Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:31 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:06 pm Wait a sec, the "scary part" is that people might use force to stop people torturing babies to death?
Notice, as I am sure you will, that he does not respond to the point you are making. It reminds him of something.
Actually, I dealt with this sort of thing at length on another thread:
This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?
Now, as with FJ, let him address the points I raised here:
Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.
Note to others:

These two have tag-teamed me before. Here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247&start=2865

What is it about me that most perturbs them? Well, I have my own suspicions of course. After all, I've been getting reactions like theirs from others for years now. I'm a threat to their own rendition of what constitutes "serious philosophy"; and my own "fractured and fragmented" sense of identity in the is/ought world have always disturbed those who, morally, political and spiritually, "somehow" feel "at one" with, well, something or other. God or No God.

Then of course the part where I am more inclined to bring "ethical theory" down to earth.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:39 pm
Now, as with FJ, let him address the points I raised here:
Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.
I don't really see what there is for me to address in that. I don't believe in God, and as much as you like to call me an objectivist, I don't believe in objective morality.

Can you point me to some things you specifically think are relevant for me to respond to?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:56 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:39 pm
Now, as with FJ, let him address the points I raised here:
Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.
I don't really see what there is for me to address in that. I don't believe in God, and as much as you like to call me an objectivist, I don't believe in objective morality.

Can you point me to some things you specifically think are relevant for me to respond to?
Well, you posted this:
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:06 pm Wait a sec, the "scary part" is that people might use force to stop people torturing babies to death?
Whereas from my frame of mind, the "scary part" pertained more to this:
For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas. Maybe it's the color of your skin, or your ethnicity, or your sexual orientation, or your religion or your politics.

Just ask the moral and political objectivists among us what they themselves believe that human beings ought not to do. Who knows, it might be something that you do.
So, no, personally, existentially, subjectively etc., I would not myself be scared by someone who stopped someone from torturing a baby. I'd try to stop it myself. Unless, perhaps, the sociopath torturing the baby has a gun to my head and warns me if I try to stop him, I'm dead.

Moral obligations then.

My point is that in a No God world there does not appear to be a philosophical/ethical argument able to establish that deontologically torturing a baby is inherently/necessarily irrational or immoral.

That, in fact, in recognizing just how crucial God is here, moral philosophers from Plato and Descartes to Immanuel Kant have found it necessary to define or to deduce God into existence.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:28 pm

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
So, no, personally, existentially, subjectively etc., I would not myself be scared by someone who stopped someone from torturing a baby. I'd try to stop it myself.
There's clearly some disconnect between what you're saying and what I'm reading of your words.

"That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power"

These words... I mean, that's already reality right? You and I both currently live in societies where people who insist some behaviors must be stamped out are in power. And those behaviours include things like, for example, torturing babies to death.

You currently live in that society, the society which it looks to me like you're saying you're scared of.

I don't understand why you would be scared to be in a society where people who wanted to stamp out those behaviours were in power. That sounds immensely preferable to plenty of other types of societies. For example, a society where those in power don't give a fuck what you do with babies...
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:28 pm

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
So, no, personally, existentially, subjectively etc., I would not myself be scared by someone who stopped someone from torturing a baby. I'd try to stop it myself.
There's clearly some disconnect between what you're saying and what I'm reading of your words.

"That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power"

These words... I mean, that's already reality right? You and I both currently live in societies where people who insist some behaviors must be stamped out are in power. And those behaviours include things like, for example, torturing babies to death.

You currently live in that society, the society which it looks to me like you're saying you're scared of.

I don't understand why you would be scared to be in a society where people who wanted to stamp out those behaviours were in power. That sounds immensely preferable to plenty of other types of societies. For example, a society where those in power don't give a fuck what you do with babies...
Yes. Also, I fail to see what the advantage is of moral antirealists coming to power. They'll try to stamp out behaviors they dislike. Based on dogmatic preferences. Or is there some reason to assume that the will to power, the desire to own and control, etc., only come from objectivism?

