ice cream flavor then I'm gonna fight you to the death FOR STRAWBERRY!!!"

Again, I'm not sure you understand the difference between subjective/objective.  And you are correct, that's just as subjective a statement.  I'm not sure why you making my point seems irrational to you.

Quote:

But you don't think time changes what actually is the right thing to do, do you? Slavery was just as wrong as it is now, whether people understood what assholes they were being or not. The understanding of the moral evaluator does not change the weight of the moral circumstance any more than the fact that doctors can now see a broken arm with more detail thanks to X-rays changes how much a broken arm used to hurt before that technology.

The fact that slavery is wrong is not what we're disputing here, it is the degree of "wrongness".  If it varies, then it is subjective.  In an objective system such as the temperature C scale, 10 degrees will always be the same, if it were 5 degrees now, and 15 20 years from now it would not be an OBJECTIVE scale. 

Quote:

So if stopping one pin prick on a human meant torturing 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 turtles for eternity then you'd do it? Then you're a majestic asshole and I hope you get eaten alive by piranhas.

You make a very good point that morality is subjective.  I respect your subjectivity Smiling  Of course if you're going talk about undefined concepts such as "eternity" then we may as well pull out the rattles and blow spit bubbles at each other.  Your dipper is poopier then my dipper Smiling

Quote:

Right, so the correct approach doesn't make sense to you? What the fuck am I supposed to say here? What do you say to someone who admits they don't care about doing the right thing, seriously?

Really? you disagree that this the right thing to do? I bet you I can find 1000 people that agree with me, and 1000 that agree with you.  How is that OBJECTIVE moral standard coming along btw?  Are you done compiling it yet?  If so, can you find me a fixed point in space-time?  I want to overthrow relativity and quantum mechanics after you're done with subjective morality. Smiling

Quote:

I'd do the same actually, not to save the baby but to spare the puppies from this shithole.

Wait, you would kill a baby to spare 1000 puppies? Oh Em Gee, that is like... so cruel... I fail to see how this conversation does anything towards proving that morality is not subjective...  I would like to see your logic gymnastics though.  Please enlighten us.

Quote:

Having a concept of my weight in my head doesn't mean my weight is actually subjective.

hehehe, you don't want to go there... there is a LOT wrong with that statement but it is a whole other can of worms that I don't want to open in this thread.  We can measure epistemology and existentialism dicks some other time.  Let's get over this little hurdle first.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: If all

Manageri wrote:
If all morality is subjective then you have no grounds for condemning anything. I hold the value of sentient welfare to be as true as gravity or any other "hard science" phenomenon you wanna name. If you can't agree to that then I have no interest in discussing ethics with you as we have no common ground whatsoever to base a discussion on (plus I'll think you're a sadistic asshole).

Asshole I am capable of being, sadistic I am not. Nor do I feel that you added any depth to the discussion whatsoever by putting that forth.

You should understand that I still ponder and question about the nature of right/wrong good/evil  before you start making asshole assertions.

I am currently reading on Sam Harris's book about the Moral Landscape (yes, it has been out for quite a while, but my reading list has been backed up and I never got around to it, when I finally did, I got distracted with life stuff and it ended up on the back burner) and have to really ponder and think deeply about some of his arguments.

So if you are not interested in continuing the discussion, then by all means, feel free to ignore me.

I asked a couple of questions and you make an automatic leap. And no, I was not going to mention sado-masochism, that was a really stupid assertion on your part.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:First of all,

Ktulu wrote:

First of all, you need to answer why you believe morality is objective, you keep yammering on about some interpretation that YOU have, but that's just what YOU believe. I'm not sure you understand the terms subjective/objective.

Yes, I BELIEVE morality is about sentient welfare. Now if you're gonna disagree with that then be a fucking man, put your balls on the table, and say that sentient welfare is irrelevant to morality. Tell me torturing a sentient being is not really wrong, it's just a subjective notion in our heads, go ahead. Tell me that raping a woman isn't really wrong, it's all subjective.

Quote:
Actually, there is no difference between what makes me happy and happiness, that's stupid. What makes me happy is happiness itself.

This is propably the most retarded thing I've read in months. There's no difference between getting stabbed and the pain it causes? Tell that to the person who's paralyzed from the neck down and doesn't feel shit when it happens. Ugh, this is almost too retarded to even argue with.

Quote:
I've never said I would rather not be happy then miserable, that's your strawman.  What I said is that what makes me happy is subjective.

Which is exactly what I said. Cookies can make you happy while they might make someone else sick.

Quote:
You show me an OBJECTIVE standard and I would concede to your rambling.

Objective standard for ethics? Sentient welfare, I already said it. Refer to my first paragraph in this response for details.

Quote:
What colour asteroids are is not an ethical question unless pink makes you happy.

Exactly, unless the color of asteroids AFFECTS A SENTIENT CREATURE'S WELFARE it's not an ethical question.

Quote:
As for discussing ethics, it sounds more like you're preaching, not discussing.  Are you sure you're not a theist?  Theists have an objective moral standard, it is "whatever god says goes".  How is this different then what you are saying?

There's no logical ground whatsoever for assuming that whatever some asshole in the sky says is right. There's plenty of evidence, readily available to all sentient beings, to assume that welfare is what value is about. Are you gonna tell me your suffering means nothing to you? Wanna prove it and come over and let me torture you?

Quote:
Again, I'm not sure you understand the difference between subjective/objective.

Ditto?

Quote:
And you are correct, that's just as subjective a statement.

So you're saying people's favorite ice cream flavor is the same thing as their opinion on slavery?

Quote:
The fact that slavery is wrong is not what we're disputing here, it is the degree of "wrongness".  If it varies, then it is subjective.

How does it vary?

Quote:
In an objective system such as the temperature C scale, 10 degrees will always be the same, if it were 5 degrees now, and 15 20 years from now it would not be an OBJECTIVE scale.

Is this supposed to have something to do with the slavery issue? If so, are you saying slavery now would somehow be more cruel to the slaves than it was back in the day?

Quote:
You make a very good point that morality is subjective.  I respect your subjectivity Smiling  Of course if you're going talk about undefined concepts such as "eternity" then we may as well pull out the rattles and blow spit bubbles at each other.  Your dipper is poopier then my dipper Smiling

Lol, what an obvious way to avoid the question. Fine, let's change the thought experiment to 100 years, happy now? Got the balls to answer now?

