|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 08:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | That's not the question. I believe suffering such as poverty, rape, starvation is bad and I base this on the Bible. What do you base your assertion that suffering is bad? How can you label anything as bad or good if everything is here by natural occurances? |
I believe a lot of things which are perfectly fine in the Bible are bad, so i can't possibly form my concept of good and bad from the Bible. If I did and actually lived such an ethic, I'd be in prison right now for trying to stone people.
As for where people get a concept of good and bad, ethics and morality are the result of a social and sentient animal which lives in an environment with physical limitations. The example I like to use is this. Imagine two human beings. They both have physical bodies and a psychological make up which causes them to need and desire certain things, both physically and emotionally. Now imagine them with nothing but one chair. This represents limited immediate resources. Two beings have self awareness and the ability to move around and communicate with each other plus limited resources equals an ethical dilemma. What if they both want to sit in the chair? Who gets to sit in the chair is dependant on a whole bunch of factors. For instance, without consideration for other social influences, it might come down to whoever is bigger and stronger getting to sit in the chair. Unless one is sexually or otherwise attracted to the other, and then they might sacrifice their desire for the chair for the sake of getting in the other's good graces. Then you throw in other social factors which is how will others outside of these two react to certain outcomes and behaviors? The interplay of highly intelligent social animals with limited immediate resources are obviously going to be incredibly complex with many different motivations going on within individuals and among the crowd. We need a general sense of right and wrong to survive just like we need an appetite. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/11/2008 09:02:33 |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2008 : 10:49:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
I do not need the bible to tell me that these things are bad. I need the bible to be able to say that you should consider these things bad. |
Only in a world populated only by sociopaths who are afraid of Hell. If the sociopath has no fear of Hell, then the Bible won't sway him. And if he's not a sociopath, then a person doesn't need the Bible to understand that these things are bad. Thus, your need of the Bible to convince others that rape and murder are bad is premised upon the belief that all people (other than yourself, of course) lack empathy and can be threatened into behaving well. |
Not true. Before I was a Christian I believed what most people would think to be good or bad without religion. I do not deny that people do have a sense of right and wrong without the Bible. My point is that no one can tell another that what they believe is right or wrong without a unchanging moral truth. By the way, most people will not live a Christian life if they converted because they are afraid of hell. They maintain a Christian life when they realize that they belong in hell and God did the unthinkable to keep them from that fate.
| Why do you think that you can tell me I am wrong if I believe rape is good? |
I, for one, am willing to entertain this idea for discussion. Robb, why don't you go ahead and present a case for rape being good? We can then compare its benefits against its detrimental effects and come to a rational and perhaps objective conclusion about whether it is good or bad, without using the Bible.
|
There is no case that I can think of where rape is a good thing. How do you come to the conclusion that detrimental effects are bad?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 10:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Is that a trick qeustion?
Because detrimental means "obviously harmful'? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 10:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Dave W.
Again: this is based on the idea that the world is full of sociopaths.| Why do you think that you can tell me I am wrong if I believe rape is good? |
I, for one, am willing to entertain this idea for discussion. Robb, why don't you go ahead and present a case for rape being good? We can then compare its benefits against its detrimental effects and come to a rational and perhaps objective conclusion about whether it is good or bad, without using the Bible.
|
Touché, Dave.
While entertaining the idea:
My sollution would have been to beat his brains out with a baseball bat and then telling him to stay as far away as humanly possible from my daughters, my whife, and other females I know. 
I wouldn't trust a Bible-thumper to be swayed by a rational argument.  |
Why would you portray me as a potential rapist? It is a question to debate because we have differing views of good and bad. Is this part of what this site is for? I think you knew the reason I asked the question before you posted this. So again, why do you want to portray me as a potential rapist?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 11:01:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Robb wrote: | That's not the question. I believe suffering such as poverty, rape, starvation is bad and I base this on the Bible. What do you base your assertion that suffering is bad? How can you label anything as bad or good if everything is here by natural occurances? |
I believe a lot of things which are perfectly fine in the Bible are bad, so i can't possibly form my concept of good and bad from the Bible. If I did and actually lived such an ethic, I'd be in prison right now for trying to stone people.
As for where people get a concept of good and bad, ethics and morality are the result of a social and sentient animal which lives in an environment with physical limitations. The example I like to use is this. Imagine two human beings. They both have physical bodies and a psychological make up which causes them to need and desire certain things, both physically and emotionally. Now imagine them with nothing but one chair. This represents limited immediate resources. Two beings have self awareness and the ability to move around and communicate with each other plus limited resources equals an ethical dilemma. What if they both want to sit in the chair? Who gets to sit in the chair is dependant on a whole bunch of factors. For instance, without consideration for other social influences, it might come down to whoever is bigger and stronger getting to sit in the chair. Unless one is sexually or otherwise attracted to the other, and then they might sacrifice their desire for the chair for the sake of getting in the other's good graces. Then you throw in other social factors which is how will others outside of these two react to certain outcomes and behaviors? The interplay of highly intelligent social animals with limited immediate resources are obviously going to be incredibly complex with many different motivations going on within individuals and among the crowd. We need a general sense of right and wrong to survive just like we need an appetite.
|
Ok. How can you say I am wrong if I was in that room and I punched the other person that was a woman and took the chair. That is a possibility of the senario you put out. Why is that wrong? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 11:53:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
My point is that no one can tell another that what they believe is right or wrong without a unchanging moral truth. |
What? How is "Hey, Robb, I think that rape is bad" not telling you that I believe rape is bad? If you actually meant that no one can impose morals upon another, that's true whether there are moral absolutes or not. If you meant that no one can argue that one moral judgement is better than another, we can do so based on rational arguments - just like people use to reach moral decisions - and we can do so whether moral absolutes exist or not.
It is only if you wish to say things like "God says rape is bad, period, end of discussion" that an "unchanging moral truth" is required. But then rational thought would not be required, only unthinking submission to authority. Why bother with free will or even a brain?| By the way, most people will not live a Christian life if they converted because they are afraid of hell. They maintain a Christian life when they realize that they belong in hell and God did the unthinkable to keep them from that fate. |
Yeah, God killed Himself to keep Himself from punishing His creations forever. I still don't get why anyone would be grateful for such an abomination of fairness.| There is no case that I can think of where rape is a good thing. |
Well, you proposed that particular hypothetical. If you can't think of any possible reason for rape being good, then what evidence do you have that anyone else might think it's good? Seems to me that most rapists think it's bad, too, or they'd proudly admit to being rapists.| How do you come to the conclusion that detrimental effects are bad? |
"Detrimental" means "causing damage or harm," thus detrimental things are bad. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 11:55:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Ok. How can you say I am wrong if I was in that room and I punched the other person that was a woman and took the chair. That is a possibility of the senario you put out. Why is that wrong? |
How would you feel if someone punched you just for a chair? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 20:45:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Why would you portray me as a potential rapist?
|
Dave suggested the hypothetical idea for the purpose of discussion.
You said: Why do you think that you can tell me I am wrong if I believe rape is good?
If the hypothetical situation came up where you tell me that you believe that rape is good and won't accept my telling you it's bad 'just because it is'. What would my reaction be?
I would have to act upon the premise that you would in such a case be a potential rapist. Why shouldn't you potentially rape women I know, if I you thought it was a good thing.
Dave suggested you explore this hypothetical situation to see if you could present a case for a conclusion of good or bad, without using the Bible.
I present the case using how I (by applying the Golden Rule) would feel about being raped, then apply my empathy to transfer my dislike being subject to it to apply to other beings as well.
The next step would be to prevent people close to me from having to experience it. The most effective way would by offensive preventative action.
| It is a question to debate because we have differing views of good and bad. |
Yes, and it would seem that we are having trouble to connect.
| Is this part of what this site is for? |
Absolutely!
| I think you knew the reason I asked the question before you posted this. |
You defer to the Bible to consider what is good or bad, even though you seem to be selective in it's application. I'm trying to make you see that this is hypocritical, and that "moral relativism" (whatever that means?), that is, moral is relative but seem to defer to the Golden Rule more than to any religious writing.
As been said before: Morality seems to be a trait that evolved, hard-wired into us, because we are a social species. Morality and ethics are subject to social evolution.
| So again, why do you want to portray me as a potential rapist? |
It was as I said above stemming from Dave's request for you to produce a rational argument why rape could be good, after you wrote "Why do you think that you can tell me I am wrong if I believe rape is good?" given the hypothetical situation that you would actually think so.
I don't think you are a potential rapist, and I don't think anyone else thought I meant to say you really was, but in such a hypothetical situation where you would consider rape a good thing, I would definitely consider you to be a potential one.
To make things worse, the Bible itself includes stories where God's message is to pillage and rape enemies. And you do defer to the Bible as your moral compass?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 22:13:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb.
By the way, most people will not live a Christian life if they converted because they are afraid of hell. They maintain a Christian life when they realize that they belong in hell and God did the unthinkable to keep them from that fate.
|
Yeah, God killed Himself to keep Himself from punishing His creations forever. I still don't get why anyone would be grateful for such an abomination of fairness.
|
To the heart of the matter in just two sentences. That's as good as it gets.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb.
How do you come to the conclusion that detrimental effects are bad? |
"Detrimental" means "causing damage or harm," thus detrimental things are bad.
|
Whatever Robb's purpose is I don't believe being intentionally obtuse is useful toward achieving it. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 22:51:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb.
