|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2007 : 14:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I also will tell you my life circumstances has changed several times since I have chosen this current moral code; many times to my short term detriment. I am a stubborn sort; although I can not predict the future, I can tell you it is very unlikely that my moral code will change based on new circumstances.
|
You are convenliently ignoring that we've been mostly talking about moral codes changing according to larger societal changes.
In 1600s Spain, women would be in dear trouble from wearing two-legged pants instead of a skirt or dress.
Wasn't in in the sixties or early seventies that Pentecostal women were immoral if they wore makeup?
|
Ugggh, I have never tried to talk about gross examples. I am talking about personal experience. Does your moral code flow with society as a whole?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 18:05:37 [Permalink]
|
Looks like man begins to lie from an early age. This is counter to the argument that it is natural for man to follow a moral code.
http://tinyurl.com/2jgosh
"Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months."
It seems man has to be taught not to lie.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 18:23:43 [Permalink]
|
| Would using a name like pleco be a lie to cover up my real name? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 18:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I would think that our friends here might want to check out Maslow's heirarchy of needs as a primer to why atheists have the same perpensity for good or ill as theists. |
Good stuff.
|
I agree, good stuff, but your link was slightly off. Well, not really off, but the embedded apostrophe can cause issues depending on peoples browsers. (Removes propeller cap)
Here's the proper link |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 07/01/2007 18:47:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 19:50:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention. |
That sounds like a redefinition of the word "lie" in order for the article to gain more attention. Ironic, isn't it?
|
According to Websters this is an accurate definition of the word.
lie:to create a false or misleading impression
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 20:11:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems man has to be taught not to lie. |
Yep, and that usually happens after you lie so much nobody trusts you any longer. It's called learning from your mistakes. I suppose one could look at that as self-teaching.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 20:29:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems man has to be taught not to lie. |
Yep, and that usually happens after you lie so much nobody trusts you any longer. It's called learning from your mistakes. I suppose one could look at that as self-teaching.
|
You might be on to something. But are these "mistakes" also corrected by the elders of species other than man?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 20:50:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems man has to be taught not to lie. |
Yep, and that usually happens after you lie so much nobody trusts you any longer. It's called learning from your mistakes. I suppose one could look at that as self-teaching.
|
You might be on to something. But are these "mistakes" also corrected by the elders of species other than man?
|
Yup. Meercats physically punish members that break established pecking order and societal expectations. Non Alpha females getting pregnant for instance.
Great apes show similar behaviors for breaches in established societal protocols. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 21:06:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems man has to be taught not to lie. |
Yep, and that usually happens after you lie so much nobody trusts you any longer. It's called learning from your mistakes. I suppose one could look at that as self-teaching.
|
You might be on to something. But are these "mistakes" also corrected by the elders of species other than man?
|
Yup. Meercats physically punish members that break established pecking order and societal expectations. Non Alpha females getting pregnant for instance.
Great apes show similar behaviors for breaches in established societal protocols.
|
Exception to the rule (common exception are what was given) are not a revolutionary change in the societal structure.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 21:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Exception to the rule (common exception are what was given) are not a revolutionary change in the societal structure. |
Were you ever going to present your ideas of what constitutes a "revolutionary change in the societal structure" for humans? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 22:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Well, well, well...where to start...
First, I have studied Kohlberg and Maslow as well as an assortment of other guys who have lists and charts and pyramids. I never liked Kohlberg simply because I felt that what was moral and amoral was too subjective to the individual or situation. I also disagreed with Maslow putting morality at the top. This would suggest that only those who meet all the other needs can develop a morality that is independent of others. I think that each human, as soon as they are self-aware, start to create that moral code. Of course, it is best after they meet all the other needs, but it is not necessary.
Next, I'll start another thread about the existence of God since it seems to be taking up much of the space on this one and distracting us all from the original question.
To answer your question Dave, would I push someone in front of the train to die to save the lives of others. The answer is, I don't know, I guess we'll have to see when the time comes. Do I think it's morally right to do that? No, I don't believe that it is morally right to kill someone to save others. The ends, no matter how good, can not justify the means if they are amoral. In a similar vein, was it right to bomb Hiroshima in order to save the lives of American solders? I don't believe it was the moral decision, but since the Japanese weren't American, and the President's job was to protect American lives, I believe that he did his job.
Dave: Your baby analogy was incongruent. While a baby does hold its breath instinctively, this is not a moral dilemma. Suggest something else.
Dave: Faith provides hope in something greater and better after death, and during life, it provides the hope that God will help us through the difficult times in our lives.
Dave: Religion in a better context for morality than others because it's foundation is not man-made. Man makes mistakes all of the time; errors in judgment, logic and reason. Why build a morality around something so shaky?
Dave: Some men believe they can conquer a hurricane (strong buildings), a flu (vaccines), or a kodiak bear (a rifle). This is why man needs to be reminded that there is something he can't conquer.
Dave: Would I vote for a satanist? No, I don't believe we would have the same objectives for government in mind.
Valiant: of course atheists and theists have the same propensity for good or ill. They're all human beings.
