- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas' new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:20 pm to rbWarEagle
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:20 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:That's nice. Why is that better than a standard that dictates that humans should suffer and die? Why is your version better? Because you say so?
"Better", to me, means anything which benefits humans and minimizes pain/suffering. I think science can inform us on things which we should value
1
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Why is that better than a standard that dictates that humans should suffer and die? Why is your version better? Because you say so?
The only leap you have to make is that what is "good" is what best serves the health and prosperity of life to accept a moral framework that science can easily support and grow. I don't believe it to be too much of a leap. Do you?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:20 am to rbWarEagle
quote:It's as big of a leap to go from no objective moral imperative to yours as it is to go to mine, or any, for that matter. Any moral standard has to be as good as any other if they all originate in the minds of humans.
The only leap you have to make is that what is "good" is what best serves the health and prosperity of life to accept a moral framework that science can easily support and grow. I don't believe it to be too much of a leap. Do you?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:33 am to FooManChoo
Not true at all. We can objectively evaluate moral values and determine whether or not they are beneficial or harmful.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:45 am to rbWarEagle
quote:Please explain how a subjective concept such as morality can be objectively evaluated by subjective creatures such as ourselves. And "beneficial" and "harmful" are also subjective words. Beneficial to who? Harmful how? I might have a completely different view of what is beneficial to humanity than you do. Why are your moral values better than mine if they differ?
Not true at all. We can objectively evaluate moral values and determine whether or not they are beneficial or harmful
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:51 am to FooManChoo
Sam Harris has an entire book dedicated to this idea: The Moral Landscape. He asks that you imagine a landscape of morality which you can picture as a 3D plane. Along this plane are peaks and valleys to which correspond better and worse moral frameworks (as they relate to human happiness, well-being, overall health, etc.). Science can help us determine which parts of a given framework are objectively better than others as they relate to those things which we've agreed to presuppose as "good".
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:24 am to rbWarEagle
I've read a little bit about his moral utilitarianism. Essentially his whole view of morality assumes what you just said, namely that we should base morality on human happiness and wellness. That assumption doesn't really stand up to the simple question of "why?"
Why should I care about others?
Why should I care about others?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:28 am to FooManChoo
No one is telling you that you have to. It is just the best shot we've got at coming up with a functional/adaptable moral framework.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:44 am to rbWarEagle
quote:I'm glad you like it. I've got a moral framework that I believe is best, though.
No one is telling you that you have to. It is just the best shot we've got at coming up with a functional/adaptable moral framework.
What subjective morality always boils down to is "might makes right", in that those with the power to enforce it will determine the moral code of that society.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:31 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
You mean you don't agree with John Lennon?
I don't take philosophy lessons from music, no.
quote:
believe
K.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
What subjective morality always boils down to is "might makes right", in that those with the power to enforce it will determine the moral code of that society.
Which is exactly how Christianity rose to prominence in the world. Your morality is subjective as well, just like every other religion.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:37 am to Lg
quote:
I do!
Of course you do.
quote:
If the only consequence is man's judgement, why should I be subjected to man's morals? Man's morals change like the wind.
You're subjected to man's morals, whether you like it or not.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:38 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
What evidence do you have that proves you are correct?
Your lack of any verifiable truth about your god proves that I am correct.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:41 am to DawgfaninCa
Should have had Thall shall not drive into Monument added to the list.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Your lack of any verifiable truth about your god proves that I am correct.
What the heck kind of logic is that?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:55 am to tigersbh
quote:
What the heck kind of logic is that?
Sound logic, if you follow the conversation.
Feel free to provide something contradictory.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 10:42 am to rbWarEagle
I actually delved a little deeper into this since thinking about it last night while lying in bed and this morning during my usual routine. I'm beginning to think the Harris "new atheism" (as was stated previously, new atheism is just a repackaged brand of old atheism) is the driving force behind some of the views you and others on this board hold to, which I hadn't considered previously.
Harris thinks that morality is objective, not subjective, and that the brain is the key to that objectivity. I have held that the brain is the key to moral subjectivity but his neuroscience background is what's driving his approach to this. He thinks that the brain determines individual well-being and that well-being is the moral standard by which we all should adhere to. That which increases well-being is "good" and that which decreases it is "bad". Since we can see differences in brain activity that correspond to certain mental states that we can assign value in regards to well-being, we can therefore empirically measure well-being and take a scientific approach to morality. It seems to be an offshoot of utilitarianism but with a twist.
If you agree with this, I would challenge you to consider some questions I have for this view of morality.
1. How do you define "well-being"? Aristotle thought of it in terms of subjective human experience of happiness, but I'm curious about the specific definition that is generally accepted by "new atheists" here.
2. If well-being can be measured empirically through brain scans, how does well-being achieved through cognitive awareness of reality (truth, facts, experience, etc.) and acceptance of it differ from well-being achieved through delusion, fantasy, lies, or ignorance, and if they are the same, is one state better than the other, and if so, why?
3. If well-being is the standard for defining morality, how does this framework deal with two individuals whose well-being are increased by the others destruction? Are actions taken by both parties to decrease the well-being of each other in order to increase their own well-being morally acceptable, and if not, why not?
4. Should we be concerned about promoting and maximizing well-being of the individual or the group? What's best for the individual in terms of perceived well-being is not necessarily what is best for the group, so if the two should conflict, which should we side with?
5. Related to #4, but what level of well-being is considered morally acceptable in this framework in both the individual and the group? Is it OK if everyone has a little well-being in order to maximize the total number of people with positive well-being, or is it preferred to maximize individual well-being, even at the cost of well-being for the larger group?
Harris thinks that morality is objective, not subjective, and that the brain is the key to that objectivity. I have held that the brain is the key to moral subjectivity but his neuroscience background is what's driving his approach to this. He thinks that the brain determines individual well-being and that well-being is the moral standard by which we all should adhere to. That which increases well-being is "good" and that which decreases it is "bad". Since we can see differences in brain activity that correspond to certain mental states that we can assign value in regards to well-being, we can therefore empirically measure well-being and take a scientific approach to morality. It seems to be an offshoot of utilitarianism but with a twist.
If you agree with this, I would challenge you to consider some questions I have for this view of morality.
1. How do you define "well-being"? Aristotle thought of it in terms of subjective human experience of happiness, but I'm curious about the specific definition that is generally accepted by "new atheists" here.
2. If well-being can be measured empirically through brain scans, how does well-being achieved through cognitive awareness of reality (truth, facts, experience, etc.) and acceptance of it differ from well-being achieved through delusion, fantasy, lies, or ignorance, and if they are the same, is one state better than the other, and if so, why?
3. If well-being is the standard for defining morality, how does this framework deal with two individuals whose well-being are increased by the others destruction? Are actions taken by both parties to decrease the well-being of each other in order to increase their own well-being morally acceptable, and if not, why not?
4. Should we be concerned about promoting and maximizing well-being of the individual or the group? What's best for the individual in terms of perceived well-being is not necessarily what is best for the group, so if the two should conflict, which should we side with?
5. Related to #4, but what level of well-being is considered morally acceptable in this framework in both the individual and the group? Is it OK if everyone has a little well-being in order to maximize the total number of people with positive well-being, or is it preferred to maximize individual well-being, even at the cost of well-being for the larger group?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:39 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Which is exactly how Christianity rose to prominence in the world. Your morality is subjective as well, just like every other religion.
Like how Constantine made Christianity the official religion for political gain.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:03 pm to FooManChoo
Read his books and take a philosophy class or two.
That should answer most of your questions.
That should answer most of your questions.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 2:58 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:1. this isnt true.
Today, the only religion that would force people under threat of death to convert to their religion is Islam.
2. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. and what was Christianity doing when it was the same age as Islam is now?
oh, you know, just the crusades and the inquisitions. burning 30,000 "witches" to death, imprisoning and killing scientists, things like that.
you think youre better and more peaceful than islam. youre actually much much worse.
Page 15 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News