Tolerance and Belief

[yllus]

Hypothetical: Your wife and daughter are both dying of a disease. A curative drug exists, but since it lacks FDA approval it's illegal to use in the US. Does that law stop you from using it? Most people would say of course not. That shows that laws, in and of themselves, are subjective. Same situation, but now the drug costs $5,000 and you don't have it. Let's just assume for a moment that you try valiantly but cannot obtain the money you need. The only source of the drug is unwilling to provide it on your word of eventual payment. Would you steal it? Again, most people would agree that they must steal it in order to save the ones they loved...that life is more precious than money. So stealing is ok, sometimes...in other words, things are subjective. It's wrong to randomly kill people...yet if someone had murdered hitler in his youth, would the atrocities of the holocaust have occurred. Again, subjective. In your discussion of the rape, you assume that the individual has the cognitive and moral capacity to know right from wrong...not everyone does. There is an absolute physiological and psychological developmental requirement to such understandings.

I don't mean to speak in an inflammatory manner, but don't you find that to be a load of bullsh!t? It is wrong to randomly kill people, period. Since none (few?) or us possess the power of precognition, we don't need to worry about pre-judging a man for the death penalty. And then there's the speculation that things could have been even worse if there had not been a Third Reich.

One must now consider whether an individual has the capacity to recognize right from wrong before pronouncing an act right or wrong? In a rape case, at best that person would be in an institution for the rest of his days. How does this make the rape 'right' from the victim's perspective? I sorely doubt her perspective on the crime would differ depending upon whether her assailant was a high-functioning retard or a member of MENSA.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Answer the polls first and then read and answer the question.



1. Do you tolerate people who would have voted the opposite answer from the one you voted and do you tolerate their beliefs?
2. Do you believe those people and their beliefs should be tolerated?
3. Do you believe those people should tolerate you and your beliefs?

4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?
5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?

6. Which way(s) did you vote?

1 - 3) As many others have mentioned, I too can tolerate other people's views up until such point that they are trying to IMPOSE their views on me and/or others. Views that are NOT grounded in fact, logic, science, reason, knowledge, understanding, compassion, rationality, openess, reasonable freedoms, and liberty, should NOT be implemented into law and forced on others.

Views based soley, or almost entirely, on one's religious point of view should NOT be implemented into law, and I for one, will NOT tolerate such.

I LOVE how the fundamentalist religous whack jobs (you know who you are), regularly cry "YOU are oppressing us, by NOT allowing us to oppress and impose our religous views on you or others!!!"

4.) No. I do NOT believe in absolute right and wrong. There are only degrees. And trust me there are PLENTY of things which are 99.99999999% wrong! We live in a UNIVERSE of relatives and relativity. The entire physical universe is based on relativity. Unlike the black and white thinking of fundamentalists (and George Bush and the Sith - thanks Obi Wan - George Lucas - Episode III), there *IS* not absolute black and absolute white in the entire universe! A black hole is NOT 100% black. The whitest of white hot starts is NOT 100% white. These things do not exist in physical reality. For example. Murder is generally wrong. Cold blooded murder is very VERY wrong, but if you go to the house of someone who raped your child and kill them in a fit of rage, that is still wrong, but it is LESS wrong. Both should get you thrown in jail (one for life, the other perhaps significantly less).

5.) The basis of truth that I base right and wrong on is.... the teachings and indoctrination by men who I implicity trust as being experts on God, who are interpretting the rewriting and reinterpretations of other men over thousands of years, of men (who I also implicity trust) who wrote the words that GOD inspired them to write in exact detail as being his law and his WILL for all people in all times in all places for all eternity.

LOL. j/k

My basis of truth is a humanist philosophy that is rather complex (human beings, life, and our very reality being rather complex). In a nut shell it is doing that which brings the greatest good, happiness, health, contentment, productivity, protection, and progress to the individual and society as a whole. This would include things such as being ardent stewards of the environment, the biosphere, and the ecosystem, because humanity (and each of the points mentioned) relys GREATLY on these things remaining healthy and viable.

Protecting the environment isn't simply for the sake of nature! Nature *WILL* go on until our planet is consumed by an expanding sun in 4 billion years. It will go on WITHOUT humans here should we damage the environment to the point that we can no longer survive on the planet.

6.) The votes are irrelevant because they are TOO vague and leave way too much open to interpretation. I could put my votes and five paragraphs detailing the intracacies of each vote, but who wants to read THAT!

