[quote]rainjack wrote:
Excepting my attempt to get you to see the utter lunacy on your thought processes, you have been beaten down with everything but the kitchen sink.[/quote]
Wait, what are you saying here? Is that a covert admission that your attempt failed because it was senseless?
Well, I respect a guy who admits when he’s wrong. Thank you.
I would say most morals arise from human experience. When did we see a huge surge in “human-rights” movements? After the horrors of WWII. People react to what happens to them, which is why there is variation in what is considered moral. Nearly every culture as found that wanton murder and theft result in bad things, hence rights to life and property.
As for differences, well some Inuit tribes used to take older members of the group and let them die. Not to say murder, but it was a culturally accepted process that when you reached a time where you could not care for yourself that you went to the sea with your family. There you were to set yourself upon an ice flow and drift away.
This was a way to deal with the extremely limits resources available in the area. I know, it seems terrible to us; but consider that many cultures would say that our trend of sealing away our elders in nursing homes, only to be seen once a year or so, to be equally terrible.
I do not think there will ever be a universal moral code, simply because peoples’ experiences are different.
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Excepting my attempt to get you to see the utter lunacy on your thought processes, you have been beaten down with everything but the kitchen sink.
Wait, what are you saying here? Is that a covert admission that your attempt failed because it was senseless?
Well, I respect a guy who admits when he’s wrong. Thank you.[/quote]
You’re quite welcome. But I must say that I now know how Anne Sullivan must have felt most of the time. Being deaf, dumb and blind is not easy to overcome, is it Hspder? My condolences to your wife and family.
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
That is an example of utter nonsense, not what RJ posted. I don’t think you even realize how silly it sounds to those who know better.
If that is true, why do you resort to personal attacks rather than enlightening us poor ignorant ones? Oh tell us, please, what is so silly? How does the concept of escalating violence – which I’m obviously completely oblivious to – justify people lawfully packing a gun?
Explain to me why do you reject the off chance that the concept of escalating violence was exactly what prompted police forces all over the world to shed their guns, rather than carrying more firepower.
(and, by the way, I don’t think rainjack really needs a wingman to help him; he’s a big guy, more than capable of defending himself)
[/quote]
No personal attacks were made. Simply a statement of the obvious.
Police forces “all around the world” is a generalization that you know is wrong. The correct statement would be “Western Europe”.
I commented on the site you posted. Did you look at the link before you posted it. Do you really believe that the San Diego police would use a taser when lethal force is required? Didn’t you just try an throw that in to bolster the argument you tried to make?
Escalating force, simply stated, means that the police use the appropriate level of force for the situation. Lethal force being the last resort. Surely you can understand that. Have you heard of terrorism, violent felons, gangs. Not sure if you are aware of this but those folks carryh guns and don’t share your morality about taking lives. Are you going to pepper spray a gangbanger? Doubtful. Escalating force is also common sense for a civilian. It seems that would be apparent. You don’t see that?
Hspder, you are a liberal simply repeating liberal talking points and value. Gun Control has been debunked before.
Let me put this in terms you may have a better understanding of. You paraphrased others and added no new insights. Grade F.
As to commenting on others posts. Why don’t you hold your breath waiting for me to ask your permission to do so. Start now.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
People used science to make a pretty strong case for eugenics. We see how well that turned out.[/quote]
Actually they did not. They used gibberish misrepresented as a science. They also played into well-known fact of general public ignorance and gullibility. It is similar to the way people today still believe in extraordinary claims in the Bible without any evidence, very dangerous.
-Yustas
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’m very pro science too. I just think science and values are two totally different things – both provide aspects that help us make our decisions, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.[/quote]
Why mix real science with moral relativism?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I guess that’s why I think a democratically based government system with laws based on consent of the governed is the only legitimate system of government. It’s the only one in which the people get to express their agreement or disagreement with the morals being imposed on them via the legal system.
hspder wrote:
OK, to make sure that everybody is clear on that, first I’ll have to say I do agree that I strongly believe in a democratic system, at least as the least bad of our options of government.
So I agree with the essence of you argument. However…
Do you agree with me that what you describe doesn’t really give you any assurance that everybody is fairly treated, and, in reality that it does not answer WMD’s great point about who comes up with THE standard to follow?
My point is: isn’t it true that the opinion of the majority doesn’t necessarity carry necessarily any “truth” or “goodness” to it – that it is just what “most” people think?
