Killing an innocent pork farmer is immoral. That’s not justice. I’m glad for convenience sake you can call it an apple for the moment. I think morals and values go hand in hand. I don’t know if you understand my particular moral perspective.
Edit: And yes those collection of properties meet an end result that I call immoral. So? I mean I can see moral patterns too.
bravo! tremendous!
I don’t know. I was simply stating the norm of me wanting something and people accepting each other’s property. We can go around and say, “Back off” all day and night, but that’s gets redundant. As humans we can make norms if enough of us want each other to “Back off”. It becomes non-verbal and an unspoken. Intellectually, yes though, we can be descriptive in differing ways. Life is an art.
I think the argument is that evolution is everything, and that evolution countenances reproduction, and therefore power, only. These are the coin of the proverbial realm. Ideas of morality are of no consequence here. Further, to believe otherwise is to misunderstand the fundaments of human action.
People can agree on morality. My wife and I do, as well as, many other people I’ve met all agree on a general morality. I’ve worked in the criminal field. I’ve been in physical combat, so to speak, with criminals. Yet, outside of work I, for the most part, don’t encounter such situations. I think you assume what morality means for each person.
Just making sure everyone is enjoying the lulz at the moment. Because you know it will eventually have to end, one way or another. All good things, you know. Or all bad things. Or all things dull and ugly.
I understand. I was commenting on Vichy’s “balance of power” argument above - giving my interpretation of it. In the “Origin of the State” thread from today, she says a few things regarding evolution that lead me to this interpretation. I should have made this more clear.
Edit: Not so much her comments on evolution, moreso those regarding power and morality.
Edit 2: However, yes this is my view. I don’t wish to hijack this who’s who of philosophy thread, but from my point of view “morality” is a means, not an end. Moral notions seem to me to be simply descriptions of or justifications for arrangements which, at root, serve a survival imperative and are (likely) based upon specific balances of power. It’s a big subject that I should have considered more carefully prior to posting, and therefore avoided posting about in this thread.
It looks like it has come back from the dead, but I think has gone WAY WAY WAY off topic, maybe it’s a zombie?
I don’t know if I understand your particular moral perspective either. I don’t think value goes hand in hand with morals. My moral perspective is that when someone says something is wrong-- all they are saying is “I don’t like it.”
But that’s not really a moral perspective.
My particular moral perspective heeds justice. And I value this perspective of mine. I perceive justice as a restoration and sustainment of harmony. Harmony is a moral principle.
What am I going to have to back? That we are not capable of understanding the nature of the Lord with our reason, I would have thought that much was obvious. It’s analogous to attempting to measure the universe with a ruler, failing, and concluding the universe does not exist.
Yes, and?
Yes.
It’s not.
False analogy and begging the question.
There’s no difference between that and god.
Why not? Your brain simply does not have the capacity to imagine the size of the Earth, let alone the universe. So to say you would ever have the ability to comprehend God is laughable.
As far as I can see it’s neither, at least, you’re going to have to demonstrate both.
I see that you’re following Hitchens and refusing to put a capital G in God, but, yes there is a difference between the two.
Yes it does. That you can’t isn’t my problem.
And yet you continue with your false analogy and “my dick is bigger” nonsense with gods. Please, Giles: foisting some tribal phallic symbol as the biggest via run-amok exaggeration is laughable.
You continue to presume that your god can’t be measured, and you presume to believe that reason is incapable of it and is analagous to a small ruler. Don’t beg the question, and show that reason is a small ruler.
I follow no one, and no, there is no difference.
Again: I know that you’re emotionally invested. You’re just like the statist who screams bloody murder when we explain how the state tramples upon the rights of all and how it shouldn’t exist. I get that. My point is that you’re better off not making claims of fact when all you have is faith. Because when you make your faith-claims as fact-claims you have to provide the backing. Retreating into “god can’t be measured” and other such intellectually dishonest methods just won’t do. Attempting to protect your god-belief with such methods is no different from “Oh yeah, well if you don’t like the government then you should go live in Somalia” or “Without government, who will care for the poor and school the children”. It’s just an attempt to insulate your belief from criticism. It’s understandable, but it’s also dishonest.
I hope you think about that.
Which false analogy is this? All I’m demonstrating is that you can’t imagine the universe, your mind simply is not capable of doing so, given this, how you can presume to be able to comprehend and understand the Lord is beyond me. It’s nothing more than arrogance.
I’m presuming that because that is the nature of my Lord, by defintion. As for the small ruler, that isn’t the issue. Come up with the biggest ruler you will and I daresay you will encounter a fair few issues trying to measure the universe nonetheless.
Emotionally invested? I was agnostic up until two years ago, as you may have guessed I’ve read Hitchens amongst others, none of it is particularly convincing. The way I see it, this whole thing comes down to arrogance, you wish to believe that you can comprehend the nature of the Lord, so be it. But, before you begin shooting off the same tired nonsense about my emotional investment, you’d best look closer to home.
Because that’s a false analogy! Just because the universe is quite large has nothing do to with any deity. Nor does it even logically follow. What you have it just an attempt to insulate your belief from criticism–and THAT is nothing more than intellectual cowardice.
IOW: your tribal phallic symbol is just super-duper-awesomely huge. Great. Wow. Thanks for Anselming. The problem is you can’t just define something as beyond reason, because in order to define it you must use reason. Performative. Contradiction.
Yeah, that’s why you call the idea that reason is up to the task as “arrogance”. You do not want any criticism of your belief, so you kick it up to faith, where it’s completely insulated from all criticism with “you can’t measure it”. Which, in reality, is religious agnosticism.
Look kid: I’ve been researching this since right around the time you were born. Seriously. I’m about twice your age. Personally, I don’t care if you believe or not; what I do care about is correct reasoning. And you’re not using it.
That is well and good and cuts both ways. There are various problems/ideas/concepts that human reason can’t handle well, which means that NO human can say anything meaningful about them. So, your talking about ‘the lord’ as if you knew what you’re talking about is nonsense.
You think that ‘the lord’ being beyond human reason means its existence can’t be denied, but that does not help your position. The existence of a beyond-human-reason god can’t be asserted either. And yet you assert it…which might come accross as rather arrogant…and baseless.
?? - You don’t sound as if you grasped agnosticism, let alone debunked it.
amen
Im atheist myself, but any faith that values the individual is fine to me.
And yeah, Let’s not forget a certain guy called Max Weber wrote a certain book called The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. I also would add the ethics of judaism as vital to the development of capitalism.
