Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D
Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.
That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.
You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.
But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with your statement here completely.
However I disagree that there is only the classical right and wrong. This ignores the fact that in almost no case does anyone say that something is 100% right or 100% wrong when making decisions. They might say "I shouldn't do this but I will anyway" or "This is what should be done but I think we can't afford to do this." These such statements represent an area of grey in a binary world. In the same way there is no truely evil or truely good. To believe so means that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly evil - even if they do almost nothinh evil - only becuase they do not support you...and since you fight evil, you must be good.
Back to the main issue at hand - it is my view that Bush has this Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong view of the world. He has no grey scales. It is this reason that I feel he has made so many bad decisions. He is of the mind set that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." But just like with anything else, moderation is the key.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.[/b][/quote]
Every time we've had this discussion in IRC, Tyvar, you've come off sounding like you think this is a really bad thing. Do you, and if so why? What's so bad about a social consensus? I'm just curious here, because you've never explained this point.
[quote][b]But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, no I didn't. I picked a group with a funny-sounding voice. I felt the speech patterns suited my paraphrase best. It would've worked with any voice, though. Southern Redneck, California Surfer Dude, Russian General, French Starving Artist, Dime-A-Dozen Banana Republic Dictator....
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in. [/B][/QUOTE]
Such an example would be like when people had to go to Mexico to get a Divorce becuase the US wouldn't offer them becuase they thought it was immoral (though they would recognize marriage changes of this type from other countries).
what is the difference between morality and ethics?
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Generally morality refers to cultually identified right and wrong norms. Ethics refers to positionally identified right and wrong norms.
For instance: To kill is morally wrong but not covered under ethics. To accept donations for congressional favors is considered ethically wrong but not covered under morals.
Sometimes an issue is covered under both. Other issues one has no say on. Some rare times the moral and ethical right positions are polar opposites. Remember that ethically right refers to the job/position you are in. This means if you are a hit-man for the mob, it is ethically right to kill someone for certain things, but not other things; however, it is still morally wrong always.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Hmmm... For the most part I have been staying out of this, other then saying a few words here and there, and the opinions of other people I have talk to in person(Except 1 person)
Where to start.... I agree with what Biggles said earlier on in the thread, that the Middle East should be left alone and let them grow up on their own. If they want nuke each other, let them. Maybe it will wake them up. Look at what has happened Thanks to western inference in the Mid. East. We have all these Zealot Choren thumper 's running around declaring Crusade(or Jihads) on the west ,flying planes into building and blowing them selves up. They sure as hell don't want our help. Anyway we never(The west) never had anyone help us establish our Democracy's and fix out Cultural issues. If they are going to change it should be the people who live in the Mid. East decide how to fix there problems, not outsiders. Is'nt that more Democratic?? Well of course the Mid. East has Oil.
For example(This mite piss Americans off, and I have been accused of being a troll and flame baiter for saying this by Americans) What if during the US revolution France invaded the American Colonies in order to “Liberate” them from the British. And not only got the British out, they even helped you write your Constitution. Think about that for a Minute.
Homosexual Marriage.
I don't really see what the big fucking deal about a Man-Man or A Women – Women getting Married. And I fail to see how this will weaken family values. I cant believe why so many people voted for bush on this issue.
Edit: The picture that Mundane posted, Kind of sums up alot of my views on bush and [i]some[/i] Americans in general
You answered your own question. We're in the middle east because of OIL. That's the reason...
As an American, I see your point. We weren't the first to do this, the British made colonies all over the world and imposed their values on the indignant populations. The Romans and Greeks before the British, and the... I guess it's a genetic thing to interfere.
I agree totally. I have yet to hear anyone explain how homosexual marriage, civil unions if you want to call it that, would be such a bad thing without getting all religious. Since there is (supposed to be anyway) a separation of church and state, religious reasons shouldn't count.
