|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2018 3:26:24 GMT
I do think you'd need studies to find out how much religiosity correlated with an action like helping others (which isn't uniquely religious, but is a common action religion promotes). Okay, so first, if we're saying that we're looking at "It's morally good to help others," as opposed to "it's morally good to not help others" (or any other option than simply "it's morally good to help others") then we need to actually specify that in an academic study, no? We can't just talk about "being moral" with an assumption that "it's morally good to help others" is what we're talking about, because that's not what morality is, and we'd be promoting a misconception of what morality is--and in an academic study no less--by doing that. We also can't just assume that people know this by mentioning religion. What religion(s) are we talking about? What are its tenets? (We need to specify that so that our assumptions can be looked at critically), etc. I think the confusion here is that the OP's link is to an article that's referencing several different studies on different subjects: one being about how mistrustful religious believers are of atheists, another being about how widespread it is for believers to act in contradiction to their religion’s tenets, and yet another about how in a situation where there's a choice of helping someone (taken from The Good Samaritan parable, so it's probably a safe assumption most Christians, at least, would deem helping the person to be moral), religiosity didn't correlate with the choice. It's really the article that's discussing morality in the context of these studies, rather than these studies claiming to be analyzing the morality of religious/non-religious behavior. In general, I'd be in agreement with you that if a study was going to study these things, then these things need to be specified and defined.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2018 3:26:58 GMT
I can't speak for all atheists--I'm sure many atheists believe that morality is objective and "'baked' into the fabric of reality" without the need for God to do it Yeah, why couldn't morality just be a natural property of actions, the way colour and density is a property of physical objects? I think Terrapin answered this question succinctly. This is really going to hinge on what you mean by "objective". I'd argue that evolution has programmed the human race to have certain baseline truths; suffering and pain is bad, pleasure and joy is good. There are exceptions even to that - sadists and masochists. But as a general rule they do hold. We also have a built in empathy for the emotions of other people - though again, that doesn't hold 100% as there are sociopaths and psychopaths, and even normal people empathise with those physically and emotionally close to them much more than they do with strangers. Indeed, as an aside I'd argue that the history of civilisation has been one of gradually extending the "us" group wider and wider. Anyway, the point is that these things are not simply arbitrary. It's not like a person just happens to wake up one morning and thinks "You know what? I think I'll consider pain bad from now on." Or "Hey, when I see somebody else badly hurt, I think I will choose to be upset about it." These things are deeply programmed into most people, for rather obvious evolutionary reasons. And I'd also argue that morality primarily stems from this; morality is about creating codes of behaviour that accord with our programmed instincts and which allow us to live together in a society. So the basis of morality does have an objective basis - not in the sense that it's baked into the universe, but rather that its baked into us as human beings. But there's also a TON of subjective interpretation built on top of that. What we would expect in the above model is that there are going to be some virtually universal moral precepts - don't murder, don't abuse children - but great variation in how they are applied and what the exact rules should be. And the further away you get from the basics, the more disagreement there will be. So for example we shouldn't kill one another - but what about self defence, what about capital punishment, what about abortion, what about war? And that's exactly what we do see happening. If morals were objective unalterable rules baked into the universe, then why is there all that disagreement? How can any two people possibly disagree on a fundamental moral principle? Look around you; does the world really look like there is universal agreement on all moral points? Of course not. The analogy I like to use is that morality is like diet. Which diet is best for you depends on what it is you're trying to achieve - a bodybuilder needs a different diet to a teacher, a child needs a different diet to an astronaut, a diabetic needs a different diet still. Yet there are objective facts about dieting; eating nothing but salt is bad for your