[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society
[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]
That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.
We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.
What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:
A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?
A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?
Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]
…depends on the reasons for being for or against such acts. I don’t see society benefitting from raping a child, and i don’t think there’s ever been such a society. Perhaps ancient Greece had a different culture, but that didn’t involve rape…
…look, i’m not disagreeing with that that we seem to have an innate sense of morality; i’m saying it has become hereditary, part of our genetic make-up through evolution…[/quote]
No but other things that would presumably benefit a society, would still be considered morally wrong. Orphans and other unwanted people, handicapped people, etc. are a burden to society. Would we not be better off with out them? However, killing them would wrong. Running into a burning building to save a person that may not live would not be benificial to society but it would be a good thing to do…
Would it not be beneficial to eliminate all people with incurable diseases…This is why utilitarianism won’t work. Not everything that is beneficial to society, is a good act.
The innate sense of morality would have to be tied to something else otherwise it would be purely arbitrary.[/quote]
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society
[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]
That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.
We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.
What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:
A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?
A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?
Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]
…depends on the reasons for being for or against such acts. I don’t see society benefitting from raping a child, and i don’t think there’s ever been such a society. Perhaps ancient Greece had a different culture, but that didn’t involve rape…
…look, i’m not disagreeing with that that we seem to have an innate sense of morality; i’m saying it has become hereditary, part of our genetic make-up through evolution…[/quote]
No but other things that would presumably benefit a society, would still be considered morally wrong. Orphans and other unwanted people, handicapped people, etc. are a burden to society. Would we not be better off with out them? However, killing them would wrong. Running into a burning building to save a person that may not live would not be benificial to society but it would be a good thing to do…
Would it not be beneficial to eliminate all people with incurable diseases…This is why utilitarianism won’t work. Not everything that is beneficial to society, is a good act.
The innate sense of morality would have to be tied to something else otherwise it would be purely arbitrary.[/quote]
Yes that is why even though the free-market supporters (intellectuals ones anyway) believe in Utilitarianism, they also believe in Natural Law.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
I’m going to guess some kind of chaos theory. Or we have some kind of behavioral pattern that will comes up when something happens to us.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society
[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]
That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.
We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.
What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:
A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?
A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?
Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]
…depends on the reasons for being for or against such acts. I don’t see society benefitting from raping a child, and i don’t think there’s ever been such a society. Perhaps ancient Greece had a different culture, but that didn’t involve rape…
…look, i’m not disagreeing with that that we seem to have an innate sense of morality; i’m saying it has become hereditary, part of our genetic make-up through evolution…[/quote]
No but other things that would presumably benefit a society, would still be considered morally wrong. Orphans and other unwanted people, handicapped people, etc. are a burden to society. Would we not be better off with out them? However, killing them would wrong. Running into a burning building to save a person that may not live would not be benificial to society but it would be a good thing to do…
Would it not be beneficial to eliminate all people with incurable diseases…This is why utilitarianism won’t work. Not everything that is beneficial to society, is a good act.
The innate sense of morality would have to be tied to something else otherwise it would be purely arbitrary.[/quote]
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]
Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]
Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]
…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]
Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]
…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[/quote]
Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
…morality is largely based on necessity and pragmatism, but because we’ve become so affluent we’re able to include aspects of morality that, at first glance, does not seem to benefit society. I don’t think that makes an act “good” or “bad” by definition, because to me, morality is relative is almost all cases…
[/quote]
Lol, society does not live in a vacuum, that is why some of those ‘tribes’ lived by survival of the fittest. However once they were met with other tribes their views became undistorted. [/quote]
…i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Explain, pls?
[/quote]
Some of these tribes that you talk about, the reason they have the skewed sense of morality is because they are isolated. Once they are joined with others their morals they become focused in reality.[/quote]
…fuck that. Whose reality anyway? And on what basis are you able to make that judgment? Don’t say religion…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
…we, in our modern society, do not have to make that choice anymore. Survival of the fittest does not exist anymore, and in some cases i think that’s regrettable, i really do. Society evolved, and we evolved a different morality based on the capabilities of our modern society…
[quote]
Uh, yes it does. Those of us with the ways and means will survive and thrive as opposed to those who don’t. It is only human compassion that has slowed the process significantly. I would argue that’s not a bad thing.
Good and evil are not relative. People often confuse cultural differences as relative morality. Even if some thing is accepted, it doesn’t make it right. Do you think it’s ok for a Chinese couple to kill their daughter because it’s not a son? It happens and is not necessarily frowned upon. But is it a good thing?
Consequently, there are so many men in China now, they have a real problem…The chicks especially have problems…
[EDIT: Why does this appear blank?]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?[/quote]
…it was a figure of speech. There’s no-one throwing dice pat; the attic is emtpy…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?[/quote]
…it was a figure of speech. There’s no-one throwing dice pat; the attic is emtpy…
[/quote]
You do realize that if you claim complete randomness, you invalidate the stuff of science. You cannot trust the results because they happened randomly.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
[/quote]
And we’d do the same today. Sometimes it has to be done. Utilitarian principals aren’t all bad unless there your sole source of morality. Then it’s really bad. Hitler was a utilitarian. What’s good for society may not be good for you…Would you put your head on the chopping block to benefit society?