Quote:
Really? you disagree that this the right thing to do? I bet you I can find 1000 people that agree with me, and 1000 that agree with you.

Wtf does some random people agreeing with something have to do with reality?

Quote:
Wait, you would kill a baby to spare 1000 puppies? Oh Em Gee, that is like... so cruel... I fail to see how this conversation does anything towards proving that morality is not subjective...

Actually I said I'd save the baby...or save the puppies, depends on whether you wanna look at living or dying as being saved.

Quote:
hehehe, you don't want to go there... there is a LOT wrong with that statement but it is a whole other can of worms that I don't want to open in this thread.  We can measure epistemology and existentialism dicks some other time.  Let's get over this little hurdle first.

 

Really, you don't understand that I can have a concept of the tree in my front yard in my head, which is different from the actual tree? Please do tell me how there's something wrong with that idea.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Asshole I am capable of being, sadistic I am not.

The ability to admit the possibilty of being an asshole just made me think more highly of you than at least 90% of the population. I used to be a huge asshole and propably still am in ways I haven't figured out yet.

Quote:
Nor do I feel that you added any depth to the discussion whatsoever by putting that forth.

I actually think it was important in the same way that calling the slave owners assholes was back in the day. When there's a major injustice going on you don't mince words, you call attention to the issue with all the severity the issue deserves.

Quote:
You should understand that I still ponder and question about the nature of right/wrong good/evil  before you start making asshole assertions.

I am currently reading on Sam Harris's book about the Moral Landscape (yes, it has been out for quite a while, but my reading list has been backed up and I never got around to it, when I finally did, I got distracted with life stuff and it ended up on the back burner) and have to really ponder and think deeply about some of his arguments.

So if you are not interested in continuing the discussion, then by all means, feel free to ignore me.

I haven't read the book but I've seen a few videos of him talking about it and his views aren't that different from mine. He asserts that a universe in which everyone is suffering the worst torture imaginable is the worst possible universe. This is perfectly in tune with my assertion that sentient welfare is what ethics is about. Do you have a problem with this interpretation?

Quote:
I asked a couple of questions and you make an automatic leap. And no, I was not going to mention sado-masochism, that was a really stupid assertion on your part.

 

 

Sorry, but usually when someone mentions suffering is negative some asshole brings S&M up as if it negates that fact.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'm not going to do the

Ok, I'm not going to do the whole quote thing because the posts are getting too long.

Firstly, "sentient welfare" says nothing.  What does that mean? how is that an objective ANYTHING?

Are you saying that if something is self aware we should consider its welfare? Do you mean that 5 dogs suffering has more weight then 4 dogs suffering? would you kill 4 to save 5 dogs? what if one of the 4 was your dog?  That's not a standard, it means nothing.  Do you care to elaborate or should we just assume that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Subjective fundamentally means that it involves a SUBJECT, a person, an OBSERVER.  

Objective fundamentally means that it is IRRELATIVE of the any OBSERVER.  think of it as an OBJECT'S perspective vs. a SUBJECT'S perspective.  

Anything involving an opinion is inherently subjective.  Morality is a matter of opinion, therefore it is subjective.  Varying degrees of morality are a property of it's subjectivity.  Would you kill 1 person to save 2? Yes.  Would you do that if that person was your mother? No.  Those are perfectly understandable and subjective standpoints.  There's nothing wrong with either statement, and they're both correct relative to the observer.  

Yes, people's ice-cream preference is as subjective as their opinion on slavery.  Though ice-cream taste is likely more nature vs nurture.  Again, before you make some idiotic remark about my views.  I DO NOT CONDONE SLAVERY, but some people do.  Again, with your appeal to emotion argument regarding rape.  I find rape appalling, but the prisons are full of people that think otherwise.  

As for the puppies vs baby thing, why is killing puppies better then a baby? can you prove this OBJECTIVE FACT to me without involving your feelings? How is your "standard" of "sentient welfare" justify killing 1000 puppies vs one baby?  How do you judge sentience?

As for the whole "concept" thing... Really, your conversation style shows me it would be a lost cause to get into any epistemology discussion.  Prove to me otherwise by answering without foaming at the mouth, and I will consider investing the time. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Asshole I am capable of being, sadistic I am not. 

You missed a comma, let me fix it for you.

Asshole, I am capable of being, sadistic I am not. 

hehe, much better.  /jk

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
@ManageriI most likely agree

@Manageri

I most likely agree with you on 99.99% of things in good/bad category.  The reason for that is because we have the same moral paradigm.  A paradigm is not an objective frame of reference, it is in itself a subjective system.  And it is the only way to judge good/bad.  I'm just not sure if you have considered the implication of an OBJECTIVE morality.  There is no such thing as an absolute truth because the concept is incoherent.  You do realize that an objective morality is one of the arguments for god, and if you believe in objective morality, it is really another belief in an absolute truth.  That's just another name for god.  Your god is objective morality. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:>sentient

Ktulu wrote:
>sentient welfare" says nothing.  What does that mean? how is that an objective ANYTHING?

You're a sentient being yet you can't figure out what welfare means? This is ridicilous. Obviously you can figure out that sticking your dick in a vagina is better than sticking it in a bucket full of acid. How is this a difficult concept?

Quote:
Are you saying that if something is self aware we should consider its welfare?

I'm saying that if something has a welfare to consider then you need to take that into consideration in any ethical equation you come up with.

Quote:
Do you mean that 5 dogs suffering has more weight then 4 dogs suffering?

Obviously.

Quote:
would you kill 4 to save 5 dogs?

Assuming saving them is the right thing to do then yes.

Quote:
what if one of the 4 was your dog?

Irrelevant, and even if I decided to be an asshole and save my dog doesn't mean I did the right thing.

Quote:
That's not a standard, it means nothing.  Do you care to elaborate or should we just assume that you have no idea what you're talking about.

elaborate on what?

Quote:
Subjective fundamentally means that it involves a SUBJECT, a person, an OBSERVER.  

Objective fundamentally means that it is IRRELATIVE of the any OBSERVER.  think of it as an OBJECT'S perspective vs. a SUBJECT'S perspective.  