If two adults love each other and want to get together and form a union, who am I to say they shouldn't? It doesn't hurt me nor intrude on my right to form a union with someone I love.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]
Abortion rights does not force people to have abortions that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have it that believe it is morally right. Anti-abortion forces those that wish to have abortion to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one.
[/B][/QUOTE]
RC, the following is not intended as a flame or troll, but consider these reworks of your quote above to better understand the pro-life point of view.
[QUOTE][B]
The right to own slaves does not force people to have slaves that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have them that believe it is morally right. Anti-slavery laws force those that wish to have slaves to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one.
[/B][/QUOTE]
or even closer to the point (and hopefully perceived as more absurd)
[QUOTE][B]
A right to homicide does not force people to commit homicide that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows homicide for those who want to kill someone and believe it is morally right. Anti-homicide laws force those that wish to have kill others to be unable to do so, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to kill others.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If the follow-on discussions of morality and social concensus discussed after your post are to be the basis for morality, then what is to prevent a society where either of the two extreme positions above are not valid?
Under the social consensus argument, what is occurring today is the defining/refining of social mores, and it is not fair for one side to say "Your beliefs cannot be considered in this discussion because they are based on irrational religious thoughts, while ours are based on rational thought processes." Both sides must be considered, and if the position based on the religious though prevails, according to the social consensus posit, all members of the society must adhere to that decision, or be considered anti-social.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
If they have inner soles, I'll take you up on that offer. My shoes are getting a bit old.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Every time we've had this discussion in IRC, Tyvar, you've come off sounding like you think this is a really bad thing. Do you, and if so why? What's so bad about a social consensus? I'm just curious here, because you've never explained this point.
An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in. [/B][/QUOTE]
Firstly if its all just a social consensus. That consensus can change at any time. Whats right and wrong can change, but never "progress" or regress" Universal sufferige and slavery, are not inherently better then each other under this scheme. they cant be. Because in order for one to be better there has to be some sort of absolute standard for them to be judged against. If the reltavistic argument is true, one can not condem anything other then the fact that it violates your own cultural prejidices, but that isnt saying much.
And secondly it has a dramatic impact for those here
First of all look at the current election, what your seeing happen is a majority of people have FORMED a consensus, and that consensus excludes alot of people. well according to the reltavistic argument this is okay. They can do that.
And its people who support that argument that are now upset how things have gone. Which is hypocritical.
If the republicans are doing what they believe in, which means they are acting on their cultural consensus, if what they are doing is truly morally wrong, then there must be some sort of absolute standard appart from them they are violating.
The relativistic argument falls appart in that even if what happens is one cultural entity flat out decides to eradicate another, if that agrees with their beliefs they have done nothing wrong.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]hate to say it mate but there are rules to be followed...
From the [b]Rules and Guidlines[/b] [/B][/QUOTE]
That's been done before and never was anyone banned because of it to my knowledge.
And I still don't agree with this ban no matter the rules. Even though SB used pretty harsh language I admit, but sometimes it should be allowed. It's life.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]You know...SB flames and swears all the time...but only in this thread does that earn him a ban. :rolleyes:
[/B][/QUOTE]
About the abortion issue I want to say, that noone, absolutely noone has the right to say whether you can have abortion or not. It's a private matter and nobody has the right to tell you what to do.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WORF [/i]
[B]I agree with Shadow Boxer.
I think sooner or later Bush will push the world too far and the world will push back, hard.
Personally I think it will come from [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40454000/bb/40454793_bb_16x9.asx]this[/URL] (streaming video from the BBC).
For those of you who don't want to stream it, basically it talks about a Satellite Communication network being developed by Europe, Russia and China. They have all agreed that it won't be used to spy on or jam communications in enemy countries.
Despite that, Bush has said if he doesn't like how it gets used, he is perfectly willing to order an attack to destroy it and that he thinks conflict in space is inevitable.
Personally, I think that if that happens, that Europe, Russia and China will actively turn against the US and it could even lead to war.
The reason for that is, Bush would have shown that he has no problem attacking his allies and the various governments involved wouldn't want their countries to be attacked.
He would have against almost the entire civilized (as opposed to the third world who don't have the ability to fight back) world closing in on him.
Maybe it won't come from the satellite situation but it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
Worf [/B][/QUOTE]
I realy realy Hope and Wish is does not come to that.... If it does I hope Canada it with the Rest of the world or Nuetral.. If not, I'm moving to Europe.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?
This is an important question and shapes everything else were discussing. [/B][/QUOTE]
Rights don't come from anywhere. We have inherently rights to do anything we ever want in the world as long as it doesn't unnecessarily affect in a bad way directly, or indirectly other people, animals, or nature.
Unfortunately though we don't have those rights in reality, because societies immorally by the threat of physical and psychological violence and deprivation of liberty restrict them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Generally morality refers to cultually identified right and wrong norms. Ethics refers to positionally identified right and wrong norms.
For instance: To kill is morally wrong but not covered under ethics. To accept donations for congressional favors is considered ethically wrong but not covered under morals.
Sometimes an issue is covered under both. Other issues one has no say on. Some rare times the moral and ethical right positions are polar opposites. Remember that ethically right refers to the job/position you are in. This means if you are a hit-man for the mob, it is ethically right to kill someone for certain things, but not other things; however, it is still morally wrong always. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually they are the same thing in the end. Ethics come from/are based on moral views. It's just like a currency, which is divided in bills and coins of different value. It's all money still. Just categorized/organized/subdivided.
you are DEAD wrong about the non-existence of Global Warming...
Ask anyone in Tuvalu.
90% of the worlds coral reefs are bleached and effectively dead.
Global warming is a FACT.
Ostirchitis will not fix it me ole china...
This is what I'm getting at, but its wearing another hat.
Ultra-conservatisism, burying ones head in the sand, contiuing to row the boat even though you can hear a faint but ominous rumbling sound which might just be a set of navigable rapids... or it could be a 4000ft fall.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Global warming is happening, whether people like to admit it or not. However, much of it is due to natural processes (the Earth goes through many different cycles of different lengths that change its temperature). But it is no longer really possible to argue that humans are not a significant factor in the current rate of warming. Even if we weren't, that's not a reason to run around polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses or anything else, which is the approach Bush's administration seems to prefer. Perhaps the idea of global warming is what is needed to get people to clean up their act.
There's also the recent discovery that CO2 levels have gone up considerably in the past few years, leading many climate scientists to suggest that a major global sink (they think the oceans) has been filled up, which means that the increased rate isn't a one off thing but will continue. Then there's the, as SB mentioned, rather nasty effects increased levels of CO2 have on the oceans.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]RC, the following is not intended as a flame or troll, but consider these reworks of your quote above to better understand the pro-life point of view.
or even closer to the point (and hopefully perceived as more absurd)
If the follow-on discussions of morality and social concensus discussed after your post are to be the basis for morality, then what is to prevent a society where either of the two extreme positions above are not valid?
Under the social consensus argument, what is occurring today is the defining/refining of social mores, and it is not fair for one side to say "Your beliefs cannot be considered in this discussion because they are based on irrational religious thoughts, while ours are based on rational thought processes." Both sides must be considered, and if the position based on the religious though prevails, according to the social consensus posit, all members of the society must adhere to that decision, or be considered anti-social.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Come on Bobo, those cases you described are complitely different kind of. They are not comparable by any means with what RC said, which makes it an unfair comparison of cases. What RC said about abortion was very well said indeed.
You seem to be quite smart what I've noticed from your posts in here, so you should see the great difference of those cases very easily.
