TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ethical Questions/You Answer
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: are you saying all truth is relative? because it certainly is not

Sure it is. Here�s an example � I think your argument is flawed and ill-conceived.

That�s my truth, and many others here likely share that truth as well. It�s highly likely you do not, however, at least not yet.

Therefore what you consider �truth� is different than what I consider as �truth�.

Moving on�

quote:

there is a difference between murder and killing as some of you have made examples of war and then murder for self-gain. murder is simply for self-gain. killing maybe applied to a murder, u kill the person, but i apply it to killing as a way to survive. in war, u kill to survive. just like in nature.

So you are equating killing in wars to defend oneself as a means of survival to an animal killing for survival. Got it.

quote:

so, ill restate question #1, the revised edition. #1. What would you consider murder in the sense of it being "wrong"? Why is it wrong for a human to kill for personal gain when in nature thats called natural selection?

Did you not state earlier that there�s a difference between killing and murdering? The former is for protection and survival, whereas the latter is for �self-gain�, correct?

But then you falsely equate killing in wars as a means of survival to animals� killing for �self-gain�, when previously you equated war killing to animals