 

[Vic]

All Lucas proved in Ep3 was that he had dived right off the deep end. Definitely the worst of all the Star Wars movies. And yeah, I caught his little tidbit attempts of philosophy. Pathetic and out of context. A person's actions are not defined by their intentions but by the actions themselves. How hard is that to figure out? The Dark Side was evil, not from motive, but because its adherents committed evil acts. Vice versa the Good Side. Darth Vader was evil because he turned to murder. No other reason. It is the subjectivist argument that says that what he did was acceptable, because he believed that he murdered to save the life of his wife. Wait until your subjectivist philosophy leaves you with no recourse but physical force, and you interpret that as acceptable because it meets YOUR needs at the time (and "your needs" being all that is ever important to a subjectivist).
BTW, I love the ramblings from the subjectivists... very amusing. It's difficult to find truth when you say it doesn't exist, isn't it? Even if you murder the person who raped your child, it is still wrong, as that criminal should have been brought to the justice of a fair trial. You even admit it's wrong, but mumble on about "less wrong" and some such crap. Like I said, violence is the only recourse of the subjectivist... and why not? It's only less wrong, right?

 

[miketheidiot]

nef, nef, disagree, agree, agree, agree, nef, nef, nef

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic
All Lucas proved in Ep3 was that he had dived right off the deep end. Definitely the worst of all the Star Wars movies. And yeah, I caught his little tidbit attempts of philosophy. Pathetic and out of context. A person's actions are not defined by their intentions but by the actions themselves. How hard is that to figure out? The Dark Side was evil, not from motive, but because its adherents committed evil acts. Vice versa the Good Side. Darth Vader was evil because he turned to murder. No other reason. It is the subjectivist argument that says that what he did was acceptable, because he believed that he murdered to save the life of his wife. Wait until your subjectivist philosophy leaves you with no recourse but physical force, and you interpret that as acceptable because it meets YOUR needs at the time (and "your needs" being all that is ever important to a subjectivist).
BTW, I love the ramblings from the subjectivists... very amusing. It's difficult to find truth when you say it doesn't exist, isn't it? Even if you murder the person who raped your child, it is still wrong, as that criminal should have been brought to the justice of a fair trial. You even admit it's wrong, but mumble on about "less wrong" and some such crap. Like I said, violence is the only recourse of the subjectivist... and why not? It's only less wrong, right?

who gives a sh1t about the philosophy, the ligthsaber battles were the awesome

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: Vic
All Lucas proved in Ep3 was that he had dived right off the deep end. Definitely the worst of all the Star Wars movies. And yeah, I caught his little tidbit attempts of philosophy. Pathetic and out of context. A person's actions are not defined by their intentions but by the actions themselves. How hard is that to figure out? The Dark Side was evil, not from motive, but because its adherents committed evil acts. Vice versa the Good Side. Darth Vader was evil because he turned to murder. No other reason. It is the subjectivist argument that says that what he did was acceptable, because he believed that he murdered to save the life of his wife. Wait until your subjectivist philosophy leaves you with no recourse but physical force, and you interpret that as acceptable because it meets YOUR needs at the time (and "your needs" being all that is ever important to a subjectivist).
BTW, I love the ramblings from the subjectivists... very amusing. It's difficult to find truth when you say it doesn't exist, isn't it? Even if you murder the person who raped your child, it is still wrong, as that criminal should have been brought to the justice of a fair trial. You even admit it's wrong, but mumble on about "less wrong" and some such crap. Like I said, violence is the only recourse of the subjectivist... and why not? It's only less wrong, right?

Ha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Wooo Boy! That was rich.

I take it that "subjectivist" is the flip side of the "fundamentalist", and yet you claim that it is the "subjectivist" who's only recorse is VIOLENCE. OMG!! That is TOO damn funny.

Throughout human history it has almost always been the rigid, un-considering, irrational, I know absolute right and wrong, fundamentalist who has resorted to extreme acts of violence.

Who is saying actions are defined by intentions? Actions are what they are. Intentions may motivate actions but they don't define them. When Lucas had Anakin say "You're either with me or you are my enemy" (Bush reference), and Obi Wan replys "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" (Fundamentalist right wing reference), he wasn't commenting on the right or wrongness of Anakins actions considering his motivation (which was selfish - like fundamentalist beliefs - and ultimately self-fullfilling prophecy). He was saying Obi Wan can be against what Anakin is doing and where he is going and becoming, but STILL be for him as the person he's known and loved.

Bush stated countries around the world are either with the U.S. or against the U.S. That's bullshit! A country could be with us on the goal of eliminating terror and terrorists, but NOT with us on some or any of the actions we decided to take to accomplish that goal. But by the fundamentalist view of black or white thinking, a country cannot be with us unless they are COMPLETELY 100% with us in everything we do.

And it wasn't strictly Vader's actions that made him evil. It was also the motivations and giving into his baser instincts. Fear, greed, anger, hatred, pride, selfishness, etc...

And also, who is saying that TRUTH does not exist? I am saying there is no ABSOLUTE right and ABSOLUTE wrong. There are only degrees of right and wrong. Although some things can be 99.99999% Right or 99.99999% Wrong, and these things can be, and often are, relative to the immediate circumstances as well as the to the big picture. Occasionally things are 50/50.