And yes, religious thoughts ARE irrational if they are not based on observed and proven facts of reality, which is everything we can base our known facts on and what we can base any rational decisions on. In which case they would not actually even be religious thoughts really, at least not solely. Everything else is fictional/mythical.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Global warming is happening, whether people like to admit it or not. However, much of it is due to natural processes (the Earth goes through many different cycles of different lengths that change its temperature). But it is no longer really possible to argue that humans are not a significant factor in the current rate of warming. Even if we weren't, that's not a reason to run around polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses or anything else, which is the approach Bush's administration seems to prefer. Perhaps the idea of global warming is what is needed to get people to clean up their act.
There's also the recent discovery that CO2 levels have gone up considerably in the past few years, leading many climate scientists to suggest that a major global sink (they think the oceans) has been filled up, which means that the increased rate isn't a one off thing but will continue. Then there's the, as SB mentioned, rather nasty effects increased levels of CO2 have on the oceans. [/B][/QUOTE]
[scarcaism]But Biggles..... Teh Kyoto Accord will cost Corperations Millions..... Wont somone Please think of the Rich[/scarcaism]
The mere fact, that most of the people are in an opinion, that indeed people are causing, if not complitely at least partly, the global warming, is already a good enough reason for the Kyoto treaty to take place and to act accordingly against polluting and everything else which is thought/known to cause it, until further proof through study, which would undisputably tell the truth.
The abortion argument, although it can provoke either great anger or great personal reflection, is one that cannot be resolved. Why? Because the two sides are looking at different worlds.
Bobo's paraphrasing is perfectly valid, _if and only if_ you accept that an unborn child is still a human being, as much as a slave or a murder victim is. Given that, the child is entitled to exactly the same rights as any of us here. The other side is operating in a world where the unborn child is not a human being, but merely a collection of cells and tissues. As well give rights to a replacement ear we grow on the back of a mouse for plastic surgery (have you guys seen pictures of that? Strange, to say the least).
So whether or not you want to boil it down to a question of the soul, or lack therof, or merely try to develop a comprehensive, provable scientific defenition of where life begins, you are left with belief. Now, before anyone attacks me, I must say I do have respect for a great many of those who favor abortion rights. Even if I don't agree with them, I respect those who are trying to do what they believe deep down in their hearts is right. Why? Because it is the exact same thing I am trying to do.
I would like to add my take on the moral realist/relativist argument. To my understanding as a moral realist, there is, somewhere out there, an absolute standard of right and wrong. The key is, I do not by any means claim to have a full understanding of what that is.
Some things are easy to discern. My absolute standard tells me that murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong, even if it is from a drug dealer. The grey areas do not exist because morality is flexible, but because I don't have a clear enough picture of the truth.
In the traditional, Judeo-Christian vision of morality, slavery is wrong because one of the rights inherent in our creation is liberty. Once upon a time, Europeans convinced themselves that certain groups were not really the same kind of people, and that therefore, they did not have the same natural rights. What would have happened if someone had tried to enslave British or French people? Whites of any nation? Slavery, to me, is wrong. It is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it was wrong all the way back through the Roman Empire and beyond. It ended in its modern form when people realized that regardless of color, a man is a man.
Of course, the relativist's worldview must hold that owning black slaves was perfectly acceptable in colonial Virginia, that the Romans selling off the entire population of Carthage was just good business sense, that the Spartans working so much of their farmland with slaves that they often had to go and slaughter large numbers of them to stop revolts (wouldn't want labor disputes to cripple your economy) was just a smart way to make up for a lack of manpower when defending your country from the first imperialist western democracy in the history of the world. Athens and the Delian League, anyone?
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]About the global warming.
The mere fact, that most of the people are in an opinion, that indeed people are causing, if not complitely at least partly, the global warming, is already a good enough reason for the Kyoto treaty to take place and to act accordingly against polluting and everything else which is thought/known to cause it, until further proof through study, which would undisputably tell the truth.
-PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. Better to respond to the possible problem now rather than try to clean up the mess caused by an actual problem latter on.
I also have to agree, however, that the Kyoto Protocol is not going to be anywhere near effective in reality. Certain nations (such as India and China) don't have to do anything since they are classed as developing nations. But, at the very least, it might help push the US and similar countries into cutting down their absurd emissions levels, since it doesn't look like anything else is going to.
For those Biblically minded individuals who believe that the prophecies about the future Babylon speaks about the United States, it will be ironic that the US will put out even MORE emissions after she is left burning and desolate...
:p
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
We'll just have to vapourise it completely and somehow contain the vapour then. :D
Comments
[B]Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D
Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.
That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.
You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.
But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with your statement here completely.
However I disagree that there is only the classical right and wrong. This ignores the fact that in almost no case does anyone say that something is 100% right or 100% wrong when making decisions. They might say "I shouldn't do this but I will anyway" or "This is what should be done but I think we can't afford to do this." These such statements represent an area of grey in a binary world. In the same way there is no truely evil or truely good. To believe so means that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly evil - even if they do almost nothinh evil - only becuase they do not support you...and since you fight evil, you must be good.
Back to the main issue at hand - it is my view that Bush has this Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong view of the world. He has no grey scales. It is this reason that I feel he has made so many bad decisions. He is of the mind set that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." But just like with anything else, moderation is the key.
[B] You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.[/b][/quote]
Every time we've had this discussion in IRC, Tyvar, you've come off sounding like you think this is a really bad thing. Do you, and if so why? What's so bad about a social consensus? I'm just curious here, because you've never explained this point.
[quote][b]But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in.
[B]David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, no I didn't. I picked a group with a funny-sounding voice. I felt the speech patterns suited my paraphrase best. It would've worked with any voice, though. Southern Redneck, California Surfer Dude, Russian General, French Starving Artist, Dime-A-Dozen Banana Republic Dictator....
[B]An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in. [/B][/QUOTE]
Such an example would be like when people had to go to Mexico to get a Divorce becuase the US wouldn't offer them becuase they thought it was immoral (though they would recognize marriage changes of this type from other countries).
For instance: To kill is morally wrong but not covered under ethics. To accept donations for congressional favors is considered ethically wrong but not covered under morals.
Sometimes an issue is covered under both. Other issues one has no say on. Some rare times the moral and ethical right positions are polar opposites. Remember that ethically right refers to the job/position you are in. This means if you are a hit-man for the mob, it is ethically right to kill someone for certain things, but not other things; however, it is still morally wrong always.
Where to start.... I agree with what Biggles said earlier on in the thread, that the Middle East should be left alone and let them grow up on their own. If they want nuke each other, let them. Maybe it will wake them up. Look at what has happened Thanks to western inference in the Mid. East. We have all these Zealot Choren thumper 's running around declaring Crusade(or Jihads) on the west ,flying planes into building and blowing them selves up. They sure as hell don't want our help. Anyway we never(The west) never had anyone help us establish our Democracy's and fix out Cultural issues. If they are going to change it should be the people who live in the Mid. East decide how to fix there problems, not outsiders. Is'nt that more Democratic?? Well of course the Mid. East has Oil.
For example(This mite piss Americans off, and I have been accused of being a troll and flame baiter for saying this by Americans) What if during the US revolution France invaded the American Colonies in order to “Liberate” them from the British. And not only got the British out, they even helped you write your Constitution. Think about that for a Minute.
Homosexual Marriage.
I don't really see what the big fucking deal about a Man-Man or A Women – Women getting Married. And I fail to see how this will weaken family values. I cant believe why so many people voted for bush on this issue.
Edit: The picture that Mundane posted, Kind of sums up alot of my views on bush and [i]some[/i] Americans in general
As an American, I see your point. We weren't the first to do this, the British made colonies all over the world and imposed their values on the indignant populations. The Romans and Greeks before the British, and the... I guess it's a genetic thing to interfere.
