Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people feel it's good to be able to go beat other people up. If we're going to look at it from a purely evolutionary point of view, the fittest would survive -- so that would be a good thing.
OK...so you think your system is best. Great. Now explain why it is anything more than your opinion.
There's your mistake. Evolution doesn't allow the fittest to survive, but the most "adaptable". If one cannot adapt to changes in attitudes and societal needs, they will not survive as well as others, regardless of their fitness. This is how morality changes.
Now explain why it is anything more than your opinion.
Is there something wrong with people having an opinion on what's moral?
Let's see.... who are some of the groups that took away people's opinions and told them they had to follow along and do as they were told? The fascists, the Nazis and the commies! I've thought for a long time that fundamentalists are very comfy using totalitarian tactics. So far nothing in this thread is dissuading me from that belief.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-20-2014 at 12:54 PM..
Without the Bible or moral law, people operate according to their best self interests and desires. Most people wouldn't go out and commit murder because you have to be either demon possessed or mentally ill to take pleasure in hurting other people. Most people including myself will go out of their way to avoid violence, not cause it.
As far as stealing, I wonder just how well your argument would hold up if you remove the fear of consequences. For example, the fear of consequences was gone last week with the Missouri riots so American citizens robbed businesses in their own neighborhood, greedily taking away from hard working people.
If you think that is an isolated case then look at the problem of piracy. Millions of movies and songs have been downloaded without paying for it because there is no fear of consequence. That's stealing according to the copyright owners.
So you imply that the uprising was merely incidental disregard for law and morality? If so, then that in itself is purely immoral, in light if the anguish triggered by the police officers disregard as a civil servant, for the preservation of the life of a young black man. Regardless of the looters reactions or a young man's past, Two wrongs don't add up to right. Or inline with this thread, morality.
Some people feel it's good to be able to go beat other people up.
Outliers that do not matter. I addressed that earlier. Plus that is addressed by the theory I advance. It is "do no harm". You are twisting it into a straw man and attacking "do what I claim is good".
If you want to attack my proposed system of morality, please do so. Don't attack something that I never proposed and attribute it to me.
Quote:
If we're going to look at it from a purely evolutionary point of view, the fittest would survive -- so that would be a good thing.
Once again you are attacking a straw man caricature. Fit can include cooperation. Cooperation includes doing no harm and empathy.
Quote:
OK...so you think your system is best. Great. Now explain why it is anything more than your opinion.
Sigh. Once again, because my opinion is reflected in reality. We currently function this way.
If you want to act like a three year old and constantly repeat "why", I can simply say because. I am not doing that, I ask your respect in refraining as well.
We don't live in a theocracy or stone people to death for their wrongdoings. We have laws against assault and battery, and most people abide by the laws of our country. I'm well within my legal rights not to believe in god, without the fear of being stoned to death for blasphemy.
Vizio, please let's not play cute, because, you ain't.
The qualifier is:
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
Of course, the person whose system of morality is anti-social, has never been stopped by silly things like rules, or commandments, has he.
Does that make him right? Of course not, nor does it make him moral.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
And you continue doing it, then you are not moral.
See, it works. Every time.
Sorry, I'm quite confident that your black and white system would quickly meet gray areas. For one thing, define "harm". Only causing physical pain? In that case, it would be immoral to spank your children. Does it include emotional distress? In that case, it would be immoral to stop your child from doing something they wanted.
Then you have conflicts of two harms. Abortion is harmful. You are ending a life and causing the mother emotional distress vs the harm of denying a woman the freedom to choose. Hey let's bring back prohibition since alcohol is quite harmful as well.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sorry, I'm quite confident that your black and white system would quickly meet gray areas. For one thing, define "harm". Only causing physical pain? In that case, it would be immoral to spank your children. Does it include emotional distress? In that case, it would be immoral to stop your child from doing something they wanted.
Then you have conflicts of two harms. Abortion is harmful. You are ending a life and causing the mother emotional distress vs the harm of denying a woman the freedom to choose. Hey let's bring back prohibition since alcohol is quite harmful as well.
Sorry it don't work.
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't
It works much better than the ten commandments, which many christians hold up as the definitive yardstick for morality.
The first four are the result of an egomaniacal and narcissistic invisible entity saying "I am the greatest, you will worship me or else".
Those four are totally unrelated to anything moral, so we can discount them right away
The fifth one, to honour one's parents, is on the surface, not a bad commandment, but my construct covers it just as well. However, it is applicable only if the second part of my construct is applied by the parents. If they abuse you, don't allow vaccinations or other proper medical care, deny you the essentials of life, then you it would be insanity to insist that commandment be adhered to. Any god insisting on it is not worth worshiping.
Six,seven, eight and nine are amply covered by my construct. In fact, it nails it.
Number ten is sort of a wishwashy one, basically saying don't be jealous, and jealously, of course, would harm you, so again, my construct covers it.
So you see, the ten commandments are not as useful as the construct I have presented.
Mine covers things like: slavery, torture, bodily harm, deceit, bribery, coercion, usurpation, etc. The ten commandments are rather silent on those issues.
So, if you want to live morally, get rid of those stupid and useless ten commandments, and instead, live by and spread the gospel of:
Is there something wrong with people having an opinion on what's moral?
If it's just your opinion, then you have no authority over anyone else.
Quote:
Let's see.... who are some of the groups that took away people's opinions and told them they had to follow along and do as they were told? The fascists, the Nazis and the commies! I've thought for a long time that fundamentalists are very comfy using totalitarian tactics. So far nothing in this thread is dissuading me from that belief.
So were the Nazis wrong? Can you use your opinion and judge them? They obviously had different ideas than you about right and wrong.
Outliers that do not matter. I addressed that earlier. Plus that is addressed by the theory I advance. It is "do no harm". You are twisting it into a straw man and attacking "do what I claim is good".
If you want to attack my proposed system of morality, please do so. Don't attack something that I never proposed and attribute it to me.
Once again you are attacking a straw man caricature. Fit can include cooperation. Cooperation includes doing no harm and empathy.
Sigh. Once again, because my opinion is reflected in reality. We currently function this way.
If you want to act like a three year old and constantly repeat "why", I can simply say because. I am not doing that, I ask your respect in refraining as well.
So you think it's good because it works? I demonstrated how your system doesn't always work. Yet...you have no answer for it.
Again....why should we accept your opinion as a basis for morality? I'm sorry if that tires you...when you either admit you have no answer, or you answer it, I'll stop.
It works much better than the ten commandments, which many christians hold up as the definitive yardstick for morality.
The first four are the result of an egomaniacal and narcissistic invisible entity saying "I am the greatest, you will worship me or else".
Those four are totally unrelated to anything moral, so we can discount them right away
The fifth one, to honour one's parents, is on the surface, not a bad commandment, but my construct covers it just as well. However, it is applicable only if the second part of my construct is applied by the parents. If they abuse you, don't allow vaccinations or other proper medical care, deny you the essentials of life, then you it would be insanity to insist that commandment be adhered to. Any god insisting on it is not worth worshiping.
Six,seven, eight and nine are amply covered by my construct. In fact, it nails it.
Number ten is sort of a wishwashy one, basically saying don't be jealous, and jealously, of course, would harm you, so again, my construct covers it.
So you see, the ten commandments are not as useful as the construct I have presented.
Mine covers things like: slavery, torture, bodily harm, deceit, bribery, coercion, usurpation, etc. The ten commandments are rather silent on those issues.
So, if you want to live morally, get rid of those stupid and useless ten commandments, and instead, live by and spread the gospel of:
If it feels good, do it.
If it harms you or someone else, don't.
Why should we accept your definition of morality?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
