Re: religion and morality
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:02 am
Yep.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Yep.
tomorrow...I'm too whupped for anything major tonite
You've done your time, yeah? Paid your debt? Then The State and Society need to bugger off.
Why would I be offended.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:24 pmSo, did I call it or what?
You hit the mark pretty often (but when you miss, you miss spectacularly [no offense]... )though I have come to the place where I have very little confidence in judging other's motives.
Like me.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:55 amthose who depend on...baseless impressions (like conscience and intuition)
I agree. But since both sides are able to convince themselves the other side has failed to provide that proof and, concomitantly, they are both able to convince themselves that they have provided it, nothing "for all practical purposes" changes.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:08 pmPeople believe in all sorts of different things. The burden of proof is on them to show that the is a relationship between truth and morality when it comes to philosophy.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:44 amOn the other hand, what does that have to do with the real world...the one that we live in and interact with others in? In fact, for the vast majority of men and women, they do believe that there is a fundamental relationship between truth and morality. Their own truth and their own morality, for example.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:44 am And it is what people believe about both that precipitates the behaviors they choose. And it is the behaviors that they choose that actually generates the consequences that can have a profound impact on our lives.
For some, sure. But given my own experiences over the years with the objectivists among us...
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:44 am And, for the most fierce moral objectivists among us, go ahead, try to reason with them...try to convince them into believing in moral relativism predicated on the assumption that there is no God.
Since what they believe [in my view] is predicated less on what it is that they do believe and more on the fact that, mentally, emotionally and psychologically what it is that they do believe comforts and consoles them, it is very, very rare for the objectivists to change their mind. Again, given my own experiences with them over the years.
Yes, but when the Devil makes you do something there is still the assumption that there is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. You did the wrong thing but it wasn't entirely your fault.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:11 pmYou are probably right about most of the people in the world who never think for themselves, believe whatever they learn from their teachers, political leaders, religious authorities, and peers and go through life repeating whatever they've heard and seen other do without ever having an original idea. Thinking for oneself is difficult and discomforting because it means being responsible for everything one chooses and does. It is so much easier to just go along with what everyone else in one's click or community believes and does. It relieves one of the sense of responsibility. After all, if all one thinks and believes is determined by something else: their environment, their culture, their economic conditions, their education (or lack thereof), their genetics, their desires and feelings, or their dasein, whatever they do, it's not their fault. It used to be, "the devil made me do it." For you, "dasein made me do it," but it does not relieve you of responsibility for what you think and do.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 pm Again, you completely miss the point. Any number of others can come up with arguments that rebut the assumptions -- political prejudices I believe are rooted subjectively in dasein, in the life you've lived --
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 pmAgain, you completely miss the point. Any number of others can come up with arguments that rebut the assumptions -- political prejudices I believe are rooted subjectively in dasein, in the life you've lived -- you make about private citizens owning guns.
Sure, if you live in a community with other men and women, and you want to make owning guns all about you versus the world, fine. As long as you insist that no one can ever be right about it unless they think exactly like you do about it, you can't lose. That's precisely what the fulminating fanatic objectivists do. My way or the highway. Period. Their rule. Their thumb.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:15 pm Nope: never said diddly about private citizens. We ain't dickin' around with your intellectual contraptions. This is real, bubba: I own a gun and I won't give it up. Convince me why I should (hint: demonstrate how my ownin' a gun deprives you of life, liberty, or property [or, as Bahman might say, how I'm not respectin' the rule of thumb]).
And what about chemical and biological weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces, mortars, weapons of war...same thing?
If you own them, it's your property. End of story?
All the reasons others raise. That human interactions can result in conflicts where emotions take over and having a bazooka can result in catastrophic consequences. That others might steal it and use it for their purposes. That, in a world where any weapon at all is acceptable, children might get their hands on them. That once you go down the road where nothing is off limits if you can afford to buy it, the law of unintended consequences will soon prove to be devastating. That the more military grade weapons are in the hands of libertarians of your ilk the greater the likelihood of "collateral damage".henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:15 pm Absolutely! If I want a bazooka, can locate the owner of one, can meet his price, I will own a bazooka.
If I'm not deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property (in other words, I'm respectin' Bahman's rule of thumb), I can't see how it's any your business. In fact: any objection you have that isn't rooted in my demonstrably deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property means you're infringin' on my life, liberty, and property which means you're the bad guy.
Lay out your reasonin' why I'm wrong.
One thing I believe we can be absolutely certain of: only a fool refuses to think exactly like you do about, well, everything under the sun?
Right?