Anything involving an opinion is inherently subjective.  Morality is a matter of opinion, therefore it is subjective.

Morality is a matter of opinion IF you think all opinions hold equal weight. Do you think the opinions of the rapist and the rapee hold equal weight?

I see you refused to answer my question so I'll ask it again: Do you or do you not accept sentient welfare as the basis of ethics?

Quote:
Varying degrees of morality are a property of it's subjectivity.  Would you kill 1 person to save 2? Yes.  Would you do that if that person was your mother? No.

"Would you" is not the same as "should you". If I'm an asshole and value my mother's welfare over the clearly more meaningful welfare of other people then I'm acting unethically. If you don't like words like ethical or moral (which I can understand as both are kinda tainted by idiotic religious and societal bullshit) then we can use "efficient". If sacrificing my mother means two other people benefit more then it's obviously more efficient to sacrifice the bitch.

Quote:
Those are perfectly understandable and subjective standpoints.

I can also understand why pedophiles fuck children, doesn't mean it's right.

Quote:
There's nothing wrong with either statement, and they're both correct relative to the observer.

You mean kinda like rape's "correct" if the observer is the rapist?

Quote:
Yes, people's ice-cream preference is as subjective as their opinion on slavery.

Sure, some people might be totally happy as slaves. We know however that most people aren't. Just like how some people might think dogshit is a wonderful ice-cream flavor, but since we know most people don't enjoy it, it would be wrong to force everyone to eat it.

Quote:
Again, with your appeal to emotion argument regarding rape.  I find rape appalling, but the prisons are full of people that think otherwise.

So would you free them? Afterall, they're just disagreeing with you on a SUBJECTIVE issue, right?

Quote:
As for the puppies vs baby thing, why is killing puppies better then a baby?

It isn't. You ask me, killing anything before it reaches self-awareness is better than letting it experience this shithole of a planet.

Quote:
can you prove this OBJECTIVE FACT to me without involving your feelings?

The only "feelings" I'm involving is the feeling that sentient welfare is the only thing that has value. You got the balls to directly address that question this time?

Quote:
How is your "standard" of "sentient welfare" justify killing 1000 puppies vs one baby?  How do you judge sentience?

Sometimes (or if you ask me, always) waking up in this shithole is worse than the alternative.

Quote:
As for the whole "concept" thing... Really, your conversation style shows me it would be a lost cause to get into any epistemology discussion. Prove to me otherwise by answering without foaming at the mouth, and I will consider investing the time.

If you don't wanna defend yourself I don't really give a shit. I'm not gonna jump through hoops to prove my fucking worthiness to you.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:@ManageriI most

Ktulu wrote:

@Manageri

I most likely agree with you on 99.99% of things in good/bad category.

You really don't know me or you wouldn't say that lol.

Quote:
The reason for that is because we have the same moral paradigm.  A paradigm is not an objective frame of reference, it is in itself a subjective system.  And it is the only way to judge good/bad.

Sure, I'll admit my most fundamental axiom isn't "objective". Thing is, I really don't care, since if you don't agree with it (the fact that sentient welfare is the basis of ethics) then I just have no interest in debating ethics with you, just like I have no interest in discussing hot chicks with a gay guy.

Quote:
I'm just not sure if you have considered the implication of an OBJECTIVE morality.  There is no such thing as an absolute truth because the concept is incoherent.

It's an absolute truth that the sun is larger than the earth. Now that's a much easier statement to make than any statement regarding ethics as we have already agreed upon what larger means, whereas we have unfortunately not really agreed upon what "better" means. I still hold however that sentient welfare is the starting point of all ethical discussion. If you disagree then I'd like to hear why, and what your proposal for a better starting point would be.

Quote:
You do realize that an objective morality is one of the arguments for god, and if you believe in objective morality, it is really another belief in an absolute truth.  That's just another name for god.  Your god is objective morality. 

 

You wanna play word games, fine. Call my ass a spaceship and call my theory of ethics god.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Do you have

Manageri wrote:
Do you have a problem with this interpretation?

 

I just got through stating that this whole entire nature of his works was really forcing me to think deeply about the whole subject.

Words like good/evil get tossed around by theists that say : gays are evil, sex outside of marriage is evil, smoking a cigarette is evil, etc.

That's one of the reasons that I was taking the standpoint of the subjective nature of evil, perhaps I should have clearly defined my terms ( no attempt at semantics on my part, I grew up in an ultra-religious household where everyone that did not think like the people of my faith were considered "evil&quotEye-wink

But, I can not think of any sound, logical or rational defense for torturing, raping, or mutilating any living thing and I consider that evil.  What am I basing that off of ? I fully can't say. I have always been empathetic and compassionate towards people/animals in pain. No one taught to be compassionate. That's something that goes back as far as I can remember.

Again, I don't have a clear cut answer to this as of yet. It may take me quite some time before I ever do.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
"sentient

"sentient welfare" 

Definitions:

SENTIENT

"

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."

"
able to perceive or feel things:

she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"

WELFARE

"

 

1. the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group:

they don’t give a damn about the welfare of their families"

"

Welfare is defined as the general well-being of an individual or group of individuals."

I asked you for a STANDARD.  You are telling me "general well-being of something's that has subjective experiences".  That is extremely vague.  As for the rest of your rant... you are just telling me YOUR OPINION!, or the societies opinion.  There are parts of the world where strapping on a bomb and walking in a crowded room makes you a hero.  Right and wrong are just PERCEPTIONS, simply because you find it appalling means absolutely SHIT ALL!

Do you care to ELABORATE on how your sentient welfare is an ABSOLUTE STANDARD?

The rest of your rant is completely irrelevant to your "objective morals" argument.  It's just shit that you like vs shit that other people like... it's your opinion on a given situation on some standard that YOU claimed as objective.  I claim otherwise, therefore by your definition, my standard is OBJECTIVE Smiling

we have about 7 billion OBJECTIVE standards on earth Smiling

 

 Edit : fixed quotes

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: It's an

Manageri wrote:
It's an absolute truth that the sun is larger than the earth. Now that's a much easier statement to make than any statement regarding ethics as we have already agreed upon what larger means, whereas we have unfortunately not really agreed upon what "better" means. I still hold however that sentient welfare is the starting point of all ethical discussion. If you disagree then I'd like to hear why, and what your proposal for a better starting point would be.  
 