health as an objective fact. Claiming that morality has to be an objective part of the structure of the universe or else it's useless, makes as much sense to me as claiming that "don't eat fatty food" must be an inherent part of the universe or else people can just eat anything without consequences. First, I'm just saying "morality is subjective" in the "it exists inside the mind" sense. So the way you draw the distinction is to ask: "does X exist if nobody is perceiving/thinking about it?" If yes, then it's objective (existing outside the mind). When you ask that of morality (as opposed to the sun), I think it's clearly a "no:" you need human minds in order to conceive of what's good and bad. Second, to say something is subjective (in the "inside the mind" sense) isn't to say that it occurs arbitrarily. Evolution would obviously favor organisms that desired to survive and reproduce (or, more specifically, to survive SO they could reproduce); and the desire to survive (and then the desire to live well over living poorly) is, indeed, the basis for most morality as those desires are nearly universal. However, these desires still occur inside the mind (are subjective) and, because they do, we are indeed capable of thinking differently. Indeed, people that commit suicide are a pretty typical example of those who've decided that death is better than surviving at all, and we’ve seen plenty of people throughout history that thought that murdering others (especially other groups) was also perfectly moral. To take your diet example, eating certain things will have certain effects on your health; that is an objective fact. However, it's entirely possible for someone to prefer, say, a life of indulging in foods that will shorten their life over a life of eating a diet they hate in order to live longer. There's no way to objectively say which of these choices (long life/yucky diet, shorter life/yummy diet) should be preferred. This is similar to what I mentioned about morality leading to different worlds where people behave differently, but people being free to prefer one world over another. I'm sure there are actually people who'd prefer a world without society, where life was an anarchic "survival of the fittest," and the only "morality" would be whatever an individual considered best for themselves. There's nothing to say someone preferring that is objectively immoral; merely that someone preferring that clashes with most people's preferences when it comes to what "world" they'd want to live and thus what morality they'd promote.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 11, 2018 4:12:14 GMT
Yeah, why couldn't morality just be a natural property of actions, the way colour and density is a property of physical objects? I think Terrapin answered this question succinctly. This is really going to hinge on what you mean by "objective". I'd argue that evolution has programmed the human race to have certain baseline truths; suffering and pain is bad, pleasure and joy is good. There are exceptions even to that - sadists and masochists. But as a general rule they do hold. We also have a built in empathy for the emotions of other people - though again, that doesn't hold 100% as there are sociopaths and psychopaths, and even normal people empathise with those physically and emotionally close to them much more than they do with strangers. Indeed, as an aside I'd argue that the history of civilisation has been one of gradually extending the "us" group wider and wider. Anyway, the point is that these things are not simply arbitrary. It's not like a person just happens to wake up one morning and thinks "You know what? I think I'll consider pain bad from now on." Or "Hey, when I see somebody else badly hurt, I think I will choose to be upset about it." These things are deeply programmed into most people, for rather obvious evolutionary reasons. And I'd also argue that morality primarily stems from this; morality is about creating codes of behaviour that accord with our programmed instincts and which allow us to live together in a society. So the basis of morality does have an objective basis - not in the sense that it's baked into the universe, but rather that its baked into us as human beings. But there's also a TON of subjective interpretation built on top of that. What we would expect in the above model is that there are going to be some virtually universal moral precepts - don't murder, don't abuse children - but great variation in how they are applied and what the exact rules should be. And the further away you get from the basics, the more disagreement there will be. So for example we shouldn't kill one another - but what about self defence, what about capital punishment, what about abortion, what about war? And that's exactly what we do see happening. If morals were objective unalterable rules baked into the universe, then why is there all that disagreement? How can any two people possibly disagree on a fundamental moral principle? Look