Or, as Gandhi would put it:
“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place”
If that’s too vague, here’s something MLK Jr. said:
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
[/quote]
I tend to agree that you can’t trust the majority to protect the rights of the minority in each instance.
I think the Founders got it very much correct when they built in the interlocking concepts of limited government power with a Bill of Rights, which meant that you needed a huge majority to accomplish something that wasn’t specifically laid out, thus limiting the temper of the crowd. The educated men back then were well aware of their Greek and Roman history, and wanted no part of giving everything over to the passion of the mob. Now we’ve eviscerated the “limited power” part of that protection, but perhaps we can slowly move back in the right direction.
But that’s a tangent.
To bring it back around then, and to touch on Ross’ post, where do moral values come from then? For a long time, religion was the source, so one could appeal to divine moral principles as being above baser human instincts. But a lot of people don’t care to accept religious reasons anymore.
And it doesn’t seem that there are a whole lot of “universal principles” that cut across cultures (or species, for that matter, especially when you take a closer look at them), though there are a few.
This is probably getting way over my head philosophically speaking, and I’m straying dangerously close to some sort of moral deconstructionism, which I detest at a gut-feeling level.
I guess that’s why I gravitate back toward the idea of moral principles arising from the agreement of the people. Not necessarily in a “vote on each issue” kind of way, but more along the lines of principles that the majority of people agree are important. I suppose once you have those then you can go about trying to construct some sort of coherent system out of them.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
hspder wrote:
And you also ignored my last point: is there any other species capable of genocide?
Genocide indicates an intent to destroy a specific group. So I would say no, since no other known animal has the ability to form these ideas.
[/quote]
Of course there’s intent to destroy a specific group. It is just that in nature things balance out. If there would not be a balance then genocide of certain groups would occur.
Certain animals consistently target specifics groups available in their natural habitat. Since over time there?s a balance in nature, apart from the fact that different groups trying and do kill each other they co-exist.
Tigers don’t try to destroy fish, because this is not what they are “programmed” to do. On another hand sharks feed on fish consistently.
Eagles don’t target zebras, but they consistently go after mice and rabbits, etc.
-Yustas
If we allow values and morality to pervade science we will get bad science. When in the course of the scientific method one should not be concerned with the question of, “Is this right or wrong”, however, it should be, “Is this good science?” This means practicing objective thinking laid out by the scientific method. Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong.
Science is the extreme opposite of this. It is a heavily process driven endeavor that must remain free of the ambiguities of moral ethics. Even in the development of theory there is no room for ambiguity–it must be derived from preceding principles.
For example when developing special relativity Einstein used Newtonian mechanics as a base, however, succeeded in explaining why Newtonian mechanics was ineffective in describing particles moving close to the speed of light (because inertial reference frames do not exist to the speed of light). He was then able to consider energy’s relation to mass, e = mc^2. He wasn’t concerned with the morality of the implications of this discovery–those being that all matter contains intrinsic energy that can be released when exposed to certain reactions. He still published his paper in 1905 and because of it we have a better understanding of the natural world.
There are even better examples of morality driving scientific thought throughout history. Consider Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. All of these early philosophers questioned religious dogma–dogma which they followed. If they had ignored the basic tenant of the scientific method laid out by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C.E. where would we be today?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hspder wrote:
And you also ignored my last point: is there any other species capable of genocide?
I know the male dog and the male cat will kill their own offspring. I’ve seen it happen.
So the answer would be yes.[/quote]
My sisters hamsters would eat their young.
Many species kill their own. Even more fight. They would kill if they were more lethal.
Anyone that believes man is the only species that kills each other lives in fantasy land.
[quote]hspder wrote:
…
Zap Branigan wrote:
Regarding the less than lethal self defense items, they do not work very well, in spite of what their salesman try to tell you. I am happy with my 357.
Of course. So not only MDs (who do swear by the “Do no harm” principle) are idiots, San Jose and European policemen are too (most policemen in this region carry tasers and use them instead of guns, and in a lot of countries in Europe policemen don’t carry guns at all). Interesting. I guess that’s why there hasn’t been a single policemen dead in any of those places in several years, while on places were policemen do carry guns, it unfortunately happens regularly – oh wait – that wouldn’t make sense, would it? Now I’m confused…
And, by the way – a .357 revolver? That’s very disappointing Zap. If you’re going to carry a gun, at least get something a little more impressive and less juvenile – and less likely to be stolen.