No, it is not an absolute truth, it is currently true that the sun is larger than the earth.  5 billion years ago, the earth likely didn't exist, and therefore the statement is moot and not absolute.  Billions of years in the future there will be no earth/sun therefore that statement will not be true, therefore it is not an absolute truth.  

Smiling  Nice try though.  An absolute is irrelative of time.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:You are telling

Ktulu wrote:
You are telling me "general well-being of something's that has subjective experiences".  That is extremely vague.

It really isn't, not when it comes to the practical stuff anyway. Even without ever being inside your head I can figure out that you don't want to get stabbed in the gut. How? Because I'm a being with a similar physiology and I know what having a sharp piece of metal pierce your skin feels like.

Quote:
As for the rest of your rant... you are just telling me YOUR OPINION!, or the societies opinion.

Yeah, I am. Now, as I said before, put your fucking balls on the table and tell me that you disagree with my assesment. Tell me that sentient welfare isn't what matters in the universe.

Quote:
There are parts of the world where strapping on a bomb and walking in a crowded room makes you a hero.

Yeah, they have retarded ideas about reality. What am I supposed to say here, that when you feed people bullshit ideas they'll do retarded shit? well, duh.

Quote:
Right and wrong are just PERCEPTIONS, simply because you find it appalling means absolutely SHIT ALL!

Do you care to ELABORATE on how your sentient welfare is an ABSOLUTE STANDARD?

Not really. You either agree or you don't. What you're basically asking me is whether I can bridge the is-ought gap. No, I can't. No one ever will either. The reality is, when discussing ethics you simply must accept something as an axiom that you can't back up with cold hard logic. I've chosen sentient welfare. If you have better suggestions, lemme know.

Quote:
The rest of your rant is completely irrelevant to your "objective morals" argument.  It's just shit that you like vs shit that other people like... it's your opinion on a given situation on some standard that YOU claimed as objective.  I claim otherwise, therefore by your definition, my standard is OBJECTIVE

You still haven't explained what your standard is exactly.

Quote:
we have about 7 billion OBJECTIVE standards on earth Smiling

 

 

Kinda. Doesn't mean each one is as well supported by facts.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Do you have a problem with this interpretation?

 

I just got through stating that this whole entire nature of his works was really forcing me to think deeply about the whole subject.

Words like good/evil get tossed around by theists that say : gays are evil, sex outside of marriage is evil, smoking a cigarette is evil, etc.

That's one of the reasons that I was taking the standpoint of the subjective nature of evil, perhaps I should have clearly defined my terms ( no attempt at semantics on my part, I grew up in an ultra-religious household where everyone that did not think like the people of my faith were considered "evil&quotEye-wink

But, I can not think of any sound, logical or rational defense for torturing, raping, or mutilating any living thing and I consider that evil.  What am I basing that off of ? I fully can't say. I have always been empathetic and compassionate towards people/animals in pain. No one taught to be compassionate. That's something that goes back as far as I can remember.

Again, I don't have a clear cut answer to this as of yet. It may take me quite some time before I ever do.

 

I have very young children, and I have to constantly remind them not to kill every bug in sight, or torture pets.  They're getting better, but babies have no concept of causing harm.  It makes sense that we would have a natural tendency not to hurt others.  This is likely a product of our evolution, and our mirror neurons.  Consider a psychopath and the lack of empathy.  They may inherently find it difficult to understand what others are going through.  If we hadn't evolved a natural way of understanding suffering in others, how would we judge suffering?  How do you judge suffering now if not subjectively?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:No, it is not an

Ktulu wrote:
No, it is not an absolute truth, it is currently true that the sun is larger than the earth.  5 billion years ago, the earth likely didn't exist, and therefore the statement is moot and not absolute.  Billions of years in the future there will be no earth/sun therefore that statement will not be true, therefore it is not an absolute truth.  

Smiling  Nice try though.  An absolute is irrelative of time.

rofl, this is hilarious. Ok, fine, it's an absolute truth that CURRENTLY the sun is larger than the earth. Goddamnit, I really thought discussing shit with atheists would let me skip all this rhetorical bullshit but nope, same old shit.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
You are telling me "general well-being of something's that has subjective experiences".  That is extremely vague.
It really isn't, not when it comes to the practical stuff anyway. Even without ever being inside your head I can figure out that you don't want to get stabbed in the gut. How? Because I'm a being with a similar physiology and I know what having a sharp piece of metal pierce your skin feels like.
Quote:
As for the rest of your rant... you are just telling me YOUR OPINION!, or the societies opinion.
Yeah, I am. Now, as I said before, put your fucking balls on the table and tell me that you disagree with my assesment. Tell me that sentient welfare isn't what matters in the universe.
Quote:
There are parts of the world where strapping on a bomb and walking in a crowded room makes you a hero.
Yeah, they have retarded ideas about reality. What am I supposed to say here, that when you feed people bullshit ideas they'll do retarded shit? well, duh.
Quote:
Right and wrong are just PERCEPTIONS, simply because you find it appalling means absolutely SHIT ALL!

 

Do you care to ELABORATE on how your sentient welfare is an ABSOLUTE STANDARD?

Not really. You either agree or you don't. What you're basically asking me is whether I can bridge the is-ought gap. No, I can't. No one ever will either. The reality is, when discussing ethics you simply must accept something as an axiom that you can't back up with cold hard logic. I've chosen sentient welfare. If you have better suggestions, lemme know.
Quote:
The rest of your rant is completely irrelevant to your "objective morals" argument.  It's just shit that you like vs shit that other people like... it's your opinion on a given situation on some standard that YOU claimed as objective.  I claim otherwise, therefore by your definition, my standard is OBJECTIVE
You still haven't explained what your standard is exactly.
Quote:
we have about 7 billion OBJECTIVE standards on earth Smiling

 

 

 

Kinda. Doesn't mean each one is as well supported by facts.

I have already said, I agree with you.  I am a humanist.  First do no harm.  Then judge harm to the best of your ability, and try to choose the path with the least amount of harm to other sentient beings. 