I agree totally. I have yet to hear anyone explain how homosexual marriage, civil unions if you want to call it that, would be such a bad thing without getting all religious. Since there is (supposed to be anyway) a separation of church and state, religious reasons shouldn't count.
If two adults love each other and want to get together and form a union, who am I to say they shouldn't? It doesn't hurt me nor intrude on my right to form a union with someone I love.
Edit: spelling... Doh!
And the bad thing. Well goodbye world...
[B]
Abortion rights does not force people to have abortions that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have it that believe it is morally right. Anti-abortion forces those that wish to have abortion to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one.
[/B][/QUOTE]
RC, the following is not intended as a flame or troll, but consider these reworks of your quote above to better understand the pro-life point of view.
[QUOTE][B]
The right to own slaves does not force people to have slaves that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have them that believe it is morally right. Anti-slavery laws force those that wish to have slaves to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one.
[/B][/QUOTE]
or even closer to the point (and hopefully perceived as more absurd)
[QUOTE][B]
A right to homicide does not force people to commit homicide that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows homicide for those who want to kill someone and believe it is morally right. Anti-homicide laws force those that wish to have kill others to be unable to do so, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to kill others.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If the follow-on discussions of morality and social concensus discussed after your post are to be the basis for morality, then what is to prevent a society where either of the two extreme positions above are not valid?
Under the social consensus argument, what is occurring today is the defining/refining of social mores, and it is not fair for one side to say "Your beliefs cannot be considered in this discussion because they are based on irrational religious thoughts, while ours are based on rational thought processes." Both sides must be considered, and if the position based on the religious though prevails, according to the social consensus posit, all members of the society must adhere to that decision, or be considered anti-social.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;)
[B]I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
If they have inner soles, I'll take you up on that offer. My shoes are getting a bit old.
[B]Every time we've had this discussion in IRC, Tyvar, you've come off sounding like you think this is a really bad thing. Do you, and if so why? What's so bad about a social consensus? I'm just curious here, because you've never explained this point.
An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in. [/B][/QUOTE]
Firstly if its all just a social consensus. That consensus can change at any time. Whats right and wrong can change, but never "progress" or regress" Universal sufferige and slavery, are not inherently better then each other under this scheme. they cant be. Because in order for one to be better there has to be some sort of absolute standard for them to be judged against. If the reltavistic argument is true, one can not condem anything other then the fact that it violates your own cultural prejidices, but that isnt saying much.
And secondly it has a dramatic impact for those here
First of all look at the current election, what your seeing happen is a majority of people have FORMED a consensus, and that consensus excludes alot of people. well according to the reltavistic argument this is okay. They can do that.
And its people who support that argument that are now upset how things have gone. Which is hypocritical.
If the republicans are doing what they believe in, which means they are acting on their cultural consensus, if what they are doing is truly morally wrong, then there must be some sort of absolute standard appart from them they are violating.
The relativistic argument falls appart in that even if what happens is one cultural entity flat out decides to eradicate another, if that agrees with their beliefs they have done nothing wrong.
[B]hate to say it mate but there are rules to be followed...
From the [b]Rules and Guidlines[/b] [/B][/QUOTE]
That's been done before and never was anyone banned because of it to my knowledge.
And I still don't agree with this ban no matter the rules. Even though SB used pretty harsh language I admit, but sometimes it should be allowed. It's life.
- PJH
[B]You know...SB flames and swears all the time...but only in this thread does that earn him a ban. :rolleyes:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[img]http://forums.firstones.com/images/oldicons/icon13.gif[/img]
- PJH
Anti-abortion laws are morally criminal.
- PJH
[B]I agree with Shadow Boxer.
I think sooner or later Bush will push the world too far and the world will push back, hard.
Personally I think it will come from [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40454000/bb/40454793_bb_16x9.asx]this[/URL] (streaming video from the BBC).
For those of you who don't want to stream it, basically it talks about a Satellite Communication network being developed by Europe, Russia and China. They have all agreed that it won't be used to spy on or jam communications in enemy countries.