It also seems like...
That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
Is an appeal to not having certain kinds of behaviors. It is trying to prevent them. Being a moral objectivist isn't dependent on method. So, here he's being exactly like an objectivist.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:07 pm
It also seems like...
That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
Is an appeal to not having certain kinds of behaviors. It is trying to prevent them. Being a moral objectivist isn't dependent on method. So, here he's being exactly like an objectivist.
You saying he's trying to stamp out the behaviour of stamping out behaviours?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:21 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:07 pm
It also seems like...
That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
Is an appeal to not having certain kinds of behaviors. It is trying to prevent them. Being a moral objectivist isn't dependent on method. So, here he's being exactly like an objectivist.
You saying he's trying to stamp out the behaviour of stamping out behaviours?
I am. It could easily be the position of a moral objectivist anarchist or radical libertarian.
Stamping out behaviors is wrong. No government or society shall be allowed to control behavior of citizens. It would be morally wrong to do it.

Of course he does simply say it is scary. So, his sentence does not necessarily entail moral objectivism. But if his concern is objectivism, he shouldn't mention any particular program. Otherwise the problem is not objectivism, it's something else. Objectivism does not entail control or stamping out. Moral antirealism does not preclude those behaviors at all.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:28 pm

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas. Maybe it's the color of your skin, or your ethnicity, or your sexual orientation, or your religion or your politics.

Just ask the moral and political objectivists among us what they themselves believe that human beings ought not to do. Who knows, it might be something that you do.
So, no, personally, existentially, subjectively etc., I would not myself be scared by someone who stopped someone from torturing a baby. I'd try to stop it myself.
There's clearly some disconnect between what you're saying and what I'm reading of your words.

"That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power"

These words... I mean, that's already reality right? You and I both currently live in societies where people who insist some behaviors must be stamped out are in power. And those behaviours include things like, for example, torturing babies to death.
Again, biologically, genetically, human beings certainly seem hardwired to eschew behaviors such as this. Unlike, say, other animal species where, for example, males seemed hard wired to kill the babies of those females they had not mated with. So that they can mate with them and produce their own offspring. And all rooted entirely in instinct. Meaning none us are likely to claim they are behaving immorally.

But with our species [given free will] such behavior is often condemned. Only historically, culturally, memetically etc., there have been any number of instances where either the governing authorities or individuals have pursued policies that resulted in the destruction of babies. From the Holocaust to forced abortions in China to various sociopaths who for whatever reason did any damn thing they pleased with babies/children if it satisfied them.

So, in the absence of God, what are the arguments that philosophers/ethicists can come up with that in fact demonstrate that such behaviors are inherently and necessarily immoral...evil.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm You currently live in that society, the society which it looks to me like you're saying you're scared of.
Me, personally? The last time I was scared of my own government was when they drafted me into the Army and sent me to a war zone for a year. Where on more than one occasion I almost didn't make it back.

Or those who are scared of a government that might arrest them for performing or obtaining an abortion: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... -rcna36268

Or those who would be scared of a government that goes after their guns.

Or those who would become frightened of a government here in America if the MAGA/QAnon/Proud Boys gain power.

Okay, Mr./Ms. Philosopher, let's resolve these things once and for all!! Let's pin down definitively what constitutes truly rational and truly irrational behavior here.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm I don't understand why you would be scared to be in a society where people who wanted to stamp out those behaviours were in power. That sounds immensely preferable to plenty of other types of societies. For example, a society where those in power don't give a fuck what you do with babies...
Okay, but what does this really have to do with my point that in the absence of God, all behaviors by mere mortals can be rationalized? That a deontological moral philosophy always seems to revolve around one or another "transcending font"? That dasein is still a crucial element regarding how each of us as individuals come to embrace one set of moral, political and religious prejudices rather than others...historically, culturally, experientially.

