Moderator: Dictators in Training
Yamori wrote:I've given the basis for my secular morality in multiple threads. I think it is at least as viable, if not more so, than depending on a big man in the sky for your basis of how to behave.
You can also look at thinkers like (as much as I dislike them) Kant, Mill, and Aristotle (he's ok) for a viable secular morality. One is based off of the basis of reason (at least as Kant sees it), the other two off the basis of happiness. Two real enough things that exist in the world.
mofish wrote:xaoshaen wrote:Claiming that a divine figure "obviously doesn't exist" only weakens your position. Any logician could warn you about the perils of attempting to prove a negative.
You cant even come within a mile of any sort of proof of the existence of the christian God.
Yahweh makes no sense. He is not all-loving, all-knowing, or all-powerful.
Yes, I think I can easily say that Yahweh obviously doesnt exist. And my morality and sense of right and wrong stem from this tooth fairy, this biblical santa clause? No, they dont.
It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.
xaoshaen wrote:It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.
xaoshaen wrote:I advise you not to call anyone else condescending after that bit of prose. Feel free to disprove the existence of YHWH then. We'll be waiting.
Yamori wrote:It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.
Reason has one correct path. Whatever morality comes from that correct path, that is the absolute morality.
Someone else could decide to act violently, but it wouldn't have equal legitimacy with the truth.
That makes human beings' emotions and decision making processes unstable, not morality.
Tikker wrote:xaoshaen wrote:I advise you not to call anyone else condescending after that bit of prose. Feel free to disprove the existence of YHWH then. We'll be waiting.
Prove his existence. We'll be waiting.
Morals, when it comes down to it, just is about whether or not an action makes you feel bad afterwards
Really? Both Natural Deduction and Gentzen systems indicate otherwise. Which branch of logical reasoning posits a single correct path and single correct result, specifically given seven billion unique sets of initial conditions?
Bullshit. Pure, cold reason frequently supports the use of violence. It's human emotion that generally clamors against the employment of force.
Yamori wrote:Really? Both Natural Deduction and Gentzen systems indicate otherwise. Which branch of logical reasoning posits a single correct path and single correct result, specifically given seven billion unique sets of initial conditions?
There are two kinds of reason: correctly finishing a line of thought with pre-existing and pre-assumed fundamentals and basis - and correctly determining what the correct fundamentals and basis are for the particular problem. While the former has an infinite number of possibilities - and most people can do this part fairly well, when it comes to dealing with the latter, there is only one correct answer - and that will lead you to the correct line of reasoning. For example, the two basic fundamentals that are blatantly obvious are that existence exists, and that you as an individual exist. If you were to try reasoning without the correct fundamentals, no matter how accurate your logic might be, it would still be wrong.
Thats why Hitler can correctly be called a highly logical man in some sense, but he was still horribly incorrect on a deeper level. He had incorrect fundamentals, but acted on them with logical efficiency.
Really? Mine never has, except for instances where violence is used against me. I guess you're just a sociopath.
Yamori wrote:Um, no. Aside from situations where violence is initiated by the other party, violence shouldn't be used.
Yamori wrote:Um, no. Aside from situations where violence is initiated by the other party, violence shouldn't be used.
Tuggan wrote:Harrison wrote:Xaoshen is fucking shitting on all of you.
have you found a new guy to latch onto harry? the return of your "yeah yeah's, what he said"?
Tuggan wrote:have you found a new guy to latch onto harry? the return of your "yeah yeah's, what he said"?
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Return to Namelesstavern's Finest
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest