|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Oct 24, 2005 12:17:25 GMT -5
Ok so religion can be a trigger, so can money or really any thing else that is recognised to have any importance to people. I doubt that you are therefor saying it would be a good idea to get rid of all such things. Am I wrong?
Alright yes those in 9/11 did fly airliners into the twin towers and various other target places. Yes they also profesed themselves to be under the influence of religion. These things are true but going with the same example of terrorism arnt there alot of people who have commited themselves to terrorist actions without a religious reason. An example would be the Oklahoma City bombings. It dosnt take a religion to make people do something stupid. Humanity is very capable of stupid actions on its own. (BTW: I am playing Devils Advocate here. I think that religion is a bane on the existance of man as much as any of you, However I also think that you will need a better argument than this one.)
Well your correct that a logical argument cannot be made more logical. How ever why are you content to just sit by idle and wait for some one to come up and say "Hey I compleatly agree with you!"? Would it not be a better idea to try to support your argument against opostion or learn and present another argument?
Ok this sounds good but it really dosnt help you much. You have labled a external morality as bad but you have not stated why it is bad.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 24, 2005 13:27:59 GMT -5
Recall I sad the following:
When I hear how these 'bad' Imams 'pervert' the message of Islam, it makes me so very angry. Islam is not to be saved, the problem is the external morality. This is why an externally derived morality is bad, it makes people susceptible to 'rogue' preaching, which is no different from normal preaching. The very notion of preaching is wrong. The fact that religion entails preaching is the problem.
This is truly the last I will say on this.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Oct 24, 2005 13:31:41 GMT -5
Let me just say this. An external morality is bad. Religion supplies an external morality. Ipso facto, religion is bad. I can't make it clearer than this. Your argument is based on the fact that external morality is bad. What is your basis for this? Isn't a mother telling her son not to hit his sisters, an example of external morality. Without a developed morality of his own, the child stops hitting because mommy said so, or is punished. Is this wrong? And no, not everyone who disagrees with me is crazy or evil. That's why I don't lump all religious people into the same category as suicide bombers.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 24, 2005 14:19:20 GMT -5
Actually, the mother only introduces negative consequences. The child's morality is intact, they must weigh up the action versus the consequences. This is why punishing children is required. This 'behave and I'll reward you' approach only reinforces the bad behaviour, and leads to unruly children later on.
So no, it is not an example of an external morality.
I'm not calling people crazy, far from it. DOH is the one calling people crazy. I am blaming religion.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Oct 25, 2005 9:36:00 GMT -5
Alright lets just go with this idea of a persons inner morality for a moment. If this is true then what your saying is that from birth every one knows that stealing, killing, etc are wrong. If this is true then why do children often ask why these things are wrong. It is a persons ideas and belifes that formulate their conscience. If you are stateing that a person left compleatly on their own would be a compleatly moral, civil, and understanding person i think you have to go back and check your reasoning on the formulation of morality.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Oct 26, 2005 15:15:53 GMT -5
Alright lets just go with this idea of a persons inner morality for a moment. If this is true then what your saying is that from birth every one knows that stealing, killing, etc are wrong. If this is true then why do children often ask why these things are wrong. Exactly. This is a more articulate was of saying what I meant. We're not born knowing what's right and wrong, we're taught by various sources. I would conclude that all morality was once external to us.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Nov 8, 2005 19:30:40 GMT -5
That is a great point Jen. I am of the belief that all morality is subject to personal views and varies on an individual basis; no single persons or societies moral views could ever be considered ideally right or wrong. Every person is different both physically and mentally therefore all personal views vary depending on our personal experiences throughout life, our views are always subject to change and evolution throughout our life because we are always having new experiences.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 9, 2005 5:17:20 GMT -5
So in other words, it is moral to do what I think is right. If I think it is right to eradicate all Jews or perhaps all abortion clinic doctors, it is moral for me to do that. Is this truly what you think?
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Nov 9, 2005 23:47:28 GMT -5
It is moraly justified to you, which is why morals mean shit in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 10, 2005 13:07:25 GMT -5
The position you hold is called 'nihilism'. Look it up.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Nov 11, 2005 11:40:37 GMT -5
I have a question, why do you feel the need to talk down to me simply because I oppose your views? About the fact that i look at morals from a nihilistic view point, so what's your point? That I look at things from a rational view point? Because I do.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 13, 2005 16:27:06 GMT -5
I don't hold all views as arbitrary. Opinions we hold are more or less good, insofar as they are reflective of reality or not. I don't view any action as automatically justified.
I disagree with what I perceive to be your view: 'anything goes'.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Nov 15, 2005 8:32:52 GMT -5
That is because you miss understand vertigo. A nihilistic point of view conveys that every person has their own morality and there for it can be justified and changed according to the person. If your mother says don't get a cookie from the jar you shouldn't. However every child on earth I wager has at some point in time justified his taking of that cookie over his mothers wishes. The same is true of a nihilistic view point. It is not every thing goes it is that every thing and any thing can be justified by people who do the action.
This view point holds even if you mix it with society. In the end the one who makes the rules is the one who wins the wars. The one who makes the rules is also the one who makes up the morals of the people. If I have a point of view and I hold it as being moraly justified, then it is moraly justifed the only thing that affects that is when someone who has more power than I do, or is smarter than I am tells me to either stop or stops me. In which case his moral values become superior. This stance works rationaly because if a person has more power than you there has to be a reason behind it. Either he is stronger, smarter, more charismatic,etc but in the end something has gotten them to where he or she is on the pedistal and there for it is there views that shall be held by most.
This stand point holds up in history as well. Back in the time of the acient greeks an emperor of the persian empier had a greek and a person from some other empier ( i dont remember which one but it is unimportant.) The other man's custom was for all those assembled at the funeral to eat of the dead's body. This was justified as a way the person could live on. You are what you eat. The greeks custom of course was the burning of the body with two coins over the eyes for the boat man. The persian emporer asked of the other man "What would it take for you to burn your dead." He also asked the greeks "What would it take for you to eat of your dead." Neither man could even imagin doing as the other did. There for morality is relitve to time, culture, and personal view point.
Lastly this point of view also holds in the bible (for those of you who cant get your head out of this decrepid, old, badly written, book) The jews justifed the crusifiction of jesus of nazareth becuause they hated him. They even went to the extent of priasing ceaser and welcomeing a mass murderer into their fold.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 15, 2005 15:37:51 GMT -5
Surprisingly, it is a fact that sometimes co-operation yields more benefits than is otherwise possible. Might doesn't always guarantee the best results. Especially, coerced people aren't nearly as productive. I imagine most people know that dictatorships generally don't work well at all.
People co-operate to have the most 'might'. When society is the most mighty, society dictates morality in that you might be imprisoned if you disobey. In saying morality is dictated, that means that one need act differently to survive than one would otherwise have to.
A good businessmen would probably make a hopeless nomad or hunter, etc. Reality is the standard; it is not the case that any action is automatically moral.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Nov 16, 2005 12:36:12 GMT -5
Ok well even though this has virtualy nothing to do with the point. At least not that I am seeing, you are still wrong here. It is actualy a historical fact that any republic has been made into an empier becuase of the instability of a republic or democrocy. If you want some one you might concider wise to say this ill point you to aristotal. He stated that the best form of government is an empier followed by aristocrocy, then republic then oligarchy, and finaly democrocy. In short monarchy does work.
Well even nomads trade so I think they might take an exception to that statement. Lets take the abortion issue since it is generaly fresh in every ones mind. In my mind it is perfectly fine to abort a fetus as I see it as being a parisitc organism. However lets say that for arguments sake that you think this happends to be moraly reprehencible. Both of us think we are right, you think you are moraly justified in your opinion, I think I am. There fore the only factor that says which of us is right is the society we happen to live in. That or some other third party. There is no way that you can justifiy to me that you are moraly right unless you have a third party. Thus in every ones own mind we are all automaticly moraly justified, what it takes is an oposition to test this frame of mind.
|
|