Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1001

some slight differences at a molecular level doesn’t alter the nature and function of a spoon.
it’s still a spoon, no more, no less.
it’s a tool, made of inert matter, and its value is function of its utility. no more, no less.

it’s not the same thing for a person.
because there is an objective difference between a “thing” and a “being”.

obviously, you can treat a person as if it was a thing or a tool, denying it is a being on its own, but it would be wrong. intellectually and morally.
you can even break a person like you would break a spoon, and say “it’s the same thing”. yet there is only one of them you can repair or replace.

you can say the universe is very small because you only see (or are only interrested in) your cave.
and it would be wrong too.

it’s not an opinion, it’s myopia, in both case.

[quote]
…iow, how you feel about this subject is your opinion, and because opinions differ from person to person, opinions can never be objective or absolute… [/quote]

the human mind has some underlying structures that dictate the basic rules of its axiological judgement.
it’s not arbitrary. and therefore it’s not relative to my or your opinion.

1002

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i think that for something to be absolute/objective it must be equally true for each and everyone of us, under all circumstances. As this isn’t the case with kamui’s statement, i think his statement is relative…[/quote]

So you wouldn’t have a murderer arrested because, to him, murder isn’t immoral? If you do have him arrested you’ve, in fact, declared that murder is wrong for everyone. Relative morality absolutely backed by force? Ok…[/quote]

…that’s beside the point. Put the same guy in the army and give him a gun and a target, then suddenly it’s okay eventhough there’s “collateral” damage. As orion pointed out, morality has more to do with definitions than anything absolute…

1003

[quote]kamui wrote:

some slight differences at a molecular level doesn’t alter the nature and function of a spoon.
it’s still a spoon, no more, no less.
it’s a tool, made of inert matter, and its value is function of its utility. no more, no less.

it’s not the same thing for a person.
because there is an objective difference between a “thing” and a “being”.

obviously, you can treat a person as if it was a thing or a tool, denying it is a being on its own, but it would be wrong. intellectually and morally.
you can even break a person like you would break a spoon, and say “it’s the same thing”. yet there is only one of them you can repair or replace.

you can say the universe is very small because you only see (or are only interrested in) your cave.
and it would be wrong too.

it’s not an opinion, it’s myopia, in both case.

…there’s an ongoing research project in Canada that looks at the structure of the brain, in particular the amygdala, to assess whether sociopathy can be linked to deformations of the brain…

…we can agree that there are sociopaths who have no sense of “other”, have no guilt, remorse or empathy for another being? Your idea that murder is wrong is an absolute, because that is how it’s wired in the brain, is hereby refuted…

…an absolute truth is a truth that is equally true for everyone, under all circumstances. Clearly when we change the circumstances, like war for instance, murder is suddenly a good thing. It’s not an absolute. That we cannot survive without breathing air; that’s an absolute, but morality is not…

1004

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i think that for something to be absolute/objective it must be equally true for each and everyone of us, under all circumstances. As this isn’t the case with kamui’s statement, i think his statement is relative…[/quote]

So you wouldn’t have a murderer arrested because, to him, murder isn’t immoral? If you do have him arrested you’ve, in fact, declared that murder is wrong for everyone. Relative morality absolutely backed by force? Ok…[/quote]

…that’s beside the point. Put the same guy in the army and give him a gun and a target, then suddenly it’s okay eventhough there’s “collateral” damage. As orion pointed out, morality has more to do with definitions than anything absolute…
[/quote]

But absolute morality is more complicated than that. Abs morality says killing is relative, murder is absolute. Does your relative morality view killing in defense the same as deliberately killing an innocent who meant you know harm?

I mean, how about simply entering someone’s house? Right or wrong? Well, did you enter through the front door, invited? Or do you crawl through a window without permission?

You’re jousting with a simpleton’s absolutism. Killing? Context, please. Oh, a murder? Now that’s wrong, period.

But, back to my question.

1005

Now, if the morality of murder is relative, yet you’re willing to force your own opinion on everyone (laws and police saying “don’t murder”) then you’re not in the right for doing so? It’s not ‘justice?’ Or, is it right, just, to do so? Is it simply the opinion with the most guns…at the moment? If that’s the case then brutal desposts are within their right, ‘justly’ ruling.