And in a world awash in contingency, chance and change ...a world where none of us can really be certain of what is behind the next corner in terms of the experiences we have, and the people we meet and the information and knowledge we come upon.

We don't really know for certain if the next post we read here might have a profound impact on how we view ourselves out in the world around us. Then the Benjamin Button Syndrome when applicable to the is/ought world.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:06 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:28 pm


So, no, personally, existentially, subjectively etc., I would not myself be scared by someone who stopped someone from torturing a baby. I'd try to stop it myself.
There's clearly some disconnect between what you're saying and what I'm reading of your words.

"That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power"

These words... I mean, that's already reality right? You and I both currently live in societies where people who insist some behaviors must be stamped out are in power. And those behaviours include things like, for example, torturing babies to death.
Again, biologically, genetically, human beings certainly seem hardwired to eschew behaviors such as this. Unlike, say, other animal species where, for example, males seemed hard wired to kill the babies of those females they had not mated with. So that they can mate with them and produce their own offspring. And all rooted entirely in instinct. Meaning none us are likely to claim they are behaving immorally.

But with our species [given free will] such behavior is often condemned. Only historically, culturally, memetically etc., there have been any number of instances where either the governing authorities or individuals have pursued policies that resulted in the destruction of babies. From the Holocaust to forced abortions in China to various sociopaths who for whatever reason did any damn thing they pleased with babies/children if it satisfied them.

So, in the absence of God, what are the arguments that philosophers/ethicists can come up with that in fact demonstrate that such behaviors are inherently and necessarily immoral...evil.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm You currently live in that society, the society which it looks to me like you're saying you're scared of.
Me, personally? The last time I was scared of my own government was when they drafted me into the Army and sent me to a war zone for a year. Where on more than one occasion I almost didn't make it back.

Or those who are scared of a government that might arrest them for performing or obtaining an abortion: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... -rcna36268

Or those who would be scared of a government that goes after their guns.

Or those who would become frightened of a government here in America if the MAGA/QAnon/Proud Boys gain power.

Okay, Mr./Ms. Philosopher, let's resolve these things once and for all!! Let's pin down definitively what constitutes truly rational and truly irrational behavior here.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm I don't understand why you would be scared to be in a society where people who wanted to stamp out those behaviours were in power. That sounds immensely preferable to plenty of other types of societies. For example, a society where those in power don't give a fuck what you do with babies...
Okay, but what does this really have to do with my point that in the absence of God, all behaviors by mere mortals can be rationalized? That a deontological moral philosophy always seems to revolve around one or another "transcending font"? That dasein is still a crucial element regarding how each of us as individuals come to embrace one set of moral, political and religious prejudices rather than others...historically, culturally, experientially.

And in a world awash in contingency, chance and change ...a world where none of us can really be certain of what is behind the next corner in terms of the experiences we have, and the people we meet and the information and knowledge we come upon.

We don't really know for certain if the next post we read here might have a profound impact on how we view ourselves out in the world around us. Then the Benjamin Button Syndrome when applicable to the is/ought world.
For someone who is constantly talking about coming back down out of the clouds, you write with a lot of abstract poetry.

Who cares if all things can be rationalized? What does that have to do with wanting to live in a society where babies aren't tortured to death? And why does it scare you that people might have power who want to stamp out behaviours like torturing babies to death?
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by promethean75 »

I think you're being insensitive to baby torturers, FJ. It takes a lot of courage and resolve to torture babies.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:36 pm I think you're being insensitive to baby torturers, FJ. It takes a lot of courage and resolve to torture babies.
But once you get started I bet it's irresistible
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by promethean75 »

Exactly, that's why we need to be more understanding. Baby torturing is like an addiction for these people.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Sculptor »

I am given to understand that some people find this compelling.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:07 pmIs an appeal to not having certain kinds of behaviors. It is trying to prevent them. Being a moral objectivist isn't dependent on method. So, here he's being exactly like an objectivist.
Again, let's bring this down to earth.

Here in America, the antiabortion movement is on the march. And for many of them abortion is a sin against God. And that makes it objectively immoral. From their frame of mind abortion is certainly the killing of a human being. And if there is any pain involved, the torture of a human being. And they are trying to prevent any and all behaviors that result in an abortion. In fact, for some, the end here justifies any and all means...including the murder of those who perform abortions.

And if they succeed in gaining control of the White House and the Congress as well as the Supreme Court....?

That will certainly be a scary prospect for any number of women...right?

But the reason they insist on stamping out certain behaviors here is because only those behaviors wholly in sync with their own objectivist morality [God or no God] are permitted. The end justifies the means. And the means might include the arrest, trial and conviction of those who either have abortions or perform them.

Me? I'm still fractured and fragmented. "Here and now" I take my own "existential leap of faith" to the pro-choice side...but I recognize that had my life been different I might still be embracing the pro-life side. And that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers or ethicists to determine the optimal or the only rational set of behaviors here.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

ME:

iambiguous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:06 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm
There's clearly some disconnect between what you're saying and what I'm reading of your words.

"That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power"

These words... I mean, that's already reality right? You and I both currently live in societies where people who insist some behaviors must be stamped out are in power. And those behaviours include things like, for example, torturing babies to death.
Again, biologically, genetically, human beings certainly seem hardwired to eschew behaviors such as this. Unlike, say, other animal species where, for example, males seemed hard wired to kill the babies of those females they had not mated with. So that they can mate with them and produce their own offspring. And all rooted entirely in instinct. Meaning none us are likely to claim they are behaving immorally.

But with our species [given free will] such behavior is often condemned. Only historically, culturally, memetically etc., there have been any number of instances where either the governing authorities or individuals have pursued policies that resulted in the destruction of babies. From the Holocaust to forced abortions in China to various sociopaths who for whatever reason did any damn thing they pleased with babies/children if it satisfied them.

So, in the absence of God, what are the arguments that philosophers/ethicists can come up with that in fact demonstrate that such behaviors are inherently and necessarily immoral...evil.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm You currently live in that society, the society which it looks to me like you're saying you're scared of.
Me, personally? The last time I was scared of my own government was when they drafted me into the Army and sent me to a war zone for a year. Where on more than one occasion I almost didn't make it back.

Or those who are scared of a government that might arrest them for performing or obtaining an abortion: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... -rcna36268

Or those who would be scared of a government that goes after their guns.

Or those who would become frightened of a government here in America if the MAGA/QAnon/Proud Boys gain power.

Okay, Mr./Ms. Philosopher, let's resolve these things once and for all!! Let's pin down definitively what constitutes truly rational and truly irrational behavior here.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:49 pm I don't understand why you would be scared to be in a society where people who wanted to stamp out those behaviours were in power. That sounds immensely preferable to plenty of other types of societies. For example, a society where those in power don't give a fuck what you do with babies...
Okay, but what does this really have to do with my point that in the absence of God, all behaviors by mere mortals can be rationalized? That a deontological moral philosophy always seems to revolve around one or another "transcending font"? That dasein is still a crucial element regarding how each of us as individuals come to embrace one set of moral, political and religious prejudices rather than others...historically, culturally, experientially.

And in a world awash in contingency, chance and change ...a world where none of us can really be certain of what is behind the next corner in terms of the experiences we have, and the people we meet and the information and knowledge we come upon.

We don't really know for certain if the next post we read here might have a profound impact on how we view ourselves out in the world around us. Then the Benjamin Button Syndrome when applicable to the is/ought world.
HIM:
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 pm
For someone who is constantly talking about coming back down out of the clouds, you write with a lot of abstract poetry.

Who cares if all things can be rationalized? What does that have to do with wanting to live in a society where babies aren't tortured to death? And why does it scare you that people might have power who want to stamp out behaviours like torturing babies to death?
I won't waste my time here actually responding to this. Though, sure, by all means, have a go at it yourself if you must. 8)
Post Reply