How do you come to the conclusion that detrimental effects are bad? |
"Detrimental" means "causing damage or harm," thus detrimental things are bad.
|
Whatever Robb's purpose is I don't believe being intentionally obtuse is useful toward achieving it. |
Well, I'll admit to being a bit perplexed by the question. Falling back on definitions at such times is important. But okay...
Every event has some amount of "good" to it and some amount of "bad" to it (and perhaps some amount of "neutral" to it). In the moral calculus, the terms necessarily sum to 100%, but different actors will assign different values to them. It depends upon point-of-view.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s
throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd
as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.
- Abraham Lincoln |
Robb, after punching marf for control of the chair, might assign a high "good" value to the act, while marf assigns a high "bad" value to the same act. In isolation, with nothing else to consider, that might be the end to it. Robb is comfy while marf is pissed off. And after a couple minutes, the tables are turned and Robb's got a black eye while marf puts her feet up.
But we live in a society where few such acts exist in isolation. Other people know who's punching whom. Might doesn't make right because we remember the tryannical bullies of our past, and how while they may have been living very well, thousands or millions of others were suffering.
But still, harmful things are bad. I can't get away from that. And I don't know Robb's intent in asking. At best, he's asking for an objective method with which to perform the moral calculus inclusive of things like short-term harms for long-term benefits, and if such a thing existed we'd know about it already (it's not in the Bible). At worst, he's asking how we can know that any "bad" act is actually "bad" in some absolute sense, which is what I'm arguing against in the first place (and which Ecclesiates should tell him is impossible even with Bible in hand). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 00:21:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But still, harmful things are bad. I can't get away from that. And I don't know Robb's intent in asking. |
Maybe it's because if you come up with a morality that isn't based on the authority of the bible, then god doesn't come out looking too good. But since god is defined as good, then such a moral system must be flawed. Obviously our moral schemes are doomed to fail when matched against such an awesome and supreme an intellect as god, who sees the true reasons for all events. Best to just give up such mortal vanity and turns our hearts, and our minds, over to him.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 02:28:17 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
| My point is that no one can tell another that what they believe is right or wrong without a unchanging moral truth. |
I see you have now abandoned all pretense of rationality in this discussion Robb. Good job.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 05:55:35 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | Why would you portray me as a potential rapist? |
I don't think anyone seriously considers you a potential rapist any more than anyone else might be. This is not because, but despite the fact that you seem to think you base your morality upon the Bible, which both prohibits and commands the act of rape. As a source of morality, many passages of the Bible are right up there with Mein Kampf -- the main difference being that Hitler tended to be more circumspect.Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
[My emphasis.] |
Again, we read about Lot, see one of God's favorites, as he negotiates for the safety of visiting angels with the Sodomites:Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
[My emphasis.] |
The "Good Book" is replete with such self-evident atrocities.
No! You surely do not follow such "morality"! No sane person does. We receive our basic ethics through evolved mental processes, and through cultural memes that long predate the atrocities (as well as the rarer good moral codes) of the Bible. When you instead chose to cherry-pick and follow real moral codes found in the Bible, that very choice is based upon your pre-existing knowledge of "right and wrong."
You, and most sane people, choose not to murder children, or to rape female noncombatant "enemies," despite the Bible.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/13/2008 06:04:41 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 07:53:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
There is no case that I can think of where rape is a good thing. How do you come to the conclusion that detrimental effects are bad?
|
Going out on a far devil's advocate limb here but in discussing the merits of rape, there are potential genetic advantages. In the ancient past rape was one of the spoils of war and a facet of that spoil was the spread of the victor's genes. It's arguable that such a spread didn't just benefit the victors either, but increased genetic diversity and robustness of the defeated in the long term. It might also have brought the conflicting populations together socially, as a bastard child will get more consideration from it's father or half brother than people of no relation at all. This might blunt the potential of future conflict.
I've also heard arguments for this on an individual level, within a population as well; that rapists spread their genes wider than males engaging in traditional pair bonding, even when you take into account voluntary infidelity. So if you're thinking strictly of genetics, throwing out all considerations of cruelty, individual pain and suffering, rape could be an effective strategy to mix up the gene pools and increase the number of your offspring. And in many ways, these outcomes are "good."
Here's a question: In an arranged marriage between families or tribes where the woman is not willingly wedded, is the consumation of that marriage rape? This is also a way to build social bonds and increase genetic diversity, so there are clear benefits, but is it rape? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 02/13/2008 08:32:27 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 11:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Here's a question: In an arranged marriage between families or tribes where the woman is not willingly wedded, is the consumation of that marriage rape? This is also a way to build social bonds and increase genetic diversity, so there are clear benefits, but is it rape? |
My answer would be derived from the cultural and social environment that I live in.
As far as I know, the Bible clearly don't consider this rape. I'm of a different opinion.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hell, your final destination?