1006

[quote]kamui wrote:

some slight differences at a molecular level doesn’t alter the nature and function of a spoon.
it’s still a spoon, no more, no less.
it’s a tool, made of inert matter, and its value is function of its utility. no more, no less.

it’s not the same thing for a person.
because there is an objective difference between a “thing” and a “being”.

obviously, you can treat a person as if it was a thing or a tool, denying it is a being on its own, but it would be wrong. intellectually and morally.
you can even break a person like you would break a spoon, and say “it’s the same thing”. yet there is only one of them you can repair or replace.

you can say the universe is very small because you only see (or are only interrested in) your cave.
and it would be wrong too.

it’s not an opinion, it’s myopia, in both case.

I’m curious… how do you decide the difference between a thing and a being? Is the cockroach I stepped on last night a thing or a being? Are the dolphins some Japanese fisherman captured and killed things or beings?

1007

they are obviously beings.
the trees in my garden are beings too.

and yes, voluntarily killing them without necessity is morally wrong.

1008

But is killing them with necessity a necessary evil, or morally right?

1009

an extremely frequent necessary evil.

there is nothing to rejoice in the irreversible destruction of a living being.

1010

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i think that for something to be absolute/objective it must be equally true for each and everyone of us, under all circumstances. As this isn’t the case with kamui’s statement, i think his statement is relative…[/quote]

So you wouldn’t have a murderer arrested because, to him, murder isn’t immoral? If you do have him arrested you’ve, in fact, declared that murder is wrong for everyone. Relative morality absolutely backed by force? Ok…[/quote]

…that’s beside the point. Put the same guy in the army and give him a gun and a target, then suddenly it’s okay eventhough there’s “collateral” damage. As orion pointed out, morality has more to do with definitions than anything absolute…
[/quote]

But absolute morality is more complicated than that. Abs morality says killing is relative, murder is absolute. Does your relative morality view killing in defense the same as deliberately killing an innocent who meant you know harm?

You’re jousting with a simpleton’s absolutism. Killing? Context, please. Oh, a murder? Now that’s wrong, period.

But, back to my question.[/quote]

…what you continue to fail to understand is that it does not matter what my opinion is. What matters is that, as soon as there is one person that deviates from what is thought to be absolute morality by someone else, it becomes relative…

…to you there is a difference between killing and murder? It’s still the death of a human being. If you narrow your definitions down to specific scenarios then still there will be people who make exceptions…

…let’s say it’s wrong to kill a child for ones own pleasure. I agree and you’d agree, and yet there are people who kill children for their own pleasure. These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure, but it goes to show that you can’t label something that’s as malleable and subject to change through minute variables as morality as absolute…

…we’ve been here before Sloth, and you know by now what i mean by absolute/relative, so do we have to go through with this again?

1012

[quote]…there’s an ongoing research project in Canada that looks at the structure of the brain, in particular the amygdala, to assess whether sociopathy can be linked to deformations of the brain…

…we can agree that there are sociopaths who have no sense of “other”, have no guilt, remorse or empathy for another being? Your idea that murder is wrong is an absolute, because that is how it’s wired in the brain, is hereby refuted…

…an absolute truth is a truth that is equally true for everyone, under all circumstances. Clearly when we change the circumstances, like war for instance, murder is suddenly a good thing. It’s not an absolute. That we cannot survive without breathing air; that’s an absolute, but morality is not… [/quote]

you are playing with words here.

if we use such a narrow definition of the word absolute, nothing is

not even your statement “we cannot survive without breathing air”.
Trees can. Cryogenized humans can.

there may be psychopaths who are amoral because of some pathological anatomy. Vut it doesn’t change the normal (and normative) definition of morality.
It just means it doesn’t apply to them and can’t be enforced on them.

morality may be relative to normal human beings, if you want, but it is definitely not arbitrary.

1013

[quote]kamui wrote:
an extremely frequent necessary evil.

there is nothing to rejoice in the irreversible destruction of a living being.[/quote]
If that what sustaining ones life depends on i.e.eating. What justifies which life(s) gets to die to sustain another ones life(s).

