Total posts: 385
-->
@Tarik
But moral standards isn’t just a descriptive, it’s a prescriptive in the sense that everybody should follow it in order to accomplish their goals. Question is what’s a goal that we all have in common? That’s the pursuit of happiness.
I agree that most people value happiness. Happiness means different things to different people. It is not, however, moral or immoral. The actions one takes in that pursuit can be determined to be moral or immoral.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But who’s to say those values are moral? What if they’re immoral values?
Values in and of themselves are not necessarily moral or immoral. It is the choices and actions one makes based on those values that are moral or immoral.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If we’re looking at happiness in the broader sense one can easily argue that politicians probably won’t be because of the dishonest lives they live, heaven is the epitome of eternal happiness.
I don't want to argue that point, I'm just saying that different people have different values and thus, different moral standards which makes them inherently subjective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to happiness for yourself.
I get that but don't you think that someone who values only their own happiness will have a different moral standard and make different choices than someone who values the happiness of everyone?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Not wanting to be happy is counterintuitive.
Perhaps for most people but possibly not for someone about to commit suicide. Do you think all democrats value Donald Trump's happiness? Do all republicans value Kamala Harris' happiness?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Not if we all share it, we all value happiness.
Does everyone value happiness for themselves, their family, their friends, their enemies or everyone? There are many ways to value happiness. I'm sure that everyone does not value happiness for the same people and that there are even some that do not value it for themselves.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But we don’t need a compass if all roads leads to the same place.
Why do you think all roads lead to the same place?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Then what’s the point of valuing anything?
You could probably write a book answering that question. One point of valuing anything is to provide a basis and direction for a moral compass.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, what do you believe?
Please refer to post #95.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Does the majority of the U.S. also believe morality to be objective?
I don't know and I doubt that the majority of the U.S. has ever even thought about whether morality is objective or subjective. My guess is that they would probably come down on the objective side not having given it much thought. Do you know what the majority believe?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Do you think the majority of people are atheists?
No. I've read anywhere from 4 to 17 percent of the U.S. consider themselves atheist.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I’m sure a nihilist would agree there’s no point of valuing anything.
You are probably right. I'm glad that the majority of people are not nihilists.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But that assumes that anarchy is an issue, what objective proof do you have of that?
If you value the security and stability of a civil society, then anarchy is an issue.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Then why do we demand that others follow our standard regardless of what others standard is?
Because otherwise a society would probably descend into anarchy. If you lived alone on an island, there would be no need for morality as your actions would not affect anyone else. By choosing to live in a society, we necessarily agree to live by at least some common values and morals to ensure societal stability. That is why we have laws. They are the way to enforce a set of common morals. The fact that there are those who don't agree with some of the laws only proves their necessity for a stable society.
Created:
The answer to why one chooses a particular moral standard is based on one's values. If you value the well-being of all humanity then that will be the basis from which you make moral decisions. If you value "eternal happiness" then that will be the basis of your moral decisions. One's base values themselves are not moral or immoral. It is the decisions made based on those values that are moral or immoral. Values are subjective. Decisions made based on those values can be objectively determined to be moral or immoral. Asking why one values a particular thing could involve a multitude of reasons - genetics, geography, society, parents, culture, life experiences, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
In your non-contradictive society, how would you account for competition? If 100 people are applying for one dream job opening, then there will 99 people who will not fulfill their dreams. What about sports? If it is the dream of many people to win an event but only one can do it, that leaves the dreams of the majority unfulfilled. It would seem that competition could not exist in that society.
What about desires? If many people dream of owning a one-of-a-kind piece of art, the dreams of the majority who don't own it will be unfulfilled. It would seem that desire, in some instances, could not exist in that society.
Greed could not exist, or any vices, for that matter as they might adversely affect someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
My system is a society without contradiction.
Do you think we currently live in a society where most people value all other people's well-being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hypothetically, if a poll were taken of every person on earth and it turns out that the majority do not want happiness for anyone but themselves, would your system still be the most wanted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are correct if most people value the well-being of all people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not by tautology. It is the best IF you value the well being of all people. IF you are sadistic, sociopathic or extremely selfish, it will not be the best moral system. All moral systems are dependent upon an individual's values.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.
Or to avoid negative consequences such as the feeling of guilt for not having taken that action.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Infinite space is possible, yes. Repetitive or not, it is possible. Its the infinite time thats not possible, logically.
I agree that infinite time is logically impossible but also believe that infinite space is logically impossible. In order for infinite space to exist, infinite time would also need to exist. Infinity is only possible as a concept.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was simply pointing out that a lifespan can neither be shortened or increased.I don't see how such a simple fact can be affected by moral concepts.