I don't either hate or fear firearms per se. In fact I own a Smith and Wesson revolver myself. Instead, I focus more on the part in the Second Amendment here in America that calls for a...henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:15 pmNope: if you don't want a gun, don't own one...makes me no nevermind.
Your hatred or fear of firearms is none of my business till you decide I'm supposed to share in, support, your hatred or fear and disarm myself. In other words: it's none of my biz till you decide I'm a fool for refusin' to think exactly like you and then move to hobble me, to make me do what you think is right.
Again, as always, it depends on the context. On whether you going about your business has consequences for others even though it wasn't your intention to bring those consequences about. Like laws against smoking in certain situations.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:15 pm You talk about rebuttals: but, really, you're talkin' about pokin' around in my business becuz you don't like what I do.
The whole of the so-called abortion issue can be reduced to the simple terms: it is either never right to interfere in another human being's life uninvited or some pretext sometimes does make it right. If it is never right to interfere in another human beings life, than however wrong abortion might be in anyone's own view, what individuals choose to do about it is no one else's business and any attempt to force their view on anyone else against their will is a violation of that individual's sovereign life.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 6:53 pm Abortion...
Let's knock this out first...
https://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
The piece is long, so I won't cut and paste it. I thought I might provide excerpts but decided instead to wait till the objections roll in, then post excerpts.
On to it...
Mary, the woman supposedly responsible for Biggy's existential fracture, chose to abort becuz her child, in her, was inconvenient. Her life was not in danger. Her health was not in danger. She was not forcibly impregnated. She was inconvenienced.
She is a murderess. She took a life without just cause.
Just cause?
Quick recap...
Biggy has been sayin' over and over folks have no common ground to agree on anything outside of what a god imposes.
Me: I say there is, as fact, common ground -- that may be god-derived, but doesn't have to be -- that all men stand on and that can be the undergirdin' for a basic, minimal, commonsense ethic for everyone.
Bahman nailed that basic, minimal, commonsense ethic with this: you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others. That is: you have a right to your life, liberty, and property and no one else's. If you go about muckin' around in the life, liberty, or property of another, you're wrong and that person has a right to defend himself (he has just cause to stop you).
Mary had no just cause. In context, what would be a just cause? If her life or health were endangered. If the pregnancy would kill her. If she's made pregnant against her will.
What's not just cause? In context: the inconvenience of a potential consequence she tacitly agreed to when she chose to lay with John. She got busy knowin' pregnancy was a possibility, even with birth control (she used *birth control, accordin' to Biggy, which failed), and when Nature bit her in the keister -- again, sumthin' she was aware could happen -- she was unwillin' to accept the consequence and inconvenience of nine months.
John, on the other hand, recognized in some way the life Mary carried was not his or hers to dispose of. He lobbied against abortion.
Biggy would have you believe Mary's and John's positions are equivalent. Viewed thru the lens of Bahman's rule of thumb (you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others) there obviously is no equivalence. Mary, after consentin' to the possibility of pregnancy by choosin' to have sex and consentin' to the possibility of pregnancy in usin' birth control which is never 100% guaranteed effective, rubbed her kid right out...not becuz her life or health was in danger, not becuz she was raped, but solely becuz she inconvenienced.
Pregnancy, and how the natural rights of mother and child weigh against each other, is a unique context. Questions and challenges on when human life begins, when human personhood is applicable, how to balance the mother's liberty against the child's life, and on and on will continue no matter where science takes us or what ethics we craft for ourselves. But to insist, as Biggy does, there is and can be no coherent ethic all can agree on and live with is foolish, and incoherent.
As I say (in many posts, across multiple threads, goin' back for a long time): it is each and every man's experience of himself that he belongs to himself, that his life, his liberty, his property are his, and that it's wrong to kill him, to enslave him, to steal from him, to injure him. Bahman, quite concisely, summed it up as you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others. It's a coherent statement undergirded by the common/universal self-assessment and intuition of each person that he belongs to himself, no matter where, no matter when. You don't have to be rational & virtuous, as Biggy sez, to grasp it. You do have to be honest and self-responsible to adhere to it. And it's so simple even a nihilist can do it.
Now, Biggy will claim I'm clingin' to skyhooks, but this is not so. I've directly addressed Mary and her circumstance and I've offered a minimal, commonsensical, practical, utterly comprehensible, standard by which to assess Mary.
Can't get no more real than that, bub.
*no birth control, outside of abstaining, is full-proof
...and lost the whole damn thing when I tried to preview it. For some reason, hittin' the preview button caused the forum to prompt me to sign in again, I hit the back button instead, thinkin' I could capture my post as a copy and *poof* the post was gone. I'm mildly pissed at myself. I'll reconstruct that post in the morning.