Boerseun Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Better by definition is more good. Moral. The reason it is a moral issue is because you have to hypothetically place your pin of morality on the board and say it is good that society survives. Very simple concept. Scientifically, it is neither good nor bad for society if the society is hit with a nuclear missile or given the gift of immortality and cultural wealth. It just doesn't matter. To say it is good, bad, worse, or better is to use morality to formulate a judgment. Basically, you cannot have an opinion that you believe in without having morality behind it. If you don't believe this, create any opinion you can think of and then ask yourself the question 'why', you will eventually dig and get to your morals that support the opinion unless you think you are clever and use cyclical answers which are not legitimate becuase they are ultimately being answered incorrectly.Nobody's debating the point that morality's subjective. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for you, regardless of who's opinion of 'good' we're using here. But what amazes me is how you proceed from the subjectivity of opinions to hauling god out of your *** everytime to define morality. My opinions and actions are based on 'doing unto others as I would have them do unto me'. NOWHERE is god inferred, implied, seen or even smelt. Christian morality is one thing. My morality is another. Morality can exist very happily without god, thank you very much. Sometimes, it's nice to have an opinion. Even if that opinion is that you don't have one. Matter of fact, for someone without an opinion, you put up quite a fight to defend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 "People like you" i.e. Tormod, me and the rest of the guys, are the Hypo make-up. If you don't like it, may I suggest you find another forum somewhere that'll cater to your needs. Also, having morals do not imply believing in god, however much you might want it to be the case. If I do what I do based solely on a belief in 'doing unto others as I would have done to me', there is no god involved or even implied, but it makes for a complete and fine set of morals to live by. You might not understand it, and that's your prerogative. If you want to scare god out from under every available bush, you'll very likely find him. But you won't find him in my morality, which I do have, by the way. Run along now, we're having too much fun here to be held in contempt by you.You know, that ‘do unto others’ bit holds up right up until you ask it the question why. It is impossible to escape if you have morality, but no one in any false religion cares to pop anyone else’s religious bubble by making a statement. Neuro - YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS POINT!!! People have kept trying to point out to you that there can be a social basis for morality. Morality can help keep a society from crumbling because it helps maintain order. You are the only person who continually brought god into the previous discussion on morality, and yet you continue to hold false, subjective opinions about moraility.Judgment is religious, there is no formidable argument that can declare otherwise. So then, you would agree that you generally know what actions would be 'good' for you to take - i.e. an action that benefits you. How then, can you not seem to understand that by the same token people can know what actions can benefit the group, and call those actions 'good' for society?What you aren’t gathering is that I do not use judgment in my life. I do not use judgment that I believe. I use judgment that is built entirely on hypothetical opinions that are formulated on no base without reason just for the sake of having an opinion at times for no reason during situations, such as… Hypothetically, my identity wants to live tomorrow so I will do something that allows it to live. Hypothetically, I want stimulation in the form of argument and conversation so I will find a thread and pick a stance and then argue it into the ground without believing a word I say. Hypothetically, I want to see how people react in an IRC chat when I challenge the ideological basis for their ego. Hypothetically, I want to see how people react if I post a discussion that would be in direct opposition to their basis of morality by challenging its scientific baselessness. I don’t believe in anything I say or do, I just do them because I do them and do not subject myself to such rhetorical questions as why. Its not just "society" that survives. Its you. Let's make this scientific: that of yours line above, "I hold people like you in contempt," Go try that at a biker bar at 2am: explain how little they all mean to you and how stupid you think they all are. See what happens. I don't think anyone's going to be hurt by "don't speak ill of your neighbor" in that experiment except you... Empirically Moral,Buffy Like it or not, nothing would happen as a result. The, “go say that in harlem!” bit doesn’t hold true in reality. It is always better in theory when you don’t know anything about people, but when you do you find out they are all just frauds with reputations they are passionate about. Nobody's debating the point that morality's subjective. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for you, regardless of who's opinion of 'good' we're using here. But what amazes me is how you proceed from the subjectivity of opinions to hauling god out of your *** everytime to define morality. My opinions and actions are based on 'doing unto others as I would have them do unto me'. NOWHERE is god inferred, implied, seen or even smelt. Christian morality is one thing. My morality is another. Morality can exist very happily without god, thank you very much. Sometimes, it's nice to have an opinion. Even if that opinion is that you don't have one. Matter of fact, for someone without an opinion, you put up quite a fight to defend it. Please please please read a book or two on morality, ethics, and the basis of judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Neuro, I disagree that morality requires theism. However, I believe I begin to understand your position.To me, it seems you are a nihlist, nothing matters. The existance/life of people, including yourself, makes no difference and is neither good nor bad. From that position, I can understand how your posts logically follow. However, I disagree with that initial position of yours.(If I am off base please let me know) If the above is correct, I am concerned you may be sociopathic. And I would encourage you to seek professional help. While I appreciate your viewpoint, I don't agree with it. Society is a biologically founded advantage and the mores of society came evolved along with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 If the above is correct, I am concerned you may be sociopathic. Seconded. In the meantime, Neuro, take it somewhere else. Your attitude is not welcome here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I do not use judgment in my life.You say that like its a good thing! You don't even have poor judgement, you have none! :Waldo:I want stimulation in the form of argument and conversation so I will find a thread and pick a stance and then argue it into the ground without believing a word I say.So spitting in people's faces, calling them stupid and ugly is how you get your jollies. That explains a lot!Like it or not, nothing would happen as a result. The, “go say that in harlem!” bit doesn’t hold true in reality. It is always better in theory when you don’t know anything about people, but when you do you find out they are all just frauds with reputations they are passionate about.Frauds with chains and guns can still pack a wallop. Its *obvious* you don't get out of your room much... This thread is so darned self-referential! A virtual biker bar! Cool! Let's beat the crap out of him boys and girls! Yo mama,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Gosh. It's always sad seeing a sociopath self-destruct. Oh, well... One down, thousands to go. Bring it on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Better by definition is more good. Moral. Well, you won't reply to this but... Does that mean that faster computers are more moral than a slower computers?Does that mean that food that tastes better tastes more moral? The reason it is a moral issue is because you have to hypothetically place your pin of morality on the board and say it is good that society survives.No, I don't choose the morality. Society chose it. Society decided that it is more moral to survive than not because of social darwinism. Those societies which value surviving survive more than those societies which do not value surviving (nifty how it works out that way, isn't it?). Whether I think it's good or not, it is still quantifiably good for a society if that society survives. I think that it would have been better for the Soviet Union if they had not gotten into an economic war with the United States, but that doesn't mean that I think it would have been a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.