This is a subjective moral compass.  I am perfectly cool with that. Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
No, it is not an absolute truth, it is currently true that the sun is larger than the earth.  5 billion years ago, the earth likely didn't exist, and therefore the statement is moot and not absolute.  Billions of years in the future there will be no earth/sun therefore that statement will not be true, therefore it is not an absolute truth.  

 

Smiling  Nice try though.  An absolute is irrelative of time.

rofl, this is hilarious. Ok, fine, it's an absolute truth that CURRENTLY the sun is larger than the earth. Goddamnit, I really thought discussing shit with atheists would let me skip all this rhetorical bullshit but nope, same old shit.

Lol, sorry dude.  When discussing rhetorical bullshit, you have to speak the language.  Check out this logic triple spin... Reality is the only truth.  Therefore, a historic statement is a concept, and a concept is something dependent on a human brain to understand.  When there will no longer be human brains to understand that statement, the statement will no longer exist, therefore not an absolute.

*and sticks the landing* Smiling

lol, I tone my logic gymnastics by arguing with theists all the time.  Absolute truth is one of my favorite things to piss on.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I agree, animal welfare is

 I agree, animal welfare is extremely important. When animals are highly stressed before they die can cause their meat to have an undesirable texture. One should always make sure an animal is calm and comfortable before killing them and place the shot carefully to ensure a quick death. 

http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/mqf_stress.html

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3385
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
all i have to say is that

all i have to say is that i'm all for animal rights...until they conflict in any life or death way with a human's.  then, fuck the animals.  it's like penn jillette once said (i'm paraphrasing), "teller and i would kill every kitten in the world--with our bare hands--to save one junkie dying of AIDS."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I have very

Ktulu wrote:

I have very young children, and I have to constantly remind them not to kill every bug in sight, or torture pets.  They're getting better, but babies have no concept of causing harm.  It makes sense that we would have a natural tendency not to hurt others.  This is likely a product of our evolution, and our mirror neurons.  Consider a psychopath and the lack of empathy.  They may inherently find it difficult to understand what others are going through.  If we hadn't evolved a natural way of understanding suffering in others, how would we judge suffering?  How do you judge suffering now if not subjectively?

Well true enough. We don't know if sociopathic behavior is caused by the lack of certain chemical components in the brain or environments. The old nature vs. nurture argument. (I speculate that it is probably a combination of both, but that is just my own hypothesis).

How do I judge suffering if not subjectively ? Good point. Someone that grew up in a situation like Rwanda, with parents and siblings engaging in mass slaughter and being taught that slaughtering another tribe comes naturally, are not going to have the same set of principles that I do.

Are my own standards of right and wrong absolute ? For me they are (some of them have never been put to the test, like killing someone in a war) but I can not safely say they are absolute for everyone else. Now that does not mean that I believe that torture, murder, rape and killing are ok nor do I feel that I have to justify the reasoning for that. I don't see why it has to be absolute for me to think that it is wrong.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:....  it's

iwbiek wrote:

....  it's like penn jillette once said (i'm paraphrasing), "teller and i would kill every kitten in the world--with our bare hands--to save one junkie dying of AIDS."

    I don't consider the existence/ welfare of other humans as primary simply because they're humans.  I judge them on an individual basis.  This human specimen mentioned above wasn't born addicted to drugs and afflicted with AIDS.  It resulted from choices that were made.  If one want's to engage in high stakes endeavors then be prepared to suffer the consequences when the odds turn against you.  

 As an aside, perpetrators of animal cruelty would only engender an extremely punitive response from me, their humanity notwithstanding.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Happily

Manageri wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
Morality and "success" are subjective concepts,  from a humanist perspective our overall morality has improved greatly as Beyond has pointed out.  The fact that it has improved only makes sense from a humanist perspective, cows and pigs are not so lucky of our western's society's "success" at farming them.  From their perspective we're evil predators, any "improvement" to our society only serves to exploit them further.  So much for objective morality...

So if I propose a law that makes enslaving black people legal again you'll just shrug and say it's all subjective? If not, then what standard are you going to use to declare my racist perspective somehow not as valid as your speciecist perspective?

 

subjectivity has a human universality fueled by physiology. We have mirror neurons and oxytocin, we love people and we can feel how other people feel. We are able to put ourselves in the places of others. Thanks to our prefrontal cortex we are able to unmake our social prejudices and bigotries. Enslaving people is wrong because I don't want it to happen to me, because that man is the same man I am. 

Removing morality from the human perspective, from a living human, in which it is a multi-layered mind and body reaction to an event, is to simplify something that is an intrinsic part of a life into a dead concept. I think the group of human feelings and instincts we label morality, has subjective tolerance, but it's something humans as a species generally share. It's part of our survival tool kit.

I'd argue the experience of moral behaviour cannot be encapsulated in words. That everyone's experience of moral behaviour is unique to them. But to propose that recognition of the personal element of the experience we label morality amounts to no morality at all seems a false dichotomy to me. Discounting pyschopaths and accounting for context (experience, fears, life lessons), I should think everyone's feelings of what is moral are very similar even if the behavioural conclusions of those personal feelings are not the same. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote: After that

Peggotty wrote:

 

After that you don’t have to apologise to anyone you don’t care if you’re not part of a group...

 

  Not belonging to groups is my standard operating procedure.

 

Peggotty wrote:
...you don’t care what someone says to you or about you.  Then you don’t bother with your worries and how broken you feel at times - then you’re happy. That’s what I call being a success.

 

   I still don't consider myself as a "success"; quite the opposite actually.

 

Peggotty wrote:
...what’s important is whether you accept human fallibility as a given.

 

   Human fallibility is undeniable.  The evidence is overwhelming.  That's why I am now a misanthrope.  I consider it an appropriate approach based upon the unpredictable and frequently ruthless nature of homo sapiens.

 

Peggotty wrote:
Beliefs that science can be used to perfect human beings is as ridiculous as a belief in magic, angels or god’s intervention.

 

  Agreed.

 

 

Peggotty wrote:
According to the four horsemen, reason and science, rather than religion will rid us of human conflicts and evil.  Since the Enlightenment we’ve heard that one so pull another.  No, there was a dark side to the Enlightenment as we’ve found, namely you can’t understand and control people with the rational mind. Knowledge may have increased but morally as a species we haven’t change at all, selfishness is our natural state...

 

   Reason and science are a mixed blessing, sometimes beneficial until it meets the whims of human nature.

 

Peggotty wrote:
..but once you’re aware of that once you’ve OWNED it you’re not sleeping anymore you’ve become awake.


 

 

   I guess I'm awake.

 

  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I agree, animal welfare is extremely important. When animals are highly stressed before they die can cause their meat to have an undesirable texture. One should always make sure an animal is calm and comfortable before killing them and place the shot carefully to ensure a quick death. 

http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/mqf_stress.html

Smiling 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Reality is the

Ktulu wrote:
Reality is the only truth.  Therefore, a historic statement is a concept, and a concept is something dependent on a human brain to understand.  When there will no longer be human brains to understand that statement, the statement will no longer exist, therefore not an absolute.

I don't really understand the point here but I'm guessing you're somehow claiming that reality is dependent on minds perceiving it?

Atheistextremist wrote:
Enslaving people is wrong because I don't want it to happen to me, because that man is the same man I am.

Not exactly. Whether some shit can happen to me doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's right for me to do it or not. If you disagree then you're saying the theists who assert god can do whatever the fuck he wants are right since no one can harm god back.

Quote:
Removing morality from the human perspective, from a living human, in which it is a multi-layered mind and body reaction to an event, is to simplify something that is an intrinsic part of a life into a dead concept.

The human perspective is really irrelevant to what's right. Everyone could go batshit crazy tomorrow and have a completely different (and retarded) outlook on ethics, that wouldn't mean that what's ethical has changed.

Quote:
I think the group of human feelings and instincts we label morality, has subjective tolerance, but it's something humans as a species generally share. It's part of our survival tool kit.

Which has nothing to do with anything since survival is not intrinsically good. I mean you could technically assert survival as an axiom in your moral system but I'd argue that's kinda silly because survival is obviously less important than welfare, unless you're gonna tell me eternal torture in hell is better than nonexistence, and because if there's a logical reason to think of survival as good then it's already covered under sentient welfare.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13654
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Hi, I’m

Peggotty wrote:

Hi, I’m new here and I’d like to ask who determines what success is? Our own stupid society that’s what and the main concern of that society is to keep us sick. The sooner we take that on board the better.   Being rich and being the chairman of something or other hasn’t anything to do with being a success. You’re only a success when you WAKE UP!

After that you don’t have to apologise to anyone you don’t care if you’re not part of a group you don’t care what someone says to you or about you.  Then you don’t bother with your worries and how broken you feel at times - then you’re happy. That’s what I call being a success.

I’m an atheist I don’t believe there is anything out there (religion is just a metaphor for the inner life) and whether people believe in a god or not is not important to me, what’s important is whether you accept human fallibility as a given.  Then you’ve got something to work with.  Beliefs that science can be used to perfect human beings is as ridiculous as a belief in magic, angels or god’s intervention.

According to the four horsemen, reason and science, rather than religion will rid us of human conflicts and evil.  Since the Enlightenment we’ve heard that one so pull another.  No, there was a dark side to the Enlightenment as we’ve found, namely you can’t understand and control people with the rational mind. Knowledge may have increased but morally as a species we haven’t change at all, selfishness is our natural state but once you’re aware of that once you’ve OWNED it you’re not sleeping anymore you’ve become awake.


 

I have no idea why you posted this. The fallibility of humans is evolutionary because evolution isn't about perfection, but merely getting to the point of reproduction, and human fallibility although not the core reason to reject god claims, the fact that our senses can be notoriously flawed, is one reason in combo with other reasons.

But what does this have to do with science? No one here is claiming that scientists are not human. The mistake you are making is treating a person(scientist) with the tool of "method"(scientific method).

Hammers are used to pound nails into wood. But that does not prevent the person using the hammer to crack someone's skull in. Don't confuse a person with the tool they use. One is a person, the other is a tool.

Scientific method is solid, but the people using that hammer can get it wrong. But you cannot blame the hammer for what the person using it does wrong with it.

At it's core all scientific method is is a attitude of quality control through collecting data, testing it, and independently verifying it. If at any point that scientist screws up in that process, that is not the fault of the concept of "method" that is the fault of the human.

So to insure the best outcome of observable data, the scientist must not be married to their claim, and must be willing to discard it if others within that rank and field debunk it. Where scientific method has been solid, is when a claim has been made, others come along and kick the shit out of it and it still stands up after the shit kicking. And that also includes even improving on that which has been established. Much like we have as humans invented the combustion engine, we have discarded the old early versions, like the Model T ford, and now have fuel injection, and even now we are looking for alternative engines, but the idea of the car has been around a long time.

So I fail to see the point of this post. "Scientist get it wrong" Yea, so. But that would be like blaming the telescope for what the human looking through it misunderstands. The telescope is still a valid tool.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So I fail to

Brian37 wrote:
So I fail to see the point of this post. "Scientist get it wrong" Yea, so. But that would be like blaming the telescope for what the human looking through it misunderstands. The telescope is still a valid tool.
 
But what does this have to do with science? No one here is claiming that scientists are not human. The mistake you are making is treating a person(scientist) with the tool of "method"(scientific method).


As you point out morals and politics don’t advance at the same rate as knowledge.

After the Enlightenment all other values became inferior to science and reason. This sanctioned the idea that it was legitimate to push the human race forward by abusing the weak.  ‘Scientific racism’ was adopted as a veneer for murder by nineteenth and twentieth century despots (mainly for profit).  The radical Enlightenment thinkers argued that those not educated and reformed should be eliminated so as not to poison society (utopian ideals).

In the nineteenth century belief in the moral superiority of Western civilization allowed the Tasmanian Aborigines to be wiped out by the British, they were given licence to exterminate this ‘inferior race’ so that they could be ‘hunted down like wild beasts and destroyed’.  The Aborigines were trapped like animals and tortured or burned to death, along with the Caribs, the Guanches and the Native Americans.  The slave trade was justified and 15 million Africans were abducted and even more were killed. 

All this set the stage for the Holocaust and the human induced famines in the Soviet Union where science and technology were used in the slaughter and genocides of the last century and human beings were killed on a scale never seen before.

Those new technologies could have been used to enhance freedom and alleviate suffering but as you say there’s a difference between science and the scientist.