H. Humbert: I'm just going to say this. I disagree with pretty much everything you said. If anything the relationship between better education and morality is a bell-curve. In the end, education leads to arrogance, not enlightenment. The US is not a religious democracy. You can't look at religion and morality on a macro level of nations and empires, there are too many factors and not enough data throughout history. Were the Middle Ages a more moral time even though there were more wars? Was ancient China a more moral place even though there was the common subjugation of women and again, more wars? Were the Native Americans more moral even though in many tribes polygamy was permissible?
H. Humbert: I think is foolish and simplistic to believe that religious people only do good things out of fear of a "hell".
H. Humbert: I don't understand how you conclude that religion causes a man to place himself at the center of his world. Actually, you'll find that most religious people place God at the center and not themselves. As for people of religion feeling that they are superior to others, I would say that it is more of a human condition to try to make yourself feel superior to others. It is this tone, after all, that I'm getting from you because you take the stance of the enlightened atheist and see me as the supernatural chump.
Well, that's all the time I have for today, ladies and gentlemen. I've invested an hour in you all, and now it is time for me to retire. Enjoy the rest of your evening. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 23:07:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Well, well, well...where to start...
First, I have studied Kohlberg and Maslow as well as an assortment of other guys who have lists and charts and pyramids. I never liked Kohlberg simply because I felt that what was moral and amoral was too subjective to the individual or situation. |
That's why Kohlberg doesn't classify morality into moral and amoral. You brought up a study based upon Kohlberg's classifications as evidence to support your own point, but now you're throwing Kohlberg (and the results of that study) away. Great, we ignore your assertion that the Unabomber and some mentality retarded kids show the same level of morality with different levels of intelligence.| To answer your question Dave, would I push someone in front of the train to die to save the lives of others. The answer is, I don't know, I guess we'll have to see when the time comes. Do I think it's morally right to do that? No, I don't believe that it is morally right to kill someone to save others. The ends, no matter how good, can not justify the means if they are amoral. |
But you avoided saying why you think it's immoral ("amoral" means "without morals," while "immoral" means "contrary to morals") to kill someone at all. In fact, by your decision you are killing all those other people. Why don't you think that their deaths - due to your decision - are immoral, while the death of the one person you'd push is immoral. Is it because you're not physically doing the killing of all those other people? Isn't a murder due to your inaction just as morally wrong for you as if you held the murder weapon in your own hand?| In a similar vein, was it right to bomb Hiroshima in order to save the lives of American solders? I don't believe it was the moral decision, but since the Japanese weren't American, and the President's job was to protect American lives, I believe that he did his job. |
This isn't about doing one's job, it's about morality.| Dave: Your baby analogy was incongruent. While a baby does hold its breath instinctively, this is not a moral dilemma. Suggest something else. |
It wasn't an analogy, it was an example of how instincts aren't random. If you wish to insist that atheists have a random morality based upon instincts, then you'll have to provide evidence that both "atheists' morality is instinctive" and "instincts are random" are true. If either one is false, then your conclusion is wrong.| Dave: Faith provides hope in something greater and better after death, and during life, it provides the hope that God will help us through the difficult times in our lives. |
From what I've read, the "greater and better" stuff after death is either eternal damnation or eternally singing God's praises. Either way, your free will is stripped from you. I don't find "hope" in a mindless, endless existence. On your other point, doesn't God help those who help themselves? What need of "hope" if such is true?| Dave: Religion in a better context for morality than others because it's foundation is not man-made. |
I see no evidence that religion as a whole isn't man-made.| Man makes mistakes all of the time; errors in judgment, logic and reason. Why build a morality around something so shaky? |
Because it's better than building a morality upon the rules of someone who thinks it's okay to have the men of your village kill your son with rocks due to his insubordination. Or that it's okay to force your daughter to marry her rapist. It's better than creating a morality based upon the notions of someone who refuses to offer a second chance if one's choices in this life don't meet His wholly subjective standards. It's better than building a moral structure on the teachings of a being who thinks it's acceptable to punish children for their parent's wrongdoing.
Plus, building a morality upon logic, reason and empathy allows us to fix mistakes when they are discovered. Not so with Divine decrees. Jesus says that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you've got to follow God's law better than any Pharisee. So how many stonings have you been involved with, marty?| Dave: Some men believe they can conquer a hurricane (strong buildings), a flu (vaccines), or a kodiak bear (a rifle). This is why man needs to be reminded that there is something he can't conquer. |
And you said that with six billion people, someone will always think they're top-dog in the universe. Why would you make such an exception for yourself, but not grant me the same?| Dave: Would I vote for a satanist? No, I don't believe we would have the same objectives for government in mind. |
That would have nothing to do with the question I asked. And you don't get the "I wouldn't vote for either the Satanist or the atheist" choice in this hypothetical situation, either.
Why don't you just go ahead and admit that it isn't faith per se that you look for in a candidate, and that it isn't faith per se that you think helps make one a moral person? In reality, it's a certain kind of faith that you're looking for, and not any ol' faith will do. Just admitting that will go a long way towards you not having to waste time coming up with more rationalizations why you wouldn't vote for a faithful Satanist.
Which wasn't even the question, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 03:11:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave said "Jesus says that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you've got to follow God's law better than any Pharisee."
Here Jesus is pointing out that the Pharisee have perverted Gods law.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religion or Politics? Where to put it?