If a person is made aware, convincingly, that their lifespan will be shortened relative to what it would otherwise be, they would be mentally and emotionally harmed by this knowledge. That is worthy of moral consideration.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
By asking cristo71 to make a value judgement about which belief system is most favorable, he must utilize that very system in order to determine that it is best, hence very circular reasoning. Your proposal of majority rule is a product of that same process.
This is just an observation, not a criticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Based on common definitions of consciousness, I would say that most, if not all life has some form or degree of consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Are you suggesting that animals do not have consciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps killing someone in self defense or a soldier killing an enemy during war.You are the first to offer a serious attempt at an answer and I appreciate that but you don't say why that is evil or necessary.
It seems pretty self explanatory but okay....
In my opinion, if one cares about humanity then it is evil to kill another human. If one cares about one's own life more than another's and is forced to kill that person to protect it, then that makes it necessary for one's own survival. The "ifs" create the conditions needed to answer your question as they make a moral standard explicit. The term evil is not necessarily being used in the strictest definition (profoundly immoral) but in the colloquial sense that you mentioned (bad) as in a bad outcome which is how a person who cares about humanity would view it. The argument is basically the same for war.
Another example of your query could be voting for someone you don't particularly like in order to keep someone you really don't like out of office. That scenario employs the term evil very loosely and is another example of a colloquial use. That scenario requires that one's feelings about political candidates are important enough to make an "evil" (not preferred) vote for candidate A to mitigate one's feelings about candidate B.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps killing someone in self defense or a soldier killing an enemy during war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you only care about survival and nothing else in the short term, then AFSFSM can lead to tribalism. It doesn't necessarily lead to tribalism if you care about long term survival and happiness. Unless one wishes to do nothing but hunt, forage and defend oneself and family, then one is dependent on far more than a small "tribe" for general happiness. We depend on farmers to produce food, migrant workers to collect it, carpenters to build homes, police to protect us, artists to create forms of entertainment, people in other countries to build electronic devices, etc. Caring for all of those people and so many more, of whom we are unaware, that contribute to our well-being makes perfect sense. Your argument seems to have a flaw with the use of only the word "survival" which does include concepts such as "happiness" or "flourishing", etc. If you include something along the lines of "well-being" to your formula, it might lead to a conclusion more in line with your original thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps a spiritual belief with no DOGMA and no PRIESTHOOD might not qualify as a "religion"?
Perhaps, but using the words "spiritual belief" suggests a religious intimation although not a "religion" outright.
I mean, do you think ZEN is a "religion"?
I think that technically, it's not. I'll add that to the other non-religious belief systems you mentioned. Thanks for the examples. Yes, they all seem to have suffered survivorship bias. Given their age, however, the Lindy effect suggests they will be with us for quite a long time to come. In my opinion, they deserve at least as much consideration as any of the Abrahamic belief systems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you consider Animism "non-religious" (pre-religious)?Do you consider Transcendentalism "non-religious"?
Both have elements of religion depending on the specific definition being used for each. Animism is described with the words "soul" and "supernatural". Transcendentalism describes a direct connection with "God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have there ever been any other types of belief systems that no longer survive?That appears to be a trick question.
It wasn't meant as such. You wrote that there were non-religious belief systems that did not survive and I was curious if you had an example. I understand that you can't have knowledge of something for which there is no evidence. I considered Taoism and Confucianism to be quasi-religions but concede that they may not necessarily be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Taoism and Confucianism would also be considered religious ideas. Other than science and religion, both of which currently flourish, have there ever been any other types of belief systems that no longer survive?
The idea of decentralized organization has also survived but has been historically overshadowed by hierarchical authoritarian and oligarchal models.
Agreed. Perhaps Trumpism could be viewed as an oligarchal belief system that is neither religion nor science based and might benefit from the application of the precautionary principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you have an example of other equally valid belief systems that did not survive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"If" the equipment is capable and "if" it is calibrated properly and "if" your interpretation of the data is correct, then you can make a truth claim regarding the date of the bacterium.
You are making truth claims based on assumed axioms as we all do. However, you must be aware of epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
How do you know that the Black Plague occurred in the 14th century? Because history books say so. Therefore, "if" the history books are correct, then the statement regarding Black Plague is correct. You cannot prove any statement is true unless you assume that your information is accurate.
Since you cannot prove that your information is accurate, you are left with the following - "If" your information is accurate, only then can your truth claim be accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It could be argued that almost every truth statement is contingent upon an "if" statement. With the exception of the statements "The universe exists" or "I exist", what other truth statements are not contingent upon an "if"? For example "the sky is blue" is true "if" my perception of it is correct. 1+1=2 is true if mathematical axioms are correct. You exist "if" you aren't a halucination, etc.
Certain axioms must be accepted "if" other truth claims are to be accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It's not up to you to decide what is reasonable for another person.None of that is reasonable reason to intake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Aside from medicinal purposes, for the same reasons that someone would drink alcohol (which is far more destructive to brain cells).Why vape or smoke at all?
Created:
Posted in:
If you say I did not act immorally, then morally to you is based on personal taste. Just that everyone goes by their own personal taste, and you can never can never call another person's action immoral if their personal moral codes absolves them.If you say I did act immorally, then you are judging me by your moral code and ignoring mine. You don't have the moral authority to do that. There is no reason for another person's actions to judged by your moral code.
If your action violated my moral code then I would find you to have acted immorally. I do have the moral authority to do that. That happens all the time. I just don't have the legal authority to do anything about it. You mentioned Sulemani. His moral code would be frowned upon in this culture. Do you find him to be immoral? Do you have the moral authority to make such a determination? Of course you do. Do you have the legal authority to assassinate him? No. Did our president? Possibly.
What about two people who share the same moral code but still disagree as to whether your action was immoral? Happens all the time. Then it's not so much a moral code being about personal taste, but the interpretation and implementation of the code that appears to be personal taste but is more likely a matter of different data processing, emotion and other influences.
A non-religious moral code is not necessarily personal taste. It can be based on any number of things. Hopefully logically sound concepts that can show a demonstrable and agreed upon "good" and "bad. Consistency is also important, otherwise it might look a lot like personal taste if your definition of good and bad are constantly vacillating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So first question, is it the desire itself that that is morally appropriate? Or simply the attaining of what you desire? What exactly is immoral about desiring or attaining what you desire? Is the immorality in how you attain it?
To desire is to be human. There is no immorality in thinking that something is desirable. Acting upon a desire that might harm another in some way is what is immoral (according to my moral code).
Second question, if we accept that you desire something that would not be morally appropriate to attain, who is it making the law that it would be immoral?
That would be my personal moral code that is based on empathy, logic and the wisdom of humanity through the ages. There is probably not much difference between mine and one based on religious dogma. An overly simple description of it would be a scale that emphasizes the maximum amount of suffering for all sentient beings at one end and the least amount of suffering at the other. Does a given action fall closer to one end of the scale or the other? That determines if the action is immoral.
Where I might differ from religious morality is regarding self abuse. I would be interested in your opinion on this. I see morality as a guide to interacting with other sentient beings. I'm on the fence as to whether it is immoral to harm oneself. That assumes that there is nobody that will know of or care about my self abuse. In that way, I would not harm someone else by harming myself. I would need to decide if the suffering from my self abuse is greater than whatever pleasure I receive from it. Even then, I'm not sure if it applies to my moral code. I've read many of your posts and would guess that based on your religious nature, you would consider self abuse to be immoral from that perspective. Or do you, perhaps, lean more libertarian than that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yes. I won't go into it in detail though. Suffice it to say that I desire things that would not be morally appropriate to attain.Is there anything in the moral code you believe/use that is not your personal taste?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That depends on how a moral scale is created. If you create one using only your personal tastes, then it isn't different. If you create one using religious dogma or empathy, logic and the wisdom of humanity through the ages you might find that some actions do not align with your own personal tastes.So then, how is morality different from personal tastes?
Created:
Posted in:
"Bad" and "immoral" are synonyms for each other according to the dictionary. They can mean essentially the same thing. Therefore, if an action is immoral, it is tautologically bad. Any action can be objectively determined to be good or bad depending on where it resides on a given moral scale. The trickier question of yours is that of value. I can imagine an immoral act that is of negative value to one person and positive value to another (theft, for example). An individual's perspective relative to an action would decide its value.
Created:
Posted in:
**** Spoilers ahead ****
He is blue but gives himself the body of a black man to make his current love interest (who is black) more comfortable. The show, in general, is very much about racism with themes of questionable morality and the attempt to acquire God-like power. It is well written. Nothing like what I expected having seen the movie and being unfamiliar with the original source material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And now we know vaping can be even more dangerous than smoking.
Some type of vaping can be. The use of inferior products laced with vitamin E acetate is the culprit for the majority of the recent problems. That happens when cheaper THC oil is vaped. You can also vaporize the same plant products that you would smoke. I'm not aware of any issues with that method. And like I said, edibles are an even healthier alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you please explain what you mean by this term?I'm a GNOSTIC DEIST.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Agreed. It would seem to be partially opposed to psychological egoism (intrinsic) and would therefore be considered a learned behavior.I believe that ethical utilitarianism (Kant's moral imperative) is a standard worth pursuing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But there is a way to determine if you're holding yourself to the same standard you expect from everyone else (hypocrisy).
By avoiding hypocrisy, is one serving one's self or others? I understand that the result is the same either way, I'm just curious what your thoughts are.
Created: