AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Grind. Why do you support legislating subjective morality such as anti-theft or murder laws?
For Grind : Reraking Old Coals
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
I am on record as saying that I am on the fence with regards to these matters. I'm still in the process of resisting all my socially instilled values and trying to look at it objectively, but such things aren't a light switch, they take time. I'll probably get there soon enough.
Also I am more partial to negative rights.
Also I am more partial to negative rights.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Why resist your values? To resist is to become dissatisfied, to introduce malcontent in your life. Why not observe them and see them for what they are? That is instilled values that came from without, not within. Observe them and see where they tug you, but accept that they are another entity, a perceived self. What do you, Grind, find truth in. Ditch the phantoms.
beefy seriously shut the fuck up with the fairy talk.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Fairy talk? Why not read what I wrote, accept that I wrote it, agree or disagree as you must, and move on? What's with this fairy talk business?
I read it. I disagree. I think what you said is crap. Ta.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
OK, a few questions to help you with your analysis....
What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?
Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?
Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?
Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?
Am not looking for a confrontational argument, just a chat, as morality and legislation seems to be an interest we both have.....
What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?
Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?
Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?
Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?
Am not looking for a confrontational argument, just a chat, as morality and legislation seems to be an interest we both have.....
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Doesn't society always exist, no matter the form it takes ?
Not really. The definition of society means that it is cohesive and organised.
You could perhaps stretch the definition so that the smallest unit that could be deemed society would be the family, but we all know how unstable, uncohesive and disorganised families can be.
Non-existence of society would, essentiall, be anarchy....
Not really. The definition of society means that it is cohesive and organised.
You could perhaps stretch the definition so that the smallest unit that could be deemed society would be the family, but we all know how unstable, uncohesive and disorganised families can be.
Non-existence of society would, essentiall, be anarchy....
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Agreed. Society can indeed break down -- or become so dysfunctional as to make the question moot. We've seen it recently in Somalia, parts of Afghanistan, and various regions of sub-Saharan Africa.
I don't believe in (objective) morality. What we see as morality is a large collective determining what is right. I don't think that is right. If you allow for the possability for 51% of the people to rule the 49%, that is no society I want to be a part of.
I happen to like some of the benefits of social morality, but am I ready to force that on others? No. At the very least there has to be a suitable escape for those that do not wish to comply with society's arbitrary standards.
I'm not sure, but more importantly, I don't really care.
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
So, the High and Mighty Grind passes judgment and says the human species doesn't deserve to survive, eh?
It doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't stool though. Which was my point.
"So, the High and Mighty Grind passes judgment and says the human species doesn't deserve to survive, eh?"
If we fail it's all our fault not just my own will.
If we fail it's all our fault not just my own will.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yeah but whether the soicety sucks or not , it is still a society ?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
My point, such as it was, was simply that your definition of failure seems both impractical and highly idiosyncratic.
You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences. You don't like paying your taxes and therefore you conclude that taxation is no different from theft, for example.
By your own standards, you've made yourself the philosophical equivalent of a lone neanderthal waving a spear and cursing the rising cro magnon tide. Seems a bit self-defeating to me.