around you; does the world really look like there is universal agreement on all moral points? Of course not. The analogy I like to use is that morality is like diet. Which diet is best for you depends on what it is you're trying to achieve - a bodybuilder needs a different diet to a teacher, a child needs a different diet to an astronaut, a diabetic needs a different diet still. Yet there are objective facts about dieting; eating nothing but salt is bad for your health as an objective fact. Claiming that morality has to be an objective part of the structure of the universe or else it's useless, makes as much sense to me as claiming that "don't eat fatty food" must be an inherent part of the universe or else people can just eat anything without consequences. First, I'm just saying "morality is subjective" in the "it exists inside the mind" sense. So the way you draw the distinction is to ask: "does X exist if nobody is perceiving/thinking about it?" If yes, then it's objective (existing outside the mind). When you ask that of morality (as opposed to the sun), I think it's clearly a "no:" you need human minds in order to conceive of what's good and bad. Second, to say something is subjective (in the "inside the mind" sense) isn't to say that it occurs arbitrarily. Evolution would obviously favor organisms that desired to survive and reproduce (or, more specifically, to survive SO they could reproduce); and the desire to survive (and then the desire to live well over living poorly) is, indeed, the basis for most morality as those desires are nearly universal. However, these desires still occur inside the mind (are subjective) and, because they do, we are indeed capable of thinking differently. Indeed, people that commit suicide are a pretty typical example of those who've decided that death is better than surviving at all, and we’ve seen plenty of people throughout history that thought that murdering others (especially other groups) was also perfectly moral. To take your diet example, eating certain things will have certain effects on your health; that is an objective fact. However, it's entirely possible for someone to prefer, say, a life of indulging in foods that will shorten their life over a life of eating a diet they hate in order to live longer. There's no way to objectively say which of these choices (long life/yucky diet, shorter life/yummy diet) should be preferred. This is similar to what I mentioned about morality leading to different worlds where people behave differently, but people being free to prefer one world over another. I'm sure there are actually people who'd prefer a world without society, where life was an anarchic "survival of the fittest," and the only "morality" would be whatever an individual considered best for themselves. There's nothing to say someone preferring that is objectively immoral; merely that someone preferring that clashes with most people's preferences when it comes to what "world" they'd want to live and thus what morality they'd promote. I was raised as a 'good Christian girl', and was taught that to be selfish is bad, and to be selfless, putting others' needs before my own, was good. Fortunately, as an adult I realized that there was something in between - self-preservation. I have never intentionally harmed anyone or any living thing. But my self-sacrificial days are over; I am finally taking care of myself. Is that moral or immoral?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2018 4:21:58 GMT
I think Terrapin answered this question succinctly. First, I'm just saying "morality is subjective" in the "it exists inside the mind" sense. So the way you draw the distinction is to ask: "does X exist if nobody is perceiving/thinking about it?" If yes, then it's objective (existing outside the mind). When you ask that of morality (as opposed to the sun), I think it's clearly a "no:" you need human minds in order to conceive of what's good and bad. Second, to say something is subjective (in the "inside the mind" sense) isn't to say that it occurs arbitrarily. Evolution would obviously favor organisms that desired to survive and reproduce (or, more specifically, to survive SO they could reproduce); and the desire to survive (and then the desire to live well over living poorly) is, indeed, the basis for most morality as those desires are nearly universal. However, these desires still occur inside the mind (are subjective) and, because they do, we are indeed capable of thinking differently. Indeed, people that commit suicide are a pretty typical example of those who've decided that death is better than surviving at all, and we’ve seen plenty of people throughout history that thought that murdering others (especially other groups) was also perfectly moral. To take your diet example, eating certain things will have certain effects on your health; that is an objective fact. However, it's entirely possible for someone to prefer, say, a life of indulging in foods that will shorten their life over a life of eating a diet they hate in order to live longer. There's no way to objectively say which of these choices (long life/yucky diet, shorter life/yummy diet) should be preferred. This is similar to what I mentioned about morality leading to different worlds where people behave differently, but people being free to prefer one world over another. I'm sure there are actually people who'd prefer a world without society, where life was an anarchic "survival of the fittest," and the only "morality" would be whatever an individual considered best for themselves. There's nothing to say someone preferring that is objectively immoral; merely that someone preferring that clashes with most people's preferences when it comes to what "world" they'd want to live and thus what morality they'd promote. I was raised as a 'good Christian girl', and was taught that to be selfish is bad, and to be selfless, putting others' needs before my own, was good. Fortunately, as an adult I realized that there was something in between - self-preservation. I have never intentionally harmed anyone or any living thing. But my self-sacrificial days are over; I am finally taking care of myself. Is that moral or immoral? Well, I tried to make clear in my post that there's no such thing as one morality where all things either are or aren't objectively moral/immoral. Everything can only be moral or immoral relative to some set of standards and values, and there's no one "right" set of standards and values. Personally, I think what you say about finding a balance between self-preservation while still doing for others is the best thing one can do. Too much self-sacrifice and you become a doormat that others take advantage of; but too much self-preservation only and others can suffer. Ideally, you and everyone around you would be flourishing, and I think that does indeed require a mixture of both approaches.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 11, 2018 5:49:20 GMT
I was raised as a 'good Christian girl', and was taught that to be selfish is bad, and to be selfless, putting others' needs before my own, was good. Fortunately, as an adult I realized that there was something in between - self-preservation. I have never intentionally harmed anyone or any living thing. But my self-sacrificial days are over; I am finally taking care of myself. Is that moral or immoral? Well, I tried to make clear in my post that there's no such thing as one morality where all things either are or aren't objectively moral/immoral. Everything can only be moral or immoral relative to some set of standards and values, and there's no one "right" set of standards and values. Personally, I think what you say about finding a balance between self-preservation while still doing for others is the best thing one can do. Too much self-sacrifice and you become a doormat that others take advantage of; but too much self-preservation only and others can suffer. Ideally, you and everyone around you would be flourishing, and I think that does indeed require a mixture of both approaches. Yeah, my doormat days are over, and it took an amazingly long time for me to figure out how others could and would take advantage of me. At least now I can see the signs and establish clear and rational boundaries with other humans. But when it comes to animals, there are very few boundaries; I don't perceive them as manipulative, their needs are basic. I'm vegetarian, I volunteer as a foster mom for a rescue group, and all stray cats in the area know where to go when they are hungry and cold. That, I guess, is my set of standards - preventing harm and lessening suffering, improving quality of life to the best of my ability.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 11, 2018 6:00:06 GMT
What people distrust atheists? Some of the finest people I've ever known have been atheists. If I distrust someone who is an atheist, it isn't simply because he/she is an atheist. There's got to be another reason besides that.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 12, 2018 16:22:53 GMT
What people distrust atheists? Some of the finest people I've ever known have been atheists. If I distrust someone who is an atheist, it isn't simply because he/she is an atheist. There's got to be another reason besides that. They like tofu.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 17:54:00 GMT
tpfkar I suppose there's lots of options. But I think that what I'm saying is simple and (so far) unassailable: The instinctive, universal preference to live and flourish is a given (arbitrary, but undeniable). It is logical to behave in ways that serve that preference. We can use evidence and logic to determine what rules of behavior to create. Following those rules will be judged as "right", breaking them judged as "wrong".
That's what I think of when someone says "morality" to me. If that's not what THEY mean, that's not a problem. I'll just let them describe what they mean, and we'll proceed from there.
It's trivially false that there's a universal preference to live and flourish. It's trivially false that everyone has a foundationalist approach to ethics/morality. It's trivially flase that there's agreement about what flourishing amounts to. No ought follows from any is. That includes the notion that "I should act to make my preferences a reality" follows from having preferences. You can't just ignore those facts in your meta-ethics. Well, at least not if you want to come across as something other than the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist or something like that. It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". Theme from A. G.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 18:09:30 GMT
tpfkar It's trivially false that there's a universal preference to live and flourish. It's trivially false that everyone has a foundationalist approach to ethics/morality. It's trivially flase that there's agreement about what flourishing amounts to. No ought follows from any is. That includes the notion that "I should act to make my preferences a reality" follows from having preferences. You can't just ignore those facts in your meta-ethics. Well, at least not if you want to come across as something other than the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist or something like that. It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". Theme from A. G."Waaahhh! I want to talk about my favorite topic instead."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 18:15:21 GMT
tpfkar It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". Theme from A. G."Waaahhh! I want to talk about my favorite topic instead." 'Waaaahhhhh! I want to pretend that "better morals" is not the topic so I can suggest any predatory nonsense is just another thing." If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 18:19:39 GMT
tpfkar "Waaahhh! I want to talk about my favorite topic instead." 'Waaaahhhhh! I want to pretend that "better morals" is not the topic so I can suggest any predatory nonsense is just another thing." If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)"New strategy: if I use the phrase 'predatory nonsense' in this thread enough, someone will think that someone else mentioned it and maybe we can change the topic into that."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 18:21:28 GMT
tpfkar 'Waaaahhhhh! I want to pretend that "better morals" is not the topic so I can suggest any predatory nonsense is just another thing." If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.) "New strategy: if I use the phrase 'predatory nonsense' in this thread enough, someone will think that someone else mentioned it and maybe we can change the topic into that." "Old strategy: pretend that the description of someone's posts can only include words they actually used." I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 18:24:13 GMT
tpfkar "New strategy: if I use the phrase 'predatory nonsense' in this thread enough, someone will think that someone else mentioned it and maybe we can change the topic into that." "Old strategy: pretend that the description of someone's posts can only include words they actually used." I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above."Cupcakes working assumption #5: everyone else is just as obsessive about certain topics as I am."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 18:28:36 GMT
tpfkar "Old strategy: pretend that the description of someone's posts can only include words they actually used." I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above. "Cupcakes working assumption #5: everyone else is just as obsessive about certain topics as I am." "TS delusion #12k: pretending that he can field "obsession" and other squeals to divert from his posts on the topic."It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 19:55:39 GMT
tpfkar "Cupcakes working assumption #5: everyone else is just as obsessive about certain topics as I am." "TS delusion #12k: pretending that he can field "obsession" and other squeals to divert from his posts on the topic."It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.copypastecakes: Madlibbing been berry berry good to me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 20:04:32 GMT
tpfkar "TS delusion #12k: pretending that he can field "obsession" and other squeals to divert from his posts on the topic."It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about. copypastecakes: Madlibbing been berry berry good to me. Pedopin Rapestion: Point-burying babble consent berry berry belief to me.It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 21:12:21 GMT
tpfkar copypastecakes: Madlibbing been berry berry good to me. Pedopin Rapestion: Point-burying babble consent berry berry belief to me.It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)![](https://images.randomhouse.com/cover/9780843125498)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 21:24:46 GMT
tpfkar Whack-a-frantic-diverter is tons of fun! What babble will be next!?! ![walleyed](https://s10.postimg.org/6eqhblkmx/walleyed.png) It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 21:32:13 GMT
tpfkar Whack-a-frantic-diverter is tons of fun! What babble will be next!?! ![walleyed](https://s10.postimg.org/6eqhblkmx/walleyed.png) It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.Clicking on the board and seeing that only you responded to me is like being at a dance and seeing that only this girl doesn't have a partner: ![](http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120520174059/f4w/images/d/dc/111007_ugly_woman_shirt.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 21:34:03 GMT
tpfkar Clicking on the board and seeing that only you responded to me is like being at a dance and seeing that only this girl doesn't have a partner: ![](http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120520174059/f4w/images/d/dc/111007_ugly_woman_shirt.jpg) You do have all kinds of twisted ideas rolling around up there. ![happycry](https://s13.postimg.org/mnz3tbf2f/happycry.png) It's trivially true that the bulk of humans find that certain ideas constitute "better morals" than others, finding those individuals that don't subscribe to a minimal set of them to be impaired to one degree or another and in fact in order to maintain them apply from social pressure to overt force, even up to the terminal kind. And things like shrugging at or advocating predatory behaviors, for instance, don't get magically elevated above predator-level immorality by obtuse gassing and vapid appeals to "argumentum ad populum". I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|