It *IS* the fundamentalist, the black and white thinker, the I know absolute right and wrong thinker, who is the greatest danger to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I hear you, and you're largely right. It's the difference between relativism and commited relativism along a developmental model. However, better relativism than dualism in the grand scheme of things. Relativity requires a higher order of thinking than dualism...this is basic accepted fact of human psychology. In my experience those who cannot accept that have not reached that level of development yet. Graned, beyond relativity exists another level...but even at that level the subjectivity of experience remains accepted.

Hypothetical: Your wife and daughter are both dying of a disease. A curative drug exists, but since it lacks FDA approval it's illegal to use in the US. Does that law stop you from using it? Most people would say of course not. That shows that laws, in and of themselves, are subjective. Same situation, but now the drug costs $5,000 and you don't have it. Let's just assume for a moment that you try valiantly but cannot obtain the money you need. The only source of the drug is unwilling to provide it on your word of eventual payment. Would you steal it? Again, most people would agree that they must steal it in order to save the ones they loved...that life is more precious than money. So stealing is ok, sometimes...in other words, things are subjective. It's wrong to randomly kill people...yet if someone had murdered hitler in his youth, would the atrocities of the holocaust have occurred. Again, subjective. In your discussion of the rape, you assume that the individual has the cognitive and moral capacity to know right from wrong...not everyone does. There is an absolute physiological and psychological developmental requirement to such understandings.

What I'm getting at is that anything general you claim as absolute, can usually be altered through the application of specifics, and vice versa. It's funny how you talk about relativity being threatened by dualism, when even an entry developmental psych class will show beyond doubt that it's the opposite...that dualists are threatened by relativity. This then is the basic level of the fundamentalist.

You don't have to take my word for it of course...there is plenty of research into the field and I'd be happy to suggest some to you if you'd like.

No, all that shows is that Kant was the worst thing that ever happened to philosophy, and you're full of sh!t.

I'm not talking about philosophy, I'm talking about psychology, supported through a hundred years of empiracal research. Nearly every psychologist today, rather they prefer Perry, Erikson, Piaget, Gilligan, Kegan, Maslow etc, they'd all tell you that the ability to remain relative requires higher order thinking. I'm sorry that you lack the ability to understand this, but I'm certainly in no position to give you a lifetime of understanding in a few short paragraphs. Try going to school maybe, or living a little. I'm sure eventually you stand a very good chance of understanding. Read all you can, it's not too late, there's still much hope for you.

In the meantime I will pity you, and laugh when you think you've said something clever or important. And all the while everyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about psychology, life, thought, etc, we'll all sit here reading your posts and know what the truth is. Good luck to you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: yllus

Hypothetical: Your wife and daughter are both dying of a disease. A curative drug exists, but since it lacks FDA approval it's illegal to use in the US. Does that law stop you from using it? Most people would say of course not. That shows that laws, in and of themselves, are subjective. Same situation, but now the drug costs $5,000 and you don't have it. Let's just assume for a moment that you try valiantly but cannot obtain the money you need. The only source of the drug is unwilling to provide it on your word of eventual payment. Would you steal it? Again, most people would agree that they must steal it in order to save the ones they loved...that life is more precious than money. So stealing is ok, sometimes...in other words, things are subjective. It's wrong to randomly kill people...yet if someone had murdered hitler in his youth, would the atrocities of the holocaust have occurred. Again, subjective. In your discussion of the rape, you assume that the individual has the cognitive and moral capacity to know right from wrong...not everyone does. There is an absolute physiological and psychological developmental requirement to such understandings.

I don't mean to speak in an inflammatory manner, but don't you find that to be a load of bullsh!t? It is wrong to randomly kill people, period. Since none (few?) or us possess the power of precognition, we don't need to worry about pre-judging a man for the death penalty. And then there's the speculation that things could have been even worse if there had not been a Third Reich.

One must now consider whether an individual has the capacity to recognize right from wrong before pronouncing an act right or wrong? In a rape case, at best that person would be in an institution for the rest of his days. How does this make the rape 'right' from the victim's perspective? I sorely doubt her perspective on the crime would differ depending upon whether her assailant was a high-functioning retard or a member of MENSA.

So what you're saying is:

A. people DO have different perspectives, based on various factors, some of which phsyiological and unavoidable.

B. you think you can decide who's 'more right' in their functioning.

Now, I'm not advocating rape you understand, in fact I'd kill anyone who tried it. But I wouldn't be so ignorant or arrogant as to claim moral superiority while I did it. I'd just be acting out of my own levels of understanding to stop them in their levels of understanding. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just at conflict. And as to the victims perspective, well that's just a whole different subjective understanding of right and wrong, isn't it. After all maybe she'd try to kill the guy, or thank me for doing it, while someone who wasn't raped who didn't believe in harming others would consider the victim and I just as bad as the rapist. Perspective, subjectivity...that's the whole point I was trying to make and you're supporting it without even knowing you are.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't mean to speak in an inflammatory manner, but don't you find that to be a load of bullsh!t? It is wrong to randomly kill people, period. Since none (few?) or us possess the power of precognition, we don't need to worry about pre-judging a man for the death penalty. And then there's the speculation that things could have been even worse if there had not been a Third Reich.

One must now consider whether an individual has the capacity to recognize right from wrong before pronouncing an act right or wrong? In a rape case, at best that person would be in an institution for the rest of his days. How does this make the rape 'right' from the victim's perspective? I sorely doubt her perspective on the crime would differ depending upon whether her assailant was a high-functioning retard or a member of MENSA.

So what you're saying is:

A. people DO have different perspectives, based on various factors, some of which phsyiological and unavoidable.

B. you think you can decide who's 'more right' in their functioning.

Now, I'm not advocating rape you understand, in fact I'd kill anyone who tried it. But I wouldn't be so ignorant or arrogant as to claim moral superiority while I did it. I'd just be acting out of my own levels of understanding to stop them in their levels of understanding. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just at conflict. And as to the victims perspective, well that's just a whole different subjective understanding of right and wrong, isn't it. After all maybe she'd try to kill the guy, or thank me for doing it, while someone who wasn't raped who didn't believe in harming others would consider the victim and I just as bad as the rapist. Perspective, subjectivity...that's the whole point I was trying to make and you're supporting it without even knowing you are.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, you could say that our reverence for the sanctity of life is merely nothing more than an agreed-upon principle humans hold. Perhaps we may as well have decided that only dark-skinned people are worthy of living past age 20, or that all women are to be ritually gang-raped at their first flowering.

Personally, I think that without religious scripture to guide us... without the written word ever being used... without oral communication... Man would still find rape and murder 'wrong'. Certainly our basest animal instincts are set first and foremost towards the goal of survival, whether it be of body, mind or spirit (if only to reproduce and carry on the life shortly afterwards). The evolution of all living creatures towards an increased capacity for survival is a pretty good piece of evidence for this in my book.

I don't know where you're getting the scenario in which attempted rape must be repulsed or answered with lethal force - nobody has stated that should be the case. Even if it was the case (and the means of defence was not excessive), that would not be murder. That would be justifiable homicide in self-defence.

For a vast majority of the population, rape and murder being wrong aren't (or shouldn't be) two of those things that really need to be debated (and of course we realize that you're not advocating either of those things). That some small percentage of human beings may feel the complete opposite of this may be a perspective, sure, but the existence of that perspective because of brain chemistry gone bonkers doesn't turn that perspective into a basis for rape and/or murder being 'right'. It just means they're bonkers (to the rest of us 'normals' subjectively viewing his/her values, but backed up with evolutionary and population trends).

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: yllus
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, you could say that our reverence for the sanctity of life is merely nothing more than an agreed-upon principle humans hold. Perhaps we may as well have decided that only dark-skinned people are worthy of living past age 20, or that all women are to be ritually gang-raped at their first flowering.

Personally, I think that without religious scripture to guide us... without the written word ever being used... without oral communication... Man would still find rape and murder 'wrong'. Certainly our basest animal instincts are set first and foremost towards the goal of survival, whether it be of body, mind or spirit (if only to reproduce and carry on the life shortly afterwards). The evolution of all living creatures towards an increased capacity for survival is a pretty good piece of evidence for this in my book.

I don't know where you're getting the scenario in which attempted rape must be repulsed or answered with lethal force - nobody has stated that should be the case. Even if it was the case (and the means of defence was not excessive), that would not be murder. That would be justifiable homicide in self-defence.

For a vast majority of the population, rape and murder being wrong aren't (or shouldn't be) two of those things that really need to be debated (and of course we realize that you're not advocating either of those things). That some small percentage of human beings may feel the complete opposite of this may be a perspective, sure, but the existence of that perspective because of brain chemistry gone bonkers doesn't turn that perspective into a basis for rape and/or murder being 'right'. It just means they're bonkers (to the rest of us 'normals' subjectively viewing his/her values, but backed up with evolutionary and population trends).

LOL. Great points.

This reminds me of how much I LOVE the way some Christians INSIST that the American system of law and justice is based off their religion.

They are like... "Look! It says right here in the Bible, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. See. See!! Why do you think we have laws against MURDER! It's right there in the Bible. Now tell me we didn't get our laws from the God of the Bible!"

LOL! Yeah. See, if the Bible and the Ten Commandments NEVER existed, surely there would never have ever, in ANY society anywhere been laws against murder!

Makes perfect sense to me!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't mean to speak in an inflammatory manner, but don't you find that to be a load of bullsh!t? It is wrong to randomly kill people, period. Since none (few?) or us possess the power of precognition, we don't need to worry about pre-judging a man for the death penalty. And then there's the speculation that things could have been even worse if there had not been a Third Reich.