Uh, yes it does. Those of us with the ways and means will survive and thrive as opposed to those who don’t. It is only human compassion that has slowed the process significantly. I would argue that’s not a bad thing.
Good and evil are not relative. People often confuse cultural differences as relative morality. Even if some thing is accepted, it doesn’t make it right. Do you think it’s ok for a Chinese couple to kill their daughter because it’s not a son? It happens and is not necessarily frowned upon. But is it a good thing?
Consequently, there are so many men in China now, they have a real problem…The chicks especially have problems…
{EDIT:This appeared blank for some reason.}
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?[/quote]
…it was a figure of speech. There’s no-one throwing dice pat; the attic is emtpy…
[/quote]
You do realize that if you claim complete randomness, you invalidate the stuff of science. You cannot trust the results because they happened randomly.[/quote]
…not necessarily. Order from chaos and chaos influences order. Science can predict what happens in our ordered universe, but on the quantum level all is unpredictable…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once upon a time, when you were injured and caring for you meant that the tribe could come in jeopardy, it was goodbye to you. Perhaps in cases where the tribe member had invaluable knowledge they’d make an effort, but otherwise…
[/quote]
And we’d do the same today. Sometimes it has to be done. Utilitarian principals aren’t all bad unless there your sole source of morality. Then it’s really bad. Hitler was a utilitarian. What’s good for society may not be good for you…Would you put your head on the chopping block to benefit society?
Uh, yes it does. Those of us with the ways and means will survive and thrive as opposed to those who don’t. It is only human compassion that has slowed the process significantly. I would argue that’s not a bad thing.
Good and evil are not relative. People often confuse cultural differences as relative morality. Even if some thing is accepted, it doesn’t make it right. Do you think it’s ok for a Chinese couple to kill their daughter because it’s not a son? It happens and is not necessarily frowned upon. But is it a good thing?
Consequently, there are so many men in China now, they have a real problem…The chicks especially have problems…
{EDIT:This appeared blank for some reason.}[/quote]
…on the chopping block for society? Like going to war? I certainly wouldn’t give my life in the name of my country, but otoh i love the idea of an heroic death…
…a chinese couple killing their female offspring is wrong because, as you point out, it upsets the natural order of things…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?[/quote]
…it was a figure of speech. There’s no-one throwing dice pat; the attic is emtpy…
[/quote]
You do realize that if you claim complete randomness, you invalidate the stuff of science. You cannot trust the results because they happened randomly.[/quote]
…not necessarily. Order from chaos and chaos influences order. Science can predict what happens in our ordered universe, but on the quantum level all is unpredictable…
[/quote]
It’s unpredictable because we don’t know why it behaves like it does. Hopefully that’s one of the questions the Hadron Collider will answer. I can make a prediction at the quantum level and I will be right every time. Take the double-slit experiment, You can fire a single electron at the screen and not know where it will end up. But if you shoot enough of them, they will make an interference pattern every time. So I predict that if you shoot enough electrons at a 2 split screen, you will get a interference pattern in the behind screen. You may not know where on behind screen it’s going to hit, but it will hit the screen.
There is no chaos, just lack of knowledge and understanding.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…a chinese couple killing their female offspring is wrong because, as you point out, it upsets the natural order of things…
[/quote]
It does, but so does lots of stuff. That’s a slippery slope. Breathing machines, birth control, medicine, homosexuality, etc. All upset the natural order of things.
And they could balance things out by simply killing off a bunch of dudes to even things out, wouldn’t that be wrong too?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.
[/quote]
…i don’t believe in freewill either…[/quote]
You would not be consistent if you did…What is the determining factor for what happens next?[/quote]
…just a random throw of the dice…
[/quote]
Determinism cannot be a random throw of the dice.
Besides, where the dice come from and who threw them?[/quote]
…it was a figure of speech. There’s no-one throwing dice pat; the attic is emtpy…
[/quote]
You do realize that if you claim complete randomness, you invalidate the stuff of science. You cannot trust the results because they happened randomly.[/quote]
…not necessarily. Order from chaos and chaos influences order. Science can predict what happens in our ordered universe, but on the quantum level all is unpredictable…
[/quote]
It’s unpredictable because we don’t know why it behaves like it does. Hopefully that’s one of the questions the Hadron Collider will answer. I can make a prediction at the quantum level and I will be right every time. Take the double-slit experiment, You can fire a single electron at the screen and not know where it will end up. But if you shoot enough of them, they will make an interference pattern every time. So I predict that if you shoot enough electrons at a 2 split screen, you will get a interference pattern in the behind screen. You may not know where on behind screen it’s going to hit, but it will hit the screen.
There is no chaos, just lack of knowledge and understanding.[/quote]
…yes, it is predictable that an interference pattern will form, but you can’t predict how the single electron acts in order to pass through the slits. See, i can use an unrelated experiment to support my argument too!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…a chinese couple killing their female offspring is wrong because, as you point out, it upsets the natural order of things…
[/quote]
It does, but so does lots of stuff. That’s a slippery slope. Breathing machines, birth control, medicine, homosexuality, etc. All upset the natural order of things.
And they could balance things out by simply killing off a bunch of dudes to even things out, wouldn’t that be wrong too?[/quote]
…kill one and you’re a murderer. Kill many and you’re a conquerer shrugs