(criminals looooove stealing .357 revolvers, because they’re so incredibly easy to sell in the black market, especially to juveniles and women)
…
[/quote]
Criminals love stealing Hondas too, but they are still decent cars.
I am not too worried about it though, as it is either in my holster or locked in my safe.
What is more impressive than a .357?
A .41 or .44 magnum? Too much gun to carry.
A .45 is a nice choice, but I am far more accurate with my .357. It fits my hand better.
Any other common caliber seems like a downgrade.
Or are you just trying to equate me to a juvenile?
Either way it is apparent you are anti-gun and/or ill informed on the subject.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Either way it is apparent you are anti-gun and/or ill informed on the subject.
[/quote]
Ill informed…anit-gun? As far as I know guns serve only one purpose…and it isn’t to hurt or maim. As far as self protection I would like to see the statistics on how many hand guns have actually been used for this intended “purpose”. Having a gun only puts you in more danger statistically. I luagh whenever I read about children shooting themsleves with their parents gun that was supposed to be for self protection. Well, there’s one more delinquent that won’t grow up to be a crimminal. Yea!, self protection.
Funny that the average uniformed police officers don’t agree with the gun toting, trigger-happy NRA’s stance on the 2nd amendment. They’d like to see hand guns taken out of the hands of citizens. Every time a police officer stops an individual for speeding he has to consider the possibility that this person might be a crazy gun owner (like some of my in-laws that own guns). This is a worse case scenario but one that must be considered nontheless.
I thought this thread was about “science and morality”?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Either way it is apparent you are anti-gun and/or ill informed on the subject.
Ill informed…anit-gun? As far as I know guns serve only one purpose…and it isn’t to hurt or maim. As far as self protection I would like to see the statistics on how many hand guns have actually been used for this intended “purpose”. Having a gun only puts you in more danger statistically. I luagh whenever I read about children shooting themsleves with their parents gun that was supposed to be for self protection. Well, there’s one more delinquent that won’t grow up to be a crimminal. Yea!, self protection.
Funny that the average uniformed police officers don’t agree with the gun toting, trigger-happy NRA’s stance on the 2nd amendment. They’d like to see hand guns taken out of the hands of citizens. Every time a police officer stops an individual for speeding he has to consider the possibility that this person might be a crazy gun owner (like some of my in-laws that own guns). This is a worse case scenario but one that must be considered nontheless.
I thought this thread was about “science and morality”?[/quote]
I was reponding to hspder’s post.
The overwhelming majority of police officers support the NRA’s positions.
This has been demonstrated over and over again.
I don’t suppose you really know what the NRA’s positions are. The NRA is not “trigger happy”. The NRA supports gun education, many gun laws, stiff sentencing for people that use guns in the commission of crimes as well as fighting for our 2nd amendment rights.
I do not agree with everything the NRA does or says, but you are apparently misinformed.
Some groups of police chiefs support the gun grabbers position. Do not confuse political police chiefs with real cops.
I have a number of guns. I have owned guns for 20 years. My guns have never hurt anybody. I have taken some game with my guns, but I do not hunt anymore.
What purpose have my guns been serving these last 20 years if I haven’t been killing people?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Either way it is apparent you are anti-gun and/or ill informed on the subject.
Ill informed…anit-gun? As far as I know guns serve only one purpose…and it isn’t to hurt or maim. As far as self protection I would like to see the statistics on how many hand guns have actually been used for this intended “purpose”. Having a gun only puts you in more danger statistically. I luagh whenever I read about children shooting themsleves with their parents gun that was supposed to be for self protection. Well, there’s one more delinquent that won’t grow up to be a crimminal. Yea!, self protection.
Funny that the average uniformed police officers don’t agree with the gun toting, trigger-happy NRA’s stance on the 2nd amendment. They’d like to see hand guns taken out of the hands of citizens. Every time a police officer stops an individual for speeding he has to consider the possibility that this person might be a crazy gun owner (like some of my in-laws that own guns). This is a worse case scenario but one that must be considered nontheless.
I thought this thread was about “science and morality”?
I was reponding to hspder’s post.
The overwhelming majority of police officers support the NRA’s positions.
This has been demonstrated over and over again.