One must now consider whether an individual has the capacity to recognize right from wrong before pronouncing an act right or wrong? In a rape case, at best that person would be in an institution for the rest of his days. How does this make the rape 'right' from the victim's perspective? I sorely doubt her perspective on the crime would differ depending upon whether her assailant was a high-functioning retard or a member of MENSA.

So what you're saying is:

A. people DO have different perspectives, based on various factors, some of which phsyiological and unavoidable.

B. you think you can decide who's 'more right' in their functioning.

Now, I'm not advocating rape you understand, in fact I'd kill anyone who tried it. But I wouldn't be so ignorant or arrogant as to claim moral superiority while I did it. I'd just be acting out of my own levels of understanding to stop them in their levels of understanding. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just at conflict. And as to the victims perspective, well that's just a whole different subjective understanding of right and wrong, isn't it. After all maybe she'd try to kill the guy, or thank me for doing it, while someone who wasn't raped who didn't believe in harming others would consider the victim and I just as bad as the rapist. Perspective, subjectivity...that's the whole point I was trying to make and you're supporting it without even knowing you are.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, you could say that our reverence for the sanctity of life is merely nothing more than an agreed-upon principle humans hold. Perhaps we may as well have decided that only dark-skinned people are worthy of living past age 20, or that all women are to be ritually gang-raped at their first flowering.

Personally, I think that without religious scripture to guide us... without the written word ever being used... without oral communication... Man would still find rape and murder 'wrong'. Certainly our basest animal instincts are set first and foremost towards the goal of survival, whether it be of body, mind or spirit (if only to reproduce and carry on the life shortly afterwards). The evolution of all living creatures towards an increased capacity for survival is a pretty good piece of evidence for this in my book.

I don't know where you're getting the scenario in which attempted rape must be repulsed or answered with lethal force - nobody has stated that should be the case. Even if it was the case (and the means of defence was not excessive), that would not be murder. That would be justifiable homicide in self-defence.

For a vast majority of the population, rape and murder being wrong aren't (or shouldn't be) two of those things that really need to be debated (and of course we realize that you're not advocating either of those things). That some small percentage of human beings may feel the complete opposite of this may be a perspective, sure, but the existence of that perspective because of brain chemistry gone bonkers doesn't turn that perspective into a basis for rape and/or murder being 'right'. It just means they're bonkers (to the rest of us 'normals' subjectively viewing his/her values, but backed up with evolutionary and population trends).

My fear is that people begin to view 'normalcy' as 'right', and that's dangerous. Upon what do we base our determinations? Not everyone believes in God, so it cannot be religious in nature. Laws are fallable, as is often proven. Opinions vary, experience is subjected, times chage, etc. Capitalism is 'normal' but is it 'right'? Only 1-3% of the population have the INFP personality type, but does that make them 'wrong'? Homosexuality, civic duty, marriage constraints...how many examples are there of morality/lawful overlap with personal opinion? We must be very VERY careful in these areas.

Dualism, the belief that things are black and white, right or wrong, leads to very dangerous times. Relativity, acceptance, growth, understanding...these things lead to harmony. That's not to discount commited relativism, which is an even higher stage of development where an individual can commit to an idea without losing the relativistic perspective. The problem is that it's easy to confuse commited relativism and dualism, especially to a dualist (and there are MANY more dualists than commited relativists).

 

[Vic]

Whee... I love the use of strawman and ad hominem to prove your points. Great work. :roll:

The Bible does not determine right, wrong, or morality, nor is it the cause of those things, nor did I ever say such a thing. Psychology does not determine those things either, it serves only to probe the mental states of humans. Philosophy does determine those things, it serves to understand the human condition, and from that to establish morality. What we are discussing is morality.
Wrong is harm, i.e. the violation of the rights of the individual. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. This is the long established basis of morality, MUCH older than the Bible. When one person violates the rights of the other, the perspective of the violator is irrelevant. What is relevant is the damage done to the individual who was harmed. An absolute exists in the fact that harm was done -- that is not a relevative -- it either IS, or is NOT.
Your arrogance and pity are of no avail. Your standpoint is that you can do whatever you want, violate the rights of as many as you want, and so long as you personally feel that your violations were necessary as the means to your ends, then you are justified and everyone else is simply misguided. It is I who pity you, as your morality is no better than a criminal who feels that stealing to feed himself is perfectly right even though jobs exist so that he could work for his living.
Force? When you are subjectively "right" and everyone else is simply misguided, then any force you feel necessary is appropriate, so long as it works towards towards your subjective opinion of rightness. As you are "right" and they are "wrong," no level of rational communication will be possible between you and them, and thus force will be your only recourse.
Your strawman occurred when you assumed that I subscribed to the fundamentalist or intrinsic view of morality. That is a whole other form of evil, when a person believes that the concepts of right and wrong exist outside the human mind, no amount of bloodshed is sufficient in the protection of that ideal. Don't get me started on that.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee... I love the use of strawman and ad hominem to prove your points. Great work. :roll:

The Bible does not determine right, wrong, or morality, nor is it the cause of those things, nor did I ever say such a thing. Psychology does not determine those things either, it serves only to probe the mental states of humans. Philosophy does determine those things, it serves to understand the human condition, and from that to establish morality. What we are discussing is morality.
Wrong is harm, i.e. the violation of the rights of the individual. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. This is the long established basis of morality, MUCH older than the Bible. When one person violates the rights of the other, the perspective of the violator is irrelevant. What is relevant is the damage done to the individual who was harmed. An absolute exists in the fact that harm was done -- that is not a relevative -- it either IS, or is NOT.
Your arrogance and pity are of no avail. Your standpoint is that you can do whatever you want, violate the rights of as many as you want, and so long as you personally feel that your violations were necessary as the means to your ends, then you are justified and everyone else is simply misguided. It is I who pity you, as your morality is no better than a criminal who feels that stealing to feed himself is perfectly right even though jobs exist so that he could work for his living.
Force? When you are subjectively "right" and everyone else is simply misguided, then any force you feel necessary is appropriate, so long as it works towards towards your subjective opinion of rightness. As you are "right" and they are "wrong," no level of rational communication will be possible between you and them, and thus force will be your only recourse.
Your strawman occurred when you assumed that I subscribed to the fundamentalist or intrinsic view of morality. That is a whole other form of evil, when a person believes that the concepts of right and wrong exist outside the human mind, no amount of bloodshed is sufficient in the protection of that ideal. Don't get me started on that.

In a Society based off Justice, it doesn't matter what the Morals of the Victim or Perpetrator are. It is only the Morals of the Justice system that ultimately decides the Wrong or Degree of Wrong.

Let's use the example of a Pizza that is stolen:

1) Victim Pizza Shop owner/chef
2) Pepperoni Pizza stolen

3) 2 different Perpetrators:
a) A successful person, can afford Pizza, but sees the Owner/Chef not looking and takes the Pizza
b) A Homeless Person that hasn't eaten in days with no to little help to be found, sees the Owner/Chef not looking and takes the Pizza

Both Perpetrators have stolen the Property of the Victim, but are the Actions of the 2 Perpetrators Equal? To the Victim they are, but to Justice I'd say No they are not. Perpetrator a was motivated purely by Greed, Opportunity, and perhaps Sloth or other motivations. Pepetrator b was motivated Primarily by Hunger and Need. Using the Motivation of the 2 Perpetrators the Court can find appropriate Actions to take for both. Perp a should be made into an example, perhaps Community Work, letter of apology and Payment to Victim, permanent Record. Perp b would likely get much the same, but perhaps forced to Live in a Halfway House or Social Housing and have to report to a Welfare Worker every set period of time for a period of time.

Certainly you could force Perp b to do the same things as Perp a, such as payback the Pizza, but ultimately what good would come from that? Perp b would still be motivated by Hunger and would likely Steal again due to that Motivation.

 

[Vic]

All the analogy of the homeless perpetrator does is vindicate the use of physical force and the violation of the victim's (pizza shop owner's) rights. As I said, in moral justice, the perspective of the rights violator, once his guilt has been firmly established, is irrelevent. All that matters is the perspective of the individual whose rights have been violated. This is morals. To judge otherwise is to behave immorally with regard to the victim. Whether he was victimized by a rich man or a poor man, it was not his fault.

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In the meantime I will pity you, and laugh when you think you've said something clever or important. And all the while everyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about psychology, life, thought, etc, we'll all sit here reading your posts and know what the truth is. Good luck to you.

I find this amusing. Translated, it means, "I'm a member of the thieves' club, and we all know you're not." Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee... I love the use of strawman and ad hominem to prove your points. Great work. :roll:

The Bible does not determine right, wrong, or morality, nor is it the cause of those things, nor did I ever say such a thing. Psychology does not determine those things either, it serves only to probe the mental states of humans. Philosophy does determine those things, it serves to understand the human condition, and from that to establish morality. What we are discussing is morality.
Wrong is harm, i.e. the violation of the rights of the individual. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. This is the long established basis of morality, MUCH older than the Bible. When one person violates the rights of the other, the perspective of the violator is irrelevant. What is relevant is the damage done to the individual who was harmed. An absolute exists in the fact that harm was done -- that is not a relevative -- it either IS, or is NOT.
Your arrogance and pity are of no avail. Your standpoint is that you can do whatever you want, violate the rights of as many as you want, and so long as you personally feel that your violations were necessary as the means to your ends, then you are justified and everyone else is simply misguided. It is I who pity you, as your morality is no better than a criminal who feels that stealing to feed himself is perfectly right even though jobs exist so that he could work for his living.
Force? When you are subjectively "right" and everyone else is simply misguided, then any force you feel necessary is appropriate, so long as it works towards towards your subjective opinion of rightness. As you are "right" and they are "wrong," no level of rational communication will be possible between you and them, and thus force will be your only recourse.
Your strawman occurred when you assumed that I subscribed to the fundamentalist or intrinsic view of morality. That is a whole other form of evil, when a person believes that the concepts of right and wrong exist outside the human mind, no amount of bloodshed is sufficient in the protection of that ideal. Don't get me started on that.

Actually morality is VERY MUCH a part of psychology...not only abnormal but developmental. Read Gilligan, read Kohlberg...hell even Piaget touches on it and he's the standard. You could check Smetana and Turiel too, but they're more sociologic than psyhologically based. Still, what is sociology but the extended psychology of the masses.

As to your definitions, does intent play in? Is it ever circumstantial? If you're so absolutely sure of these things then why aren't you the world-reknowned expert on morality? Where are your books? Where's your Nobel prize? If it's so simple then why has mankind been debating it for thousands upon thousands of years without success? Are you the greatest mind ever? More knowledgable and wise than every other human that's ever lived? If so, please tell us. If morality is so cut and dry why is ther war? Why is there suffering? Why doesn't everyone get it?

I aboslutely never said that I could violate any rights I wanted...YOU said that. YOU projected your evaluation of relativity upon me. Unfortunately you don't have any background knowledge about what you're discussing. You're projecting from ignorance. I DARE you to provide science backing for your statements. Show me where these facts are so that the world may benefit from them. I continuously list support for my claims. You ignore it. In my opinion you ignore it because you are incapable of accepting that you may not be right, that the world may be more than black or white. So all you can do is demonize me, telling the world that I said what I did not say, and claiming that I will commit evil because I see things different than you. Hell, you'd make a great president of America.

Again, quit talking out your a$$ and provide me proof. I want to know what upper division psychology course support your theses, complete with the research scientists who provided the background studies. Give me data, give me names, give me theory names. Show me that you have a clue.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic
All the analogy of the homeless perpetrator does is vindicate the use of physical force and the violation of the victim's (pizza shop owner's) rights. As I said, in moral justice, the perspective of the rights violator, once his guilt has been firmly established, is irrelevent. All that matters is the perspective of the individual whose rights have been violated. This is morals. To judge otherwise is to behave immorally with regard to the victim. Whether he was victimized by a rich man or a poor man, it was not his fault.

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In the meantime I will pity you, and laugh when you think you've said something clever or important. And all the while everyone who actually knows anything whatsoever about psychology, life, thought, etc, we'll all sit here reading your posts and know what the truth is. Good luck to you.

I find this amusing. Translated, it means, "I'm a member of the thieves' club, and we all know you're not." Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

Still waiting to know upon who's great wisdom you base your claims. I have provided a body of evidence that fills the work of an entire century and multiple disciplines....so far you've said "I'm right, you're wrong, so there." Not real impressed here.

 

[Vic]

If morality is so cut and dry why is ther war? Why is there suffering? Why doesn't everyone get it?

Simple. Because most everyone believes as you do, in some fashion or another. And they want to continue believing that way, because it alleviates their conscience of all their immoralities. Deep down, everyone knows that morality is cut and dry, that it is wrong to harm innocent people regardless of the justifications, but they have no desire to stop doing so, and so they run to whatever doctrine will apologize for them, that they are merely taking what should have been given in the first place, that they are punishing "evil-doers" whose only "crime" was non-conformity, or that they are "protecting freedom" as they rush out to attack other lands and force them to change their politics.
My sources? They're contained in every major religion on earth. Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Mohammed, etc. Modern philosophers who adhere to this type of moral objectivism usually don't get published, or are reviled, for the reasons I explained above.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Still waiting to know upon who's great wisdom you base your claims. I have provided a body of evidence that fills the work of an entire century and multiple disciplines....so far you've said "I'm right, you're wrong, so there." Not real impressed here.

Text, definition (ii)

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic
Deep down, everyone knows that morality is cut and dry

Proof?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic
Deep down, everyone knows that morality is cut and dry

Proof?

Do you think that the homeless person (in the above analogy) feels happiness when he steals for his subsistence, or pain?
Do you not think that the difference between life and death is an absolute, a "white" and a "black", or do you believe that is there some "gray" in-between (that the rest of us don't know about)? When subjectivists say that absolutes are an evil, are they not saying that the absolute reality of death is an evil, and thus declaring reality itself to be an evil?
Hypothetically, if someone were to murder YOU, would you argue that that hypothetical situation would not be an absolute evil?

More to the point, do you not believe in right and wrong, or do you simply do whatever it is that you can get away with?

I'm not going drop names, or waste time digging up sources. This is an internet message board, not a college paper. The "experts" are not in consensus on this topic, so I'm not going to make this a "battle of the experts," but let my argument speak for itself.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic
Deep down, everyone knows that morality is cut and dry

Proof?

Do you think that the homeless person (in the above analogy) feels happiness when he steals for his subsistence, or pain?

I'm not sure what my beliefs have to do with EVERYONE knowing that morality is cut and dry, which is your claim. Me and a billion other people could think so, but that's not proof everyone does.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'm not sure what my beliefs have to do with EVERYONE knowing that morality is cut and dry, which is your claim. Me and a billion other people could think so, but that's not proof everyone does.

Well, if you're going to pick apart something trivial like that and not my actual argument, I will concede that "everyone" was an improper choice of words. There are plenty of psychopaths in this world.

 

[Ozoned]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Well, The moral foundation built by our society, of course.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic
Deep down, everyone knows that morality is cut and dry

Proof?

Do you think that the homeless person (in the above analogy) feels happiness when he steals for his subsistence, or pain?
Do you not think that the difference between life and death is an absolute, a "white" and a "black", or do you believe that is there some "gray" in-between (that the rest of us don't know about)?

Depends on how you define life and death and wether you believe in existance before or after death. Your molecules and atoms existed prior to your existance and will continue to exist LONG after you have passed on (who knows what great and wonderous adventures they might have! Theologians would say that one's spirit DOES continue on after it's inhabitance of the physical body here on Earth. There are even some scientific theories related to time that suggest that one's existance is a continum in time that always exists. Others that suggest that there are an infinite number of realities where one's life is ever so slightly different in each one (some where you would NOT be dead). Of course, the person who's life it is at the time, DOES in fact care in the here and now, so it's black and white to them, for sure. PURE Black and White DOES exist as a concept but not necessarily as a reality. Reality knows only shades of grey.

An embryo never really knows or cares that it didn't live a full human life (with all it's joys and extraordinary pains), and if you're relgious doesn't God "pardon" those souls of the aborted (so they don't have to have PROVEN themselves as beliving in Jesus dying for their sins?) Won't God send them back to another body (who he would use procognition to know that it would be born)?

I do find it laughable how the ultra religious are *SO* afraid of death (more-so seemingly then the less religious), and yet THEY are the ones who are SURE of the afterlife. Thing is, THAT is why they are SO religious in the first place. That FEAR. Fear of death. It SUCKS to know you are going to die and nobody wants to die (well most don't). But it's something you worry about NOW. When you ARE dead, you really won't care, now will you. If there is nothing, it's not going to bother you. If there is an afterlife, then you can deal with it after you've passed on, why obsess over it now!

It's even more laughable. Actually more sad and repugnant that these SAME fundamentalists are the first to want the death penalty meted out. They will work their A$$es off trying to convince people to accept their relgion so that they will go to heavan and not burn eternally in hell, BUT then want to make sure that someone convicted of a heinous crime cannot spend life in jail and hopefully come to agree with their religion so that THEY could go to heaven. Do they NOT want such a heinous person in heaven with them? Well, what of those that DO accept Jesus prior to the gallows? You're going to have to bump into THEM there. Maybe JESUS will be pissed Mr. Evangelical Death Penalty Supporter that you didn't give Joe Child-Killer the 50 years in prison he needed to accept Jesus as his personal savior before death. Maybe it is YOU he'll be casting into a Lake of Fire.

The TRULY moral do what is right OUTSIDE of any religious mandate or proscriptions. They do it, because it *IS* right (in the relativistic time, place, circumstance, etc...).

I *for one* am NOT a law abiding citizen. It sure looks like I am. But that's only because 99.99% of the time the LAW fits my principals and understanding of right and wrong (which does in fact ever so slightly adjust as the time, place and circumstance dictate). When the law violates my principals I *WILL* (if I can't change it in a timely manner) break it if I can (e.g. if I can afford the risk of doing so vs. the power of the principal). Laws (like religion) are for those who don't have their own very good internal compass for determining right and wrong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Still waiting to know upon who's great wisdom you base your claims. I have provided a body of evidence that fills the work of an entire century and multiple disciplines....so far you've said "I'm right, you're wrong, so there." Not real impressed here.

Text, definition (ii)

So allow me to sum up everything you've said here, for the benefit of those who haven't followed it all.

Everyone in the known world is wrong, Vic is right. There is no reason for his rightness, he merely is right because he is. Throw out all books, all knowledge, all science, all observation, all difference, all government, all meaning...it's all crap, Vic is right. That about cover the logic of your argument there Vic?

Everyone leave school. Burn all knowledge. Unplug the internet. Nothing learnable is correct. Vic has decreed it so. Stop thinking, there's no point to it. Everybody go home. Turn out the lights and wait to die.

hmmmm, no thanks Vic, I think I'll continue to be one of those that learns and grows and develops and thinks. But thanks anyway.