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13654
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I believe that every

Quote:
I believe that every person determines what success is for themselves.

 

Ha! That is the biggest pile of pony loaf coming from you Beyond. You project your idea of how life should go just as stupidly and narcissistic as any believer. Otherwise you wouldn't blame people who truly are happy with what they do. I am a dishwasher, but do not give me any crap that you think I am a "success". You project your idea of success on others otherwise you wouldn't try to tutor us as to how to get rich. If success can be anything, which it is, then money is not to be the end all to measure success. Otherwise if that were the only measure Gadaffi was moral because he was a billionaire.

If you truly believed that Beyond, you wouldn't live in your bubble like you do. You are just as delusional as a theist and equally judgmental. I really hope someday you heed your own quote. I think if you ever do, you will come around. You still owe this commie a beer.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Hammers are

Brian37 wrote:
Hammers are used to pound nails into wood. But that does not prevent the person using the hammer to crack someone's skull in……Scientific method is solid, but the people using that hammer can get it wrong. But you cannot blame the hammer for what the person using it does wrong with it.

Forgot to mention the French Revolution where 17,000 ‘skulls were cracked’ open and killed by the Jacobins who took control justified by their ‘enlightened ideals’.  William Wordsworth the poet was living in Paris at the time and wrote about his experience:-


                      O pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love;
Bliss was it that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very Heaven: O times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute took at once
The attraction of a Country in Romance;
When Reason seem'd the most to assert her rights
When most intent on making of herself
A prime enchantress -- to assist the work,
Which then was going forward in her name.
Not favor'd spots alone, but the whole Earth!
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I believe that every person determines what success is for themselves.

 

Ha! That is the biggest pile of pony loaf coming from you Beyond. You project your idea of how life should go just as stupidly and narcissistic as any believer. Otherwise you wouldn't blame people who truly are happy with what they do. I am a dishwasher, but do not give me any crap that you think I am a "success". You project your idea of success on others otherwise you wouldn't try to tutor us as to how to get rich. If success can be anything, which it is, then money is not to be the end all to measure success. Otherwise if that were the only measure Gadaffi was moral because he was a billionaire.

If you truly believed that Beyond, you wouldn't live in your bubble like you do. You are just as delusional as a theist and equally judgmental. I really hope someday you heed your own quote. I think if you ever do, you will come around. You still owe this commie a beer.

Please show me one post where I ever suggested money was the sole measure of success or criticized anyone for making life choices that make them happy. The most I have ever said is that if you want more money than you should do something to make more money- IOW if money is a goal of yours, do something that makes more money. If it isn't than why complain about not being paid enough money? Or why complain that someone else like Romney makes a shitload more money than you?

My goal is not money. My personal goal is to not work because I'm a lazy- to reach that goal I did in fact have to build a decent amount of capital. If money was my sole goal, I would have been working for the last 6 months, instead I have been relaxing and enjoying allowing others carry the burden of day to day work at considerable expense to myself. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13654
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I believe that every person determines what success is for themselves.

 

Ha! That is the biggest pile of pony loaf coming from you Beyond. You project your idea of how life should go just as stupidly and narcissistic as any believer. Otherwise you wouldn't blame people who truly are happy with what they do. I am a dishwasher, but do not give me any crap that you think I am a "success". You project your idea of success on others otherwise you wouldn't try to tutor us as to how to get rich. If success can be anything, which it is, then money is not to be the end all to measure success. Otherwise if that were the only measure Gadaffi was moral because he was a billionaire.

If you truly believed that Beyond, you wouldn't live in your bubble like you do. You are just as delusional as a theist and equally judgmental. I really hope someday you heed your own quote. I think if you ever do, you will come around. You still owe this commie a beer.

Please show me one post where I ever suggested money was the sole measure of success or criticized anyone for making life choices that make them happy. The most I have ever said is that if you want more money than you should do something to make more money- IOW if money is a goal of yours, do something that makes more money. If it isn't than why complain about not being paid enough money? Or why complain that someone else like Romney makes a shitload more money than you?

My goal is not money. My personal goal is to not work because I'm a lazy- to reach that goal I did in fact have to build a decent amount of capital. If money was my sole goal, I would have been working for the last 6 months, instead I have been relaxing and enjoying allowing others carry the burden of day to day work at considerable expense to myself. 

Ad nausium.

Why have you if you were not being judgmental, when I say I am poor then go on to say things like "I don't care if you are a crack dealer". Thanks Beyond for equating a law abiding dish washer to a crack dealer. You have absolutly no fucking value for those below you other than being tools for your benefit. That is why you cant understand where your many objectors on this website are coming from.

There is a HUGE difference between what you are doing and what I am doing. I am not judging wealth, I am judging your fucking attitude that you think you live on and island where you did everything by yourself when the reality of all businesses is that the LABOR does the majority of the work, not the CEO.

You think, but wont admit that you think poverty SHOULD be a death sentence. So don't be a coward and just admit that is what you think. "Why should you complain if you don't want more money". It is about money for you otherwise you wouldn't say stupid shit like that.

Just admit that you are a social Darwinist and a classist and stop lying and saying that is not what you are. "Fuck you," if that is what you truly believe, don't lie about it and pretend that is not what you think when your own words defy you.

I have constantly quoted ECONOMISTS and points in history where the tax rate was higher and government was smaller and the pay gap was lower and even NICK HANOUR a billionaire that would disagree with you that you are the job creator, when people like me create the demand that forces people like you to hire.

YOU are making this about money. I am saying that an economy is as only as strong as the weakest amongst us, and the more people who cant make ends meet, which is the path we are on, and which has been caused by the corporate climate, long term, that will undermine the ability for those companies to sell those products.

HENRY FORD was a business owner I could value who wanted a car that his workers can afford. Nick Hanour is a billionaire who gets it. SO GET OF YOUR FUCKING BROKEN RECORD CRAP that I hate wealth.

CLIMATE and attitude are my issue, NOT YOUR WEALTH.

Just admit that "fuck you" is your policy and don't be a coward about it.

 

If

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ad nausium.Why

Brian37 wrote:

Ad nausium.

Why have you if you were not being judgmental, when I say I am poor then go on to say things like "I don't care if you are a crack dealer". Thanks Beyond for equating a law abiding dish washer to a crack dealer. You have absolutly no fucking value for those below you other than being tools for your benefit. That is why you cant understand where your many objectors on this website are coming from.

Because I don't judge crack dealers any more than I judge you. If your goal is to be a crack dealer, good for you. What a person chooses to do with their life is absolutely none of my concern until it harms me. Why are you so judgemental of crack dealers?

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is a HUGE difference between what you are doing and what I am doing. I am not judging wealth, I am judging your fucking attitude that you think you live on and island where you did everything by yourself when the reality of all businesses is that the LABOR does the majority of the work, not the CEO.

There is a huge difference, and I don't have a problem with that. I am glad there are ambitious people out there who want to build successful businesses, thanks to them, I can make a good living playing my part. I never claimed to do everything myself. I have routinely claimed the exact opposite describing myself as lazy. I have, however, paid every person who has provided labor to me along the way.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You think, but wont admit that you think poverty SHOULD be a death sentence. So don't be a coward and just admit that is what you think. "Why should you complain if you don't want more money". It is about money for you otherwise you wouldn't say stupid shit like that.

Why is that a stupid statement? Either you want more money or you don't, either you are willing to do what is required to make more money, or you are not. I am not particularly concerned which you decide. If you don't like living in poverty, than I suggest you do something that pays you more money. If you prefer living in poverty over doing what is required to make money, I don't see how that is my concern. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Just admit that you are a social Darwinist and a classist and stop lying and saying that is not what you are. "Fuck you," if that is what you truly believe, don't lie about it and pretend that is not what you think when your own words defy you.

How can I be a classist? I rarely even take note of how much other people make unless I am considering investing in them or I am playing poker against them. I couldn't care less whether you make $5,000 a year or $5 billion a year, it does not matter to my life at all. The worst you could say about me is that I don't care, which is true, I don't.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I have constantly quoted ECONOMISTS and points in history where the tax rate was higher and government was smaller and the pay gap was lower and even NICK HANOUR a billionaire that would disagree with you that you are the job creator, when people like me create the demand that forces people like you to hire.

1. Why should I listen to anyone simply because they have money? Sounds kind of classist to me. 

2. No one forces me to hire. I hire because I choose to hire so I don't have to do the work myself. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

YOU are making this about money. I am saying that an economy is as only as strong as the weakest amongst us, and the more people who cant make ends meet, which is the path we are on, and which has been caused by the corporate climate, long term, that will undermine the ability for those companies to sell those products.

So using your logic we should outlaw poverty? Force people to work higher wage jobs even if they prefer to stay in entry level positions for whatever personal reasons just so they can afford to be a customer of me? I don't think you have an obligation to make enough money to be a customer to my business. If you do great, if you don't oh well. Either I am providing for a need that is in demand and I will make money, or I am not and I will lose money. If I ever find myself not supplying a demand I will produce something else.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

HENRY FORD was a business owner I could value who wanted a car that his workers can afford. Nick Hanour is a billionaire who gets it. SO GET OF YOUR FUCKING BROKEN RECORD CRAP that I hate wealth.

CLIMATE and attitude are my issue, NOT YOUR WEALTH.

Just admit that "fuck you" is your policy and don't be a coward about it. 

I will admit that I don't care about your situation. You work where you work because you chose it. If you like it great, if you don't do something else- I don't see how it is my business either way. My only request is that you kindly refrain using government power to take from me for your personal gain and I will never use government to force you to give anything to me.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13654
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I will admit that I

Quote:
I will admit that I don't care about your situation.

That says it all right there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13654
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: No one forces me to

Quote:
No one forces me to hire

HA how fucking jaded you are and BILLIONAIRE NICK HANOUR WOULD disagree with you.

Ok, so if demand goes up, and you "chose" not to hire, you think if you dont you can still meet that demand?

No one tells you what choices to make, no. But basic demand will. Now for the bulk of the nations population, where do you think most of that demand comes from? The top alone? Or would most of that demand come from the middle class and working poor?

So yea, you can say "fuck you I got mine" but that only works for  a while and for very few people, what do you do when no one is demanding what you sell because they cant afford the cost of living? That is where we are at as a nation and your ilk has set this up. But you have no right to blame me for that.

He and you would agree that it makes no sense to hire one more person than you need, and I agree. But if the idea is to provide more jobs, you cant do that by being so jaded as to think that demand is created by you, when the bulk of the buying public who are not business owners are the ones with the bulk of the economy whom pay for things that make business owners rich. Nick gets it, you dont.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I will

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I will admit that I don't care about your situation.

That says it all right there. 

Is there any particular reason why I should?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This seems to be our point of difference

Manageri wrote:

 

Everyone could go batshit crazy tomorrow and have a completely different (and retarded) outlook on ethics, that wouldn't mean that what's ethical has changed.

 

Quote:

 

 

What's ethical is what the majority of humans feel is ethical. So, right now in time it's fine to eat every animal but people, mostly. It's not fine to kill people for entertainment. Violence is generally not condoned unless provoked. But once the mythical hero's wife has been raped and/or murdered, pretty much anything goes. 

You seem to be arguing human ethics exist outside human experience, can be objectively measure in a way that has no tolerance - that there's a standard of ethical behaviour that exists apart from human experience. But what is this standard? How is it measured? 

The 'flex' that exists in our personal interpretations of ethical behaviour can't be interpreted as 'everyone going batshit crazy tomorrow'. I'm pretty sure in my last post I sought to discount the false dichotomy of psychopathic personalities being the direct opposite/result of the acceptance there are no absolute moral values, whatever these may be.

Having said this, I argue humans have a universal set of behavioural characteristics based on culture and physiology that are called ethical. Generally, well adjusted adults not exposed to abuses and war, have a very similar interpretation of what we see in our stable, family oriented societies as being the right way to behave. And given our common ancestry and proven genetic bottlenecks, this similarity of behaviour in all humans is exactly what we would expect to see. 

Just as a thought experiment, imagine all the humans on the planet die of some virulent plague. In the total absence of human minds and human thought, does ethical behaviour now exist? I don't mean does the potential for ethical behaviour exist if humans re-evolve, either. Can ethics exist without people to conceive them?

 

P.S. Let's leave the chimps out of it...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck