- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Suicide by cop? I think they cop just wants to kill you. Not necessarily suicide. You can have assisted suicide if you pay a friend to kill you. If you run into a military base talking about terrorism then you may be shot on site. Suicide? No. You got killed. They executed Jesus. He was left to die on the cross. That was the intent of the punisher (Pilate).
Oh, oops, I didn't see where you said people who learned later in life. I thought you meant that you knew people who learned from people other than their parents. I wasn't drawing any conclusions. Oops, my bad. But, I think raising the age will limit the help people can get. Some people will have help, but overall less help.
You made this a response to my comment, but I rather fail to see how it is actually responsive.
You don't answer anything directly. I have to ask very specific questions. You were talking about what is destructive. Instead of talking about all destruction I wanted to narrow it down to just killing humans and no other destruction.
That said, I have no idea what the "most frequent" motivator for religiously compelled killing is (beyond the religion itself) but I think it is safe to disqualify self defense since people are not commonly compelled by religion to act with lethal defensive force. I would even go so far as to say religion is more likely to inhibit the self-defensive instinct.
This would lead me to believe that fear related to pride is the motivator for religion since it isn't a self preservation thing.
Oh, really? Such as what, precisely?
Well, lions don't go to war with other lions. Stuff like that.
I fail to see how being an evolutionary determinist precludes me from the conversation.
You are an evolutionary determinist who seems to feel that if there was anything that can be remotely linked to survival it is the motivating factor. The discussion requires you to be able to discuss different motivating factors.
Evidence proves something;
No, evidence doesn't have to be strong enough to prove something. If you have an idea of what happens, you can point to evidence to demonstrate your idea is correct. But, your idea may not have enough evidence to be proven correct even if it is correct. If God exists, we can point to a bunch of things that the existence of God can explain. But, if God doesn't exist we can explain how those things work naturally. There is evidence for God, but it is very weak.
it is the explanation and you do not need an explanation to justify its existence. God, on the other hand, is something which needs to be explained and proven within reasonable probability to merit belief. There is no evidence to do that.
That's what I was trying to say. Anything that can be used to explain God can also be explained by nature, so there is nothing uniquely God.
You misunderstood me. I recognize that we can classify Pluto. My point was that the physical existence of Pluto is an objective fact whereas its classification is subjective. I drew the distinction to indicate the inaccuracy of the comparison.
No, I was objecting to you saying "right" to him when his statement was wrong. I got what you were saying.
You can live according to a belief in God in just about any manner that strikes the imagination. I fail to see why that matters.
You were being very condescending to people who follow a really old book which sounds like you are only targeting Christians. Not all believers are jerks who are stuck following ancient idiots. That's all.
The mentioning of solipsism was purely to represent my holding of morality as a purely individual-based phenomenon, and the potential for the mentioned example doesn't denote anything.
Fear not, I'll not try to "define" your stance into immorality like most other Objectivist-minded people would be inclined to do(a major reason among others for my hesitation for self-identifying as an actual Objectivist).
I have had few conversations with objectvists, so I am not entirely certain to what you are referring. I suppose it is not entirely relevant at this point?
By Objective I mean that which exists independent of the mind or experience. & By Subjective I mean that which is existentially mind-dependent.
I was initially using these same definitions; however, my post immediately preceding this one adjusted terminology by introducing intrinsic to mean what you have now defined objective to mean (and objective was used to reference a mix between the intrinsic reality and the subjective reality). Although I think I prefer the new trifecta terminology better I will return to the simpler objective/subjective delineation for this conversation, since it seems we are both fairly familiar with that.
By Value I mean the varying degree to which an action, behavior, or thing is in relation to the criterion.
What do you mean by the “criterion”? Are you from a LD debate background?
When I use value I refer to a subjective judgment of preference projected onto things, actions, or ideas by people.
By Virtue(should it ever arise) I mean the means by which we achieve a value.
I refer to this simply as the means. Virtue is too loaded a term for my preference in most cases.
Not on ecological terms […] that is the extent to which they can be given moral value.
Noted and, I think, not in active dispute.
We can surely assess it in degrees. Adopting a little more of Sam Harris's rhetoric, there are varying degrees to which we can increase well-being(rational self-interest) from our decisions. We may not pick the action that produces the maximal amount of benefit, but that doesn't exclude any moral value from the chosen action(in other words, there are varying degrees to which your interests are served). This is where the concept of moral value arises.
That was rather my point, actually. We can only assess our rational self-interest in degrees, much as we can only assess the full ecological importance of any given creature in degrees. What struck me as curious is that you are so readily dismissed the practicality of the latter while you premise your framework on the latter. My argument is that we are not capable of fully aligning our moral sense with our rational self-interest, and that as a consequence the two are in practicality two distinct (albeit potentially interrelated) ideas and ought to be treated accordingly. I think your approach conflates the two as potentially synonymous.
Regarding your scenario.
Firstly, as I understand your argument morality is individually-based and would thus be derived from and particular to the perspective of the individual. That being the case, Man 1 might be considered moral by his own standards or Man 4 might consider his actions moral rather than amoral.
Secondly, I think your scenario sidesteps the ambiguity of rationally derived moralities. You expressly acknowledge but still exclude complicating variables from your ascription of amoral character to Man 4 (“in light of no assumed or added variables”), and completely ignore the potential complicating variables surrounding the others. I would argue that even were morality defined by pursuit of the rational course of action the complexity of everyday decisions renders that pursuit (and thus the definition of morality) impossible to accurately fulfill.
Thirdly, your scenario defeats your premise in that Man 1 may consider himself a wholly moral man even as his conduct is arguably against his rational self-interest. Morality is not, and I would contend cannot be, rationally derived.
How can the irrational be conducive to our well-being? […] based within rational processes in spite of the irrational.
My argument here was not that the irrational is conducive to our well-being, but that our behavior and moral sensibilities are not and cannot presently be purely rational. It is not in our nature.
The mass of humanity at any given point and time have believed or acknowledged things as true that aren't, continuing even now under scientific scrutiny. The persistence of such things (religion for example) doesn't denote anything of epistimological value. So too for the given example. Persistence in nature is not necessarily an indicator of a positive trait. I could site detrimental mutations that occur that don't result in the death of a species but still yield a demonstrable negative effect on their standard of living.
I recognize that persistence does not make something a positive attribute. My point was that irrationality and emotion are not so detractive to human well-being that they were selected out by the natural course of evolution. Pure or even prevailing rationality is not only unnecessary for survival, but its tenuous influence upon human decision making indicates that it may not even be that terribly strong of a positive attribute.
This statement could be an ad-populum of a sort. If the Muslim god were real, but there were no Muslims, the Muslim god would still be real.
I fail to see how ad-populum applies; I am not appealing to the masses nor to popular sentiment or emotional appeal. My argument is that there is no evidence that pure rationalism is attainable, and that absent such a basis the subsequent conflation of morality and rationality is in error.
Varying points across the moral landscape In re: “Your argument would make sense if our internally-generated, objective moral projections ever truly and wholly aligned with our actual, intrinsic interests.”
I am unsure what you are getting at with this response.
I'm becoming a little wary of being Sam Harris heavy, but I agree whole-heatedly with him in that if morality deals with something other than well-being than it is a meaningless term.
Why? I am not familiar enough with Sam Harris to know the argument.
There will always be a valid discussion about what is or may not be in a self-interest. As flawed human beings in a flawed social dynamic, of course what we may perceive to be in a self-interest may indeed run contrary to it. But using it as a criterion for evaluating our decisions, we can reach greater levels of personal utility and understanding. And always underlying is the fact that there are actions that yield the maximal amount of benefit to our self-interest.
I would add that most actions are not purely beneficial or purely detrimental, but are more commonly a mix of costs and benefits. To agree with your statement here, though, there are absolutely instances when our perception does not match our genuine self-interest. That difference between perception and actuality is precisely my reason for rejecting a conception of morality derived from its self-interest utility. It seems to me that you are advocating for rationalism but attempting to call it by another name (i.e. morality). To me, it is more sensible to cut out morality as the middle-man and pursue reason as a means to its own ends.
I think the only thing we can denote about morality given its diversity is that mankind has an intrinsic want to determine morality, and even that is assumptive and subject to better explanations. & In case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean morality here in the general sense but in the specific context at hand.
It cannot be intrinsic to the human condition if there are people who do not want to determine morality. I am one of those people. I do not ascribe moral value to the people, objects, ideas, or events in my life.
I do not think that morality can be improved upon, made less assumptive or subject to better explanations, at least very effectively. Again, it makes more sense to me to abandon morality in preference of a better means and ends.
If morality deals with self-interest, and we can in any way determine that, than there are examples in which there are right and wrong actions, correct?
I believe my stance against this particular premise is quite clear from my above comments, yes? That being the case, to address this as if I did not dispute the premise:
My issue with “right” and “wrong” is that they inherently connote a judgment rather than a practical observation. We may give preference to something which is better, but I would contend that this is very different than choosing something because it is “right”.
Me using my brain (that he gave me ) to the best of my abilities to determine what is true and rational (that God probably doesn't exist and natural processes created life) is my fault?
God didn't give you your brain. Your parents did. Their decisions and genetic make up from many years of change have made you who you are. If that is the decision you make though, as an autonomic being, then yes your decision is in your control.
It's gods fault for not providing sufficient evidence to convince me and it's evil to expect me to defy my critical thinking skills in favor of blind faith and then punishing me for it.
The biggest evidence would probably be the fact that you exist.
Also you believe it's "evil" for God to expect you to defy your own "critical thinking skills"? Why? Replace "critical thinking skills" with naturalistic/observable knowledge and the entire situation changes. The religion is faith based. Jesus did say "Blessed are the ones who haven't seen him and believe". Also if God was to show you himself that would break his own belief of free will.
Also if God is omniscient then he preplanned my life so he knew before I was born that I wouldn't believe and by extent he designed me not to believe.
Here is the flaw in your argument. You are making assumptions on a quality of God that you cannot even fathom. How do you know God "preplanned" anything? That would require a flow of time, but God exists outside of time. Thus "preplanning" cannot occur. He mostly likely knew you wouldn't believe. Why should he be obligated to show you more about him if you don't make an effort to find him? Also, again, God didn't directly design you. You're simply a follow up of his initial creation. You're directly created by your mother and father. You are a perfectly functioning autonomous being. You can choose what you want.
That's like designing a car to drive on land and getting pissed at it when it can't fly or traverse water.
Yet God made you to do one thing and you decided to do another. Yeah, your analogy is perfect. It's just amazing.....
Your god is an idiot and an ass
I didn't know non-existent things could be asses or idiots.
I think that children need to receive a monthly or even a weekly allowance. This will be their first step to develop financially. But, when are kids ready? When children start expressing wants and can tell the difference between all kinds of coins and bills, they are old enough to begin receiving an allowance. Often, that is around preschool age. It's a good age, when they're forming their good habits. Some parents begin to give their sons an allowance when they are five. Parents don’t have to decide based on the child age. Their decision would rather be built on their kids ability to think of how to spend the money and when they know exactly what is in their hands.
Written contracts have their problems, but this approach seems even more problematic. For one, transcription is very time intensive and involved; contracting costs would jump, and even simple engagements would become cost prohibitive. More importantly, this alternative seems to assume that conversations will be more clear than the written contract which is not necessarily true. People walk away from verbal exchanges with different impressions of the conversation quite often, in no small part owing to the more casual nature and impreciseness of language used in verbal exchanges.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement