Justified?

[DPMartin]

First, I NEVER "want to believe ANY thing". Is this understood?

who cares really, who cares.

Just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. This is a natural instinct. This is how the species continues to exist.

tell that to the thousands of abused

Second, OF COURSE, I see 'what is good', in my judgement of what is good and evil. How do you see 'what is good'? From 'your' perspective, or from 'another's' perspective?

what qualifies you to be a judge of what is good and evil seeing you are no more qualified then a child rapist, or a serial killer. you both just humans. and what you agree to isn't your judgement its the judgement of the agreement that justifies in the presence of the agreed. doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with unless you are a part of making the agreement.

[Age]

First, I NEVER "want to believe ANY thing". Is this understood?

who cares really, who cares.

I do. 'I' care when 'you' 'try to' tell me what I want to do.

And, when you 'try to' tell 'me', or "others", what I want to do, and you are Wrong, then I will correct you and just tell 'you', and "them", what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, okay?

I NEVER want to believe ANY thing. So, do NOT ever 'try to' say that I want to, AGAIN, alright?

Just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. This is a natural instinct. This is how the species continues to exist.

tell that to the thousands of abused

But absolutely EVERY child, in the days of when this is being written, IS ABUSED. But this still does NOT take away from the fact that just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. Obviously, these adults do NOT take care of their young properly and correctly, but that was NOT the point either.

Also, your words here could be taken as an attempt for you 'trying to' "justify" your OWN abuse of children.

Second, OF COURSE, I see 'what is good', in my judgement of what is good and evil. How do you see 'what is good'? From 'your' perspective, or from 'another's' perspective?

what qualifies you to be a judge of what is good and evil seeing you are no more qualified then a child rapist, or a serial killer. you both just humans.

What qualifies 'me' to be a judge of what is good and evil is from what I judge good and evil on and from exactly.

and what you agree to isn't your judgement its the judgement of the agreement that justifies in the presence of the agreed. doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with unless you are a part of making the agreement.

Okay.

[DPMartin]

First, I NEVER "want to believe ANY thing". Is this understood?

who cares really, who cares.

I do. 'I' care when 'you' 'try to' tell me what I want to do.

And, when you 'try to' tell 'me', or "others", what I want to do, and you are Wrong, then I will correct you and just tell 'you', and "them", what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, okay?

I NEVER want to believe ANY thing. So, do NOT ever 'try to' say that I want to, AGAIN, alright?

Just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. This is a natural instinct. This is how the species continues to exist.

tell that to the thousands of abused

But absolutely EVERY child, in the days of when this is being written, IS ABUSED. But this still does NOT take away from the fact that just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. Obviously, these adults do NOT take care of their young properly and correctly, but that was NOT the point either.

Also, your words here could be taken as an attempt for you 'trying to' "justify" your OWN abuse of children.

Second, OF COURSE, I see 'what is good', in my judgement of what is good and evil. How do you see 'what is good'? From 'your' perspective, or from 'another's' perspective?

what qualifies you to be a judge of what is good and evil seeing you are no more qualified then a child rapist, or a serial killer. you both just humans.

What qualifies 'me' to be a judge of what is good and evil is from what I judge good and evil on and from exactly.

and what you agree to isn't your judgement its the judgement of the agreement that justifies in the presence of the agreed. doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with unless you are a part of making the agreement.

Okay.

this is supposed to be about philosophy last I checked, and not your personal issues. get a shrink

[Age]

who cares really, who cares.

I do. 'I' care when 'you' 'try to' tell me what I want to do.

And, when you 'try to' tell 'me', or "others", what I want to do, and you are Wrong, then I will correct you and just tell 'you', and "them", what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, okay?

I NEVER want to believe ANY thing. So, do NOT ever 'try to' say that I want to, AGAIN, alright?

tell that to the thousands of abused

But absolutely EVERY child, in the days of when this is being written, IS ABUSED. But this still does NOT take away from the fact that just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. Obviously, these adults do NOT take care of their young properly and correctly, but that was NOT the point either.

Also, your words here could be taken as an attempt for you 'trying to' "justify" your OWN abuse of children.

what qualifies you to be a judge of what is good and evil seeing you are no more qualified then a child rapist, or a serial killer. you both just humans.

What qualifies 'me' to be a judge of what is good and evil is from what I judge good and evil on and from exactly.

and what you agree to isn't your judgement its the judgement of the agreement that justifies in the presence of the agreed. doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with unless you are a part of making the agreement.

Okay.

this is supposed to be about philosophy last I checked, and not your personal issues. get a shrink

You asked:

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

I partly explained WHY.

You then replied, and I then CORRECTED your wrong and false replies.

And then you asked me:

"what qualifies you to be a judge of what is good and evil seeing you are no more qualified then a child rapist, or a serial killer. you both just humans."

I then alluded to what thee True, Right, and Correct answer IS. The reason WHY I only 'allude to' thee answers, and not just provide them, is to see who is Truly curious. See, I am searching out those who are True philosophers, and not just those who only want to share their OWN BELIEFS.

[Terrapin Station]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

I don't believe we really know much about what tigers' minds are like. It wouldn't be surprising if they have justifications for their actions. It would be odd if only human brains functioned that way while brains that are fairly similar do not.

[DPMartin]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

I don't believe we really know much about what tigers' minds are like. It wouldn't be surprising if they have justifications for their actions. It would be odd if only human brains functioned that way while brains that are fairly similar do not.

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

[Skepdick]

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

In what way am I morally answerable to you or any human except for the consequences for my actions?

[DPMartin]

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

In what way am I morally answerable to you or any human except for the consequences for my actions?

if we live in the same society and it has law like in some US courts, prosecutors represent the people. so yes you would be answering to me and every one else who agrees to live in the same country. even so in countries where there may be no court prosses like maybe in a tribe you would still answer to the tribe leadership that represents the whole of the tribe.

no real power is established in this case of leadership unless the the people up hold it, hence agree.

[Skepdick]

if we live in the same society and it has law like in some US courts, prosecutors represent the people. so yes you would be answering to me and every one else who agrees to live in the same country. even so in countries where there may be no court prosses like maybe in a tribe you would still answer to the tribe leadership that represents the whole of the tribe.

no real power is established in this case of leadership unless the the people up hold it, hence agree.

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

So I would be "suffering the response of other animals" no?

[Terrapin Station]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

I don't believe we really know much about what tigers' minds are like. It wouldn't be surprising if they have justifications for their actions. It would be odd if only human brains functioned that way while brains that are fairly similar do not.

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

Other animals, you mean. We're animals, too. At any rate, I think it's pretty clear that some animals do basically make moral judgments--apes, some monkeys, dolphins, elephants, etc.--the animals we have pretty good reason to believe have high intelligence and that pretty clearly communicate with each other. For animals like tigers, I don't think we know the answer to this very well.

[DPMartin]

I don't believe we really know much about what tigers' minds are like. It wouldn't be surprising if they have justifications for their actions. It would be odd if only human brains functioned that way while brains that are fairly similar do not.

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

Other animals, you mean. We're animals, too. At any rate, I think it's pretty clear that some animals do basically make moral judgments--apes, some monkeys, dolphins, elephants, etc.--the animals we have pretty good reason to believe have high intelligence and that pretty clearly communicate with each other. For animals like tigers, I don't think we know the answer to this very well.

what does all this speculative yak about animals got to do with the subject. every living thing has expression of one sort or another and some respond to the expressions of others so what, a puppy cries and its mother responds.

that's not evidence of the need for justification.

[DPMartin]

if we live in the same society and it has law like in some US courts, prosecutors represent the people. so yes you would be answering to me and every one else who agrees to live in the same country. even so in countries where there may be no court prosses like maybe in a tribe you would still answer to the tribe leadership that represents the whole of the tribe.

no real power is established in this case of leadership unless the the people up hold it, hence agree.

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

So I would be "suffering the response of other animals" no?

and your questions have what to do with the need for justification?

[Skepdick]

and your questions have what to do with the need for justification?

The fact that you don't need any. If you are OK with the responses of the other human-animals who disagree with you.

[Terrapin Station]

animals don't answer to other animals for their actions, do they? they might suffer responses but there's no moral issue involved, winner by strength tales it all.

Other animals, you mean. We're animals, too. At any rate, I think it's pretty clear that some animals do basically make moral judgments--apes, some monkeys, dolphins, elephants, etc.--the animals we have pretty good reason to believe have high intelligence and that pretty clearly communicate with each other. For animals like tigers, I don't think we know the answer to this very well.

what does all this speculative yak about animals got to do with the subject. every living thing has expression of one sort or another and some respond to the expressions of others so what, a puppy cries and its mother responds.

that's not evidence of the need for justification.

Right. It's not supposed to be evidence of the need for justification, but rather an argument undermining the notion that we know that other animals do not ever think in terms of justifications.