I don’t suppose you really know what the NRA’s positions are. The NRA is not “trigger happy”. The NRA supports gun education, many gun laws, stiff sentencing for people that use guns in the commission of crimes as well as fighting for our 2nd amendment rights.
I do not agree with everything the NRA does or says, but you are also apparently misinformed.
Some groups of police chiefs support the gun grabbers position. Do not confuse political police chiefs with real cops.
I have a number of guns. I have owned guns for 20 years. My guns have never hurt anybody. I have takes some game with my guns, but I do not hunt anymore.
What purpose have my guns been serving these last 20 years if I haven’t been killing people?
[/quote]
Every beat cop I have ever spoken to in the city of St. Paul do not support the NRA’s radical view of the second amendment. You use yourslef as an example–that’s great but it is only one data point out of the thousands that are killed by their own guns. This statistic is not a lie or a fabrication by the so called Michael Moore empathizers as people would like to believe.
Here is the CDC’s statistics on hadgun ownership:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
This report states that during the collection of this data violent crimes declined 21% which accounted for the decline in hand gun related deaths–only 32,000 for 1997.
to quote the report summary
“Even with the significant declines in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates, approximately 96,000 persons in the United States sustained gunshot wounds in 1997.”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Criminals love stealing Hondas too, but they are still decent cars.
I am not too worried about it though, as it is either in my holster or locked in my safe.
What is more impressive than a .357?
A .41 or .44 magnum? Too much gun to carry.
A .45 is a nice choice, but I am far more accurate with my .357. It fits my hand better.
Any other common caliber seems like a downgrade.
Or are you just trying to equate me to a juvenile?
Either way it is apparent you are anti-gun and/or ill informed on the subject.[/quote]
Personally, I think that you’d be better off with a something in a 30mm. Much better stopping power than a pansy .45 or .44 magnum.
Anyway, let’s get back to the discussion at hand.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I tend to agree that you can’t trust the majority to protect the rights of the minority in each instance.
I think the Founders got it very much correct when they built in the interlocking concepts of limited government power with a Bill of Rights, which meant that you needed a huge majority to accomplish something that wasn’t specifically laid out, thus limiting the temper of the crowd. The educated men back then were well aware of their Greek and Roman history, and wanted no part of giving everything over to the passion of the mob. Now we’ve eviscerated the “limited power” part of that protection, but perhaps we can slowly move back in the right direction.
But that’s a tangent.
To bring it back around then, and to touch on Ross’ post, where do moral values come from then? For a long time, religion was the source, so one could appeal to divine moral principles as being above baser human instincts. But a lot of people don’t care to accept religious reasons anymore.
And it doesn’t seem that there are a whole lot of “universal principles” that cut across cultures (or species, for that matter, especially when you take a closer look at them), though there are a few.
This is probably getting way over my head philosophically speaking, and I’m straying dangerously close to some sort of moral deconstructionism, which I detest at a gut-feeling level.
I guess that’s why I gravitate back toward the idea of moral principles arising from the agreement of the people. Not necessarily in a “vote on each issue” kind of way, but more along the lines of principles that the majority of people agree are important. I suppose once you have those then you can go about trying to construct some sort of coherent system out of them.[/quote]
I don’t think the political point is a tangent at all. The political problem is identical with the moral problem: The majority can no more trusted to legislate wisely than they can to ‘make wise moral choices.’
However, I do think that you are making the problem of the origin of morality and law seem less soluble than it actually is. You seem to me to say that the only two solutions to this problem are religion and a more or less radical positivism, and that since religion is no longer as universally accepted as it once was, and radical positivism is repugnant, we should choose a qualified, less radical positivism as the origin of morality and law.
I think that there is a more optimistic and beautiful way to look at the problem, to wit: There are wise and unwise origins of morality and law. There are religions the morality and laws of which are informed by wisdom (Judaism is just one example of many that comes to mind) and there are religions that are not informed by wisdom (Baal comes to mind). Similarly, there are secular origins of morality that are informed by wisdom (the States) and those that are not (Mobutu Sese Seko’s defunct regime, for instance). All religious and secular origins attempt to discover what is good and lawful, but the wise ones are more successful than the unwise ones.
Now so long as human wisdom is admitted to be a sufficient condition for a good state, then we need not concerned that faith in religion has declined. If human wisdom is not sufficient for a good state, then we ought to concern ourselves with making human beings more faithful.
Don’t tell me I killed this one.
[prods carcass] You alive, Trigger?