Despite that, Bush has said if he doesn't like how it gets used, he is perfectly willing to order an attack to destroy it and that he thinks conflict in space is inevitable.
Personally, I think that if that happens, that Europe, Russia and China will actively turn against the US and it could even lead to war.
The reason for that is, Bush would have shown that he has no problem attacking his allies and the various governments involved wouldn't want their countries to be attacked.
He would have against almost the entire civilized (as opposed to the third world who don't have the ability to fight back) world closing in on him.
Maybe it won't come from the satellite situation but it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
Worf [/B][/QUOTE]
I realy realy Hope and Wish is does not come to that.... If it does I hope Canada it with the Rest of the world or Nuetral.. If not, I'm moving to Europe.
[B]
I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?
This is an important question and shapes everything else were discussing. [/B][/QUOTE]
Rights don't come from anywhere. We have inherently rights to do anything we ever want in the world as long as it doesn't unnecessarily affect in a bad way directly, or indirectly other people, animals, or nature.
Unfortunately though we don't have those rights in reality, because societies immorally by the threat of physical and psychological violence and deprivation of liberty restrict them.
- PJH
[B]Generally morality refers to cultually identified right and wrong norms. Ethics refers to positionally identified right and wrong norms.
For instance: To kill is morally wrong but not covered under ethics. To accept donations for congressional favors is considered ethically wrong but not covered under morals.
Sometimes an issue is covered under both. Other issues one has no say on. Some rare times the moral and ethical right positions are polar opposites. Remember that ethically right refers to the job/position you are in. This means if you are a hit-man for the mob, it is ethically right to kill someone for certain things, but not other things; however, it is still morally wrong always. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually they are the same thing in the end. Ethics come from/are based on moral views. It's just like a currency, which is divided in bills and coins of different value. It's all money still. Just categorized/organized/subdivided.
- PJH
Kyoto aside....
you are DEAD wrong about the non-existence of Global Warming...
Ask anyone in Tuvalu.
90% of the worlds coral reefs are bleached and effectively dead.
Global warming is a FACT.
Ostirchitis will not fix it me ole china...
This is what I'm getting at, but its wearing another hat.
Ultra-conservatisism, burying ones head in the sand, contiuing to row the boat even though you can hear a faint but ominous rumbling sound which might just be a set of navigable rapids... or it could be a 4000ft fall.
There's also the recent discovery that CO2 levels have gone up considerably in the past few years, leading many climate scientists to suggest that a major global sink (they think the oceans) has been filled up, which means that the increased rate isn't a one off thing but will continue. Then there's the, as SB mentioned, rather nasty effects increased levels of CO2 have on the oceans.
[B]RC, the following is not intended as a flame or troll, but consider these reworks of your quote above to better understand the pro-life point of view.
or even closer to the point (and hopefully perceived as more absurd)
If the follow-on discussions of morality and social concensus discussed after your post are to be the basis for morality, then what is to prevent a society where either of the two extreme positions above are not valid?
Under the social consensus argument, what is occurring today is the defining/refining of social mores, and it is not fair for one side to say "Your beliefs cannot be considered in this discussion because they are based on irrational religious thoughts, while ours are based on rational thought processes." Both sides must be considered, and if the position based on the religious though prevails, according to the social consensus posit, all members of the society must adhere to that decision, or be considered anti-social.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's beliefs, just trying to loan my mocassins for a mile stroll.;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Come on Bobo, those cases you described are complitely different kind of. They are not comparable by any means with what RC said, which makes it an unfair comparison of cases. What RC said about abortion was very well said indeed.
You seem to be quite smart what I've noticed from your posts in here, so you should see the great difference of those cases very easily.
And yes, religious thoughts ARE irrational if they are not based on observed and proven facts of reality, which is everything we can base our known facts on and what we can base any rational decisions on. In which case they would not actually even be religious thoughts really, at least not solely. Everything else is fictional/mythical.
