₦airaland Forum

@ Donzman,

You might be interested in this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,315,Morality,Radio-Lab--WNYCorg

Donzman:
@Nferyn

From reading your posts, I can see you have a deep understand of ethical philosphy. I like that, I took a course in business ethics last year and I absolutely loved it even though I was uncomfortable with the idea that no idea is absolutely right in that field of study. I'm into Kantian Ethics which you should have a good idea of and I subscribe to that idea without a doubt.

I doubt everything, but hey, I'm only a liberal pussy, so I can't have any convictions anyway

Donzman:
"I am never to act otherwise than to will that my maxim should become universal law." which is the categorical imperative and
"Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means." which is the practical imperative. He also believed that if you do something because you are required to or you're inclined to do it due to your upbringing then that action has no moral worth. I do not entirely subscribe to that idea for reasons too long to enumerate now.

I do not subscribe to Kant's vision because it's basically essentialism and builds too much on the classical Greek worldview. Even though I believe all morality should be relative, that doesn't mean that that relativity has no foundations. Actually, our human evolutionary history gave us some behaviours that point to a universal moral sense (e.g. the golden rule). Reciprocal altruism and kin-selection hard-wired that moral sense into our behavioural patterns. So, I'm not advocating unrestricted utilitarianism as it contradits our universal moral sense.
When considering most of theistic morality, I would follow Kant in proclaiming it to be of no moral worth, as:
1. accepting a theistic moral maxim is based on blind obedience
2. the reason for accepting such a moral maxim lies in the fear for pubishment rather than in a desire to do good.

Donzman:
The categorical imperative implies that killing is wrong and lying is wrong no matter the consequences. Ethics/Morality should not be based on consequences like the Utilitarians will want you to believe because more often than not, the outcomes are not within our control.

I don't mean to imply that it's a perfect system or that one should come a fundamentalist utilitarian/consequentialist. People constantly make decisions on imperfect information because inaction can be just as harmful and is a position in itself.

Donzman:
With the Utilitarian point of view, it may be considered "right" to do alot of things we will not want done to us. To Utilitarians, the motive for an action does not matter which is just wrong.

I intuitively agree, but i have not seen any convincing explanation for why it's wrong.

Donzman:
That line of reasoning will justify taking away a kid from the mother and giving it to a richer family if it makes everybody else happy except the mother.

In a sketchbook version of utilitarianism maybe, the effects of such an action on society as a whole aren't taken into account in your example

Donzman:
I believe in "Do unto other as you want other to do unto you", I would not want to die if it's going to make 1 million people happy and neither will I support killing a man if it's going to make a million people happy.

That's our natural, evolutionary morality that surfaces and I agree, even though rationally speaking it's a wrong position to take.

Donzman:
Utilitarian economics is great, utilitarian ethics on the other hand? Nope!

Why single out utilitarian ethics? Utilitarian economics is subject to the same kind of problems.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=30467.msg709133#msg709133 date=1163802240]@ nferyn,

dude, breathe easy, no need for inhalers. I was referring to Damollar with the "No hating" thingy. The other part was referring to ya question.[/quote]Doesn't his description make sense? It's probably what sets sin apart from something simply wrong or am I misreading things?

ThiefOfHearts,

If you like the films you listed, you should definitely go an see Ghost Dog with Forrest Whitaker or Smoke / Blue In The Face

You Likes, as our friend Borat would say

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=30467.msg709093#msg709093 date=1163800362]Yes long thing. First understand the existence of a creator, then u can understand the principle of sin.[/quote]Catch 22

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=30467.msg709093#msg709093 date=1163800362]No hating[/quote]I know you don't

Gamine:
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=29802.msg705892#msg705892 date=1163629182]I think your arguments from moral relativity are lost on Gamine, but who knows, maybe you are interested, Gamine.

i don't understand this at all[/quote]All true morality is relative. For example, you cannot just say that killing is wrong, period. Killing a murderer who is about to slaughter hundreds of people is morally justifiable. Ar elativistic morality is based on a few principles and these principles are then applied to a specific case. I for example subscribe to a form of utilitarian ethics where two actions should be judged and weighed against each other by looking at their effects, more specifically, you should choose the action that maximises the happiness for the largest number of people.
At least it's better than maxims such as "do not suffer a witch to live" or "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"

KAG:

It is a Sin.

Why? Is it also just as bad as lying to save a child's life? What about stealing to feed an entire country?

I think your arguments from moral relativity are lost on Gamine, but who knows, maybe you are interested, Gamine.

What is sin? I really have trouble understanding the concept of sin.

A conscious decision not to have children can be an altruistical act. Anyway, it's OK to have children, but it is selfish to have too many. We're already pushing this planet to it's ecological limits. More children are really not going to help.

Drusilla:
Nferyn,

Sure. What's the problem? Smile

Only that this kind of attitude is self defeating. You almost are the guardian of your own suppression.

Drusilla:
Praise you Lord.

I'm sorry. Mr.Mayor just makes me want to Praise Him. Now that I am reminded of how good God is to poor people to give them hope. To cause them to seek justice.

To cause them to understand that if nobody else cares, God cares and will take care of it in the end.

Praise Him. There is no better way.

Don't you think that's a wee bit of circular reasoning?

crazykid:
I believe the BIBLE is the word of God,so there is no point argueing blindly

What is the basis for that belief and why do you use the word blindly?

crazykid:
you don't believe in the bible ie the word of GOD then you can't believe in God who created you.

Why? One can believe in God, while not believing in the Bible. Do Jews and Muslims elieve in God? Do Ethiopean Christians believe in God?

crazykid:
just b careful of what you say against God and His word.

How do you establish the Bible to be the word of God?

goodguy:

That, on average, they're more intelligent than theists.

What makes you arrive at this conclusion?

It's just a guess. I haven't got any real hard data to back this up. Anyway, it was more of a rhetorical insert than anything else. On the other hand, there is some evidence to support the assertion that either atheists are more moral than theists or they're just smarter:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm
http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence
http://kspark.kaist.ac/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

goodguy:
Simply because we believe in what you have failed to realize exists?

Isn't that statement a wee bit circular?

goodguy:
Anyway, no need for much talk. I believe Drusilla's analogy is a perfect comparism to your situation.

Indeed, defining a problem ot of existence is comparable to solving it.

KAG:
I suppose then that you're some kind of an expert on the struggles atheists experience, yes?

This is where you say you were once an atheist -

They probably labeled themselves as atheists because they [b]rebelled [/b]against God. the irony