Jump to content

WasatchMan

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    678

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

 Content Type 

Everything posted by WasatchMan

  1. WasatchMan
    It is just simply false. If it were true, the following statement would be true "If you downvote or ostracize for reasons of a person being a racist (an aesthetic reason), you will absolutely suffer great harm." I am absolutely keeping myself from harm from refusing to interact with racists, which is the exact opposite of your claim. So you are asking other people to change their behavior based on their dislike of your preferred "style" of communication? If you can request this, I think it is fair that others request you change your behavior based on their preferred "style" of communication - and they have, through the mechanism of downvoting.
  2. WasatchMan
    I am not against this. I do agree with Patrick though, if people see a comment they think was un-justly downvoted they usually try to correct it with an up-vote.
  3. WasatchMan
    The goal of ethics is to be universally applicable. Just because someone does not accept a universal ethical system does not mean universal ethical conclusions does not apply to them. Murder is still evil for sociopaths. It is a good question though, and is definitely a challenge for ethics in that it would be a lot simpler if everyone had empathy. I would recommend reading UPB for an in-depth analysis of universal ethics.
  4. WasatchMan
    Downvoting is essential for the function of this board. I have seen trolls roll in and out of here and if it weren't for the ability for the community to downvote they would be here much longer.
  5. WasatchMan
    The definition of "morality" is an opinion-based aesthetic-preference? That is wrong by implication, since the purpose of morality is to differentiate between what is good and evil and what is a opinion-based aesthetic-preference. You even had to use the word "moral" to communicate to me the opposite of "option-based, aesthetic-preferences". We would have a huge problem if the definition of moral was "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences", but the conclusions weren't. With this methodology, you define anything as moral, and then out of this "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences" you somehow end up with conclusions the opposite of "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences"? You do realize you make some pretty bold assertions with no argument.
  6. WasatchMan
    I can respect that answer as true. We may differ on strategy on how to handle that results truth, but I think it is a good way to put it for sure. I have not made any suggestions about practical application of this idea in this thread, I have barley even been able to get into the definitions let alone the best way to handle the answers. Look, I am on a philosophy forum asking questions about the true nature of morality. If I can't ask these questions here - than I can't ask these questions. So you'll have to excuse me because I am going to ask me some tough questions.
  7. WasatchMan
    Philosophy is actual the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Truth does not care about how it affects people - it just is. I think you have gotten it confused with politics. However, you have made it abundantly clear on this forum that you are willing to manipulate people to achieve certain ends, so I am not too surprised by your confusion between the two disciplines. Also, I find it "interesting" (to use your style of language) that you keep calling my question on what the words morality and ethics fundamentally apply to as my "opinion". I am not talking about opinions. I am trying to generate a truth statement in a fundamental discipline of philosophy (ethics), not an opinion. Ethics is not a question for space aliens, robots, or vacuum cleaners, as you so condescendingly assert my question to be. It is an essential question for people. If we can't properly define morality and ethics, I don't understand how anything else in ethics after that matters. I am talking about whether it is a true statement to say that ethics and morality only apply to behavioral system derived from universals and first principles, and cannot be applied to behavioral systems derived from lies. I am not sure why you think I am talking about my opinion. Is there not a correct answer to what you can call morality? Or am I to believe you are claiming that ethics is relative?
  8. WasatchMan
    I really am not interested in pragmatic arguments, MMX. I am trying to have a conversation on the meaning of fundamental philosophical words (ethics and morality). Its not that "I don't want to call want to call the better behaviors of Christians either Ethical or Moral." (FYI - putting that in quotes is pretty slimy since I never said that), its that I want to use philosophical words correctly. If you want to make the argument that the words morality and ethics applies to all behavioral systems with good outcomes OR that precise language doesn't matter because people can't think anyway, then you can make those arguments. If you really want to talk about the implications of being precise in philosophy, and how this is hard for people, I would recommend starting another thread on that topic to address that. Also, I don't care if identifying that you can only call things morality and ethics when they are derived from truth annoys every Christian and causes them to misbehave more, at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral.
  9. WasatchMan
    Yes, moral/ethical systems are also behavioral systems. However the question this thread is asking is, are all behavioral systems morality and ethics, or is morality and ethics a subset of 'behavioral system' described by being derived from universals, first principles, and truth, and in exclsuion to behavioral systems derived from a lie? Also, I don't know how love describes the threat of burning in hell for eternity for lacking faith in god and not following gods laws. That is generally called a violation of the NAP.