- PJH
[B]Global warming is happening, whether people like to admit it or not. However, much of it is due to natural processes (the Earth goes through many different cycles of different lengths that change its temperature). But it is no longer really possible to argue that humans are not a significant factor in the current rate of warming. Even if we weren't, that's not a reason to run around polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses or anything else, which is the approach Bush's administration seems to prefer. Perhaps the idea of global warming is what is needed to get people to clean up their act.
There's also the recent discovery that CO2 levels have gone up considerably in the past few years, leading many climate scientists to suggest that a major global sink (they think the oceans) has been filled up, which means that the increased rate isn't a one off thing but will continue. Then there's the, as SB mentioned, rather nasty effects increased levels of CO2 have on the oceans. [/B][/QUOTE]
[scarcaism]But Biggles..... Teh Kyoto Accord will cost Corperations Millions..... Wont somone Please think of the Rich[/scarcaism]
The mere fact, that most of the people are in an opinion, that indeed people are causing, if not complitely at least partly, the global warming, is already a good enough reason for the Kyoto treaty to take place and to act accordingly against polluting and everything else which is thought/known to cause it, until further proof through study, which would undisputably tell the truth.
-PJH
Bobo's paraphrasing is perfectly valid, _if and only if_ you accept that an unborn child is still a human being, as much as a slave or a murder victim is. Given that, the child is entitled to exactly the same rights as any of us here. The other side is operating in a world where the unborn child is not a human being, but merely a collection of cells and tissues. As well give rights to a replacement ear we grow on the back of a mouse for plastic surgery (have you guys seen pictures of that? Strange, to say the least).
So whether or not you want to boil it down to a question of the soul, or lack therof, or merely try to develop a comprehensive, provable scientific defenition of where life begins, you are left with belief. Now, before anyone attacks me, I must say I do have respect for a great many of those who favor abortion rights. Even if I don't agree with them, I respect those who are trying to do what they believe deep down in their hearts is right. Why? Because it is the exact same thing I am trying to do.
Some things are easy to discern. My absolute standard tells me that murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong, even if it is from a drug dealer. The grey areas do not exist because morality is flexible, but because I don't have a clear enough picture of the truth.
In the traditional, Judeo-Christian vision of morality, slavery is wrong because one of the rights inherent in our creation is liberty. Once upon a time, Europeans convinced themselves that certain groups were not really the same kind of people, and that therefore, they did not have the same natural rights. What would have happened if someone had tried to enslave British or French people? Whites of any nation? Slavery, to me, is wrong. It is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it was wrong all the way back through the Roman Empire and beyond. It ended in its modern form when people realized that regardless of color, a man is a man.
Of course, the relativist's worldview must hold that owning black slaves was perfectly acceptable in colonial Virginia, that the Romans selling off the entire population of Carthage was just good business sense, that the Spartans working so much of their farmland with slaves that they often had to go and slaughter large numbers of them to stop revolts (wouldn't want labor disputes to cripple your economy) was just a smart way to make up for a lack of manpower when defending your country from the first imperialist western democracy in the history of the world. Athens and the Delian League, anyone?
[B]About the global warming.
The mere fact, that most of the people are in an opinion, that indeed people are causing, if not complitely at least partly, the global warming, is already a good enough reason for the Kyoto treaty to take place and to act accordingly against polluting and everything else which is thought/known to cause it, until further proof through study, which would undisputably tell the truth.
-PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. Better to respond to the possible problem now rather than try to clean up the mess caused by an actual problem latter on.
I also have to agree, however, that the Kyoto Protocol is not going to be anywhere near effective in reality. Certain nations (such as India and China) don't have to do anything since they are classed as developing nations. But, at the very least, it might help push the US and similar countries into cutting down their absurd emissions levels, since it doesn't look like anything else is going to.
:p