1014

[quote]ephrem wrote:
These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure…[/quote]

Am I sick and crazy for having a different favorite color than you?

1015

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]…there’s an ongoing research project in Canada that looks at the structure of the brain, in particular the amygdala, to assess whether sociopathy can be linked to deformations of the brain…

…we can agree that there are sociopaths who have no sense of “other”, have no guilt, remorse or empathy for another being? Your idea that murder is wrong is an absolute, because that is how it’s wired in the brain, is hereby refuted…

…an absolute truth is a truth that is equally true for everyone, under all circumstances. Clearly when we change the circumstances, like war for instance, murder is suddenly a good thing. It’s not an absolute. That we cannot survive without breathing air; that’s an absolute, but morality is not… [/quote]

you are playing with words here.

if we use such a narrow definition of the word absolute, nothing is

not even your statement “we cannot survive without breathing air”.
Trees can. Cryogenized humans can.

there may be psychopaths who are amoral because of some pathological anatomy. Vut it doesn’t change the normal (and normative) definition of morality.
It just means it doesn’t apply to them and can’t be enforced on them.

morality may be relative to normal human beings, if you want, but it is definitely not arbitrary.

[/quote]

…that is why i asked you what you meant by the terms absolute/relative. There’s been a lot of confusion amongst our fellow posters what those terms actually mean, that’s why i wanted to get that out of the way first…

…we talk about morality and how bad killing and murdering is, and yet each and every single day we [mankind] act in a way that’s contrary to what we believe is moral and just and right. Somehow our notion of morality may, or may not, be ingrained in us but without it being able to influence our actions. That leads me to believe that morality is nothing more than a social contract [an arbitrary contract at that!] between people. A very thin layer of vineer between civilisation and instinct…

1016

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure…[/quote]

Am I sick and crazy for having a different favorite color than you?[/quote]

…no, it’s because you can’t discuss topics like this properly…

1017

[quote]kamui wrote:

not even your statement “we cannot survive without breathing air”.
Trees can. Cryogenized humans can.

[/quote]

…i’m puzzled kamui. Cryogenized humans aren’t alive: they’re dead. Or is there something you know about this that we don’t, hmmm?

1018

"Q: Has any mammal been cryopreserved and revived?

A: Not to cryogenic temperatures. Dogs and monkeys have had their blood replaced with protective solution and cooled to below 0ºC, with subsequent rewarming and revival. Nematode worms have been cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen (-196ºC), and subsequently revived. At the July 2005 Society for Cryobiology Conference, it was announced that a rabbit kidney had been completely vitrified to solid state at -135ºC, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability. The prospect that this could be done to a mammalian brain is very good. Although a whole mammal has not yet been cryopreserved to cryogenic temperatures and revived, the progress of science is moving in that direction."

http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html

1019

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure…[/quote]

Am I sick and crazy for having a different favorite color than you?[/quote]

…no, it’s because you can’t discuss topics like this properly…[/quote]

That’s weak, ephrem. You used language that suggests you don’t look at it as simply a matter of opinion.

Besides, once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is relative you must put away your biases and look at it as a disinterested party. Neither you or the pedophilde is right or wrong. You recognize this, yet fail to live it? His way is no less just than your own, but you condemn him. My favorite color is blue, what’s yours? Promise not to hate you, no matter your answer.

1020

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
"Q: Has any mammal been cryopreserved and revived?

A: Not to cryogenic temperatures. Dogs and monkeys have had their blood replaced with protective solution and cooled to below 0�ºC, with subsequent rewarming and revival. Nematode worms have been cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen (-196�ºC), and subsequently revived. At the July 2005 Society for Cryobiology Conference, it was announced that a rabbit kidney had been completely vitrified to solid state at -135�ºC, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability. The prospect that this could be done to a mammalian brain is very good. Although a whole mammal has not yet been cryopreserved to cryogenic temperatures and revived, the progress of science is moving in that direction."

http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html[/quote]

…interesting. Did not know that. I do know that those humans who were cryo’d were dead. Disney comes to mind; only his head is frozen? Still, good stuff…