  10. WasatchMan
    religion noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group Full Definition of RELIGION 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Can you please explain to me what definition of religion would make the lack in a belief of god (aka atheism) , a religion?
  11. WasatchMan
    I would think no one is to blame, given that the scientist really did try a lot of different avenues to communicate in a way that could be understood by others. Maybe this true, but personally it doesn't really matter to me. The argument for the ends justifying the means has never appealed to me as a proper way of analyzing things. You can't universalize it and it is subject to an individuals application and ability to predict causal relationships of ideas affect to human society. I don't have a crystal ball that actual knows the outcomes, so I will stick with what I do know. I guess you could try to create (like so many before you) a utilitarian measuring system to determine the most practical approach to all situations, but I don't think it is possible. At least when we argue from universals, first principles, and the truth, we have an argument firmly grounded in reality. Also, by taking the position that someone is incapable of understanding truth, you have taken away their autonomy to make these decisions themselves. I would rather leave the door open to philosophy for those who can break out of the hive, than bar it shut in my general frustration for other peoples perceived inability to think.
  12. WasatchMan
    Sure, I can have sympathy towards a lot of things, but what I cannot do is change the meaning of words based on my sympathy,
  13. WasatchMan
    No worries, I appreciate you correcting your error. So I am not using "lie" at all meaning that someone intends to deceive. This topic really has nothing to do with people, so intentions don't matter. What I am meaning is that the behavioral system followed by Christians is derived from a lie. The lie that God exists and has demands on your behavior. Not that people are lieing, but the methodology is fundamentally predicated on something that was just made up to control peoples behavior. You cannot call a behavioral system that floats on made up non-sense, morality or ethics. The reason why I said that I could talk to Christians about physics but not ethics and morality, is because the behavioral system saying that God created morality and ethics is fundamental to religion, where as facts about the physical environment are not fundamental to religion. In other words, you cannot call yourself a Christian and not believe that God created morality, because that is essentially what religion is, a behavioral system backed by the power God. And Christians know this. That is why their number one complaint about Atheism is "If God does not exist, than objective moral values do not exist." They do not parse words, and they are not kidding, and neither was Stefan when saying "We create the possibility of moral choice by communicating truth about ethics to people." Like I said to Nathan, "faith and behavioral dictates derived from god (see 10 Commandments) are fundamental tenants to being a Christian. I don't know how you can claim someone can be a Christian and not follow these tenants. That would be like saying someone can be a soccer fan, but hate watching sports where people kick balls."
  14. WasatchMan
    My understanding is he talking about an economic collapse primarily, but I am not sure you can have one collapse in these areas without the others being sucked in with it. The reason why he would talk about an economic collapse is because it is mathematically certain to happen at this point in time, so prepare yourself.
  15. WasatchMan
    Sorry, but faith and behavioral dictates derived from god (see 10 Commandments) are fundamental tenants to being a Christian. I don't know how you can claim someone can be a Christian and not follow these tenants. That would be like saying someone can be a soccer fan, but hate watching sports where people kick balls.
  16. WasatchMan
    From the OP: Did you read this? How can you even ask me these questions if you did? My central point is that Christians (and yes all religions) behavioral system is fundamentally derived from the dictates of a made up fictional character. To call the outcomes of that behavioral system, morality and ethics, is erroneous because I am claiming that morality and ethics are words used to describe behavioral system derived from truth, reason, and first principles, not ones derived through lies.
  17. WasatchMan
    What is your point? What does 'corrupt' have to do with this conversation? How do you think that these words you are using apply to this thread? I am talking about philosophy not people. A system built on faith is fundamentally anti-rational. I give two shits about the people, I am talking about the ideas people follow and whether or not bad ideas with good results can be called morality and ethics. This is probably my last response to you unless you decide to actually address the topic at hand and not just random thoughts on good and bad Christians.
  18. WasatchMan
    Common now. I am talking about the fundamental premises of Christianity (that one must have faith) not individual stupid people. The entire framework of religion itself is anti-rational and therefore has no place in ethical or moral conversations.
  19. WasatchMan
    Are you really going to tell me that following a 2000 year tomb that is obviously complete non-sense is the behavior of a people who value truth? A belief system whose fundamental premise for metaphysics is having faith in a universal overlord to which there is no evidence for is the reflection of valuing truth? Regardless, this is not the point of this thread. I have mentioned I have no interest in comparing nihilist to Christians. I even called it a false dichotomy in the OP. The purpose of this thread is whether we can call a epistemological and metaphysically flawed system of behavior "morality". To me this applies to both Christians and nihilist, with the difference that nihilist don't claim to be operating under morality.
  20. WasatchMan
    I made it pretty clear that I was taking for granted that the US intent was self defense, since this is Sam's premise and I was trying to represent his position. Whether or not the US was acting in self defense (I agree, they are likely not) is a separate issue from attacking Sam's actual argument on intent.
  21. WasatchMan
    The purpose of this thread is what the word ethics and morality applies to, good pragmatic results or a consistent logical system built from first principles. I have no interest in comparing whether Jesuits or Communists are better.
  22. WasatchMan
    Sure, but that still doesn't mean you can call it a conservation on ethics or morality.
  23. WasatchMan
    I think that this is a good point to make here. One thing I am really trying to get across though is that you cannot call a conversation about "maxims" a conversation about "ethics" or "morality", if it is a rational conversation, the most you can call it is a conversation about pragmatic results. I will attempt to put an example forward to why I would assert this: Take Mormons and their strong position against divorce and holding families together. The reason why the "maxim" exists is that God said so and if you do divorce you will lose your family in the afterlife and will likely be stuck in a lower level of the afterlife, never even able to get your own planet to rule over. Now take Stefan's strong position against divorce and holding families together. The reason why the "maxim" exists is that if you have brought other people into this world, you are directly responsible for them living and therefore are morally responsible for their well being. Since you are morally responsible for their well being, and that divorce and family separation is proven to be detrimental to the well being of a child, divorce is wrong (excluding morally mitigating circumstances). (This may not be exactly how Stef would look at this but I think he is pretty close to this line of reasoning). The Mormon and Stef could have a conversation about their maxims, and the pragmatic results of holding the maxims, however they could not have a rational conversation about the ethics or morality behind this maxim. This is because the Mormon has come to their conclusion through complete unreconciled non-sense (i.e. "God said so"), and Stef has derived his from ethical first principles. If this is true, it is wrong to say that you can have rational conversations about ethics and morality with complelty flawed ethical systems, all you can have is a pragmatic conversations on the results of your maxims in the real world.
  24. WasatchMan
    To play devils advocate here, I think that Sam would say you are making an argument from moral relativism. Sure, ISIS thinks it is doing Allah's work and that what they do is therefore right, however their actual actions result in them intending to initiate of force against others. Initiating force against other is objectively evil (even though I am guessing though that Sam doesn't take the NAP as true - but it is the language we know, he has some variant of utilitarian moral framework). On the the other hand, the US is intending to defend itself against people who intend to initiate force against us and other secular nations (This would be Sam's premise on US intentions, not sure I accept it, but it is where he is coming from). Self defense is not evil. Furthermore, his claim isn't intentions make something good or evil necessarily, but that intentions contain all of the information on what someones future behavior is likely to be.
  25. WasatchMan
    I would assert the "animosity" that you experiencing in this thread is on you, because shaming religious people is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to have a rational discussion on whether ethics can be derived from falsities. My audience for this thread was for philosophers, not religious people and is a technical question in nature. I am asking the epistemological question on the nature of what philosophy can call "morality" and "ethics". Would you claim a scientist was exhibiting "animosity" towards a young earth creationist for saying they the cannot have a scientific discussion with a young earth creationist? Truth does not have any emotion, let alone "animosity". I think I have made it clear that I am willing to talk to Christians about pragmatic issues, but what I am not willing to do is call it a discussion on "morality" or "ethics" because their premises (i.e. faith and superstition) preclude them from a rational discussion on these topics. Just like the premise of a 6000 year old universe precludes you from discussions on science. I think that is fair. My history with religion is rather minimal. My mom when I was young thought it would be beneficial for our family to have an appreciation for god and got my family into Catholicism, and I was even baptized as a Catholic. However my experience with Catholicism wasn't bad. I even had a very rational Catholicism teacher at one point who taught us that the bible was not to be taken literally but was to be taken as parable. Religion just seemed pretty goofy to me and it never stuck, but I have no animosity towards towards the people, I work, live, and thrive in a religious society (Mormon Utah). I just have the fortitude to have a strong opinion against non-sense and will continue to call non-sense what it is, non-sense. Sorry, I am not a politician, just an aspiring "thorn in your amygdala" philosopher. So this is the root of the matter. Is ethics what works or is ethics what is true? I would assert that ethics can only be derived from truth, and anything else should be labeled as pragmatism. This is a question about the language we use as philosophers. A scientist does not label young earth creationism a theory, and I am asserting that philosophers should not label behavior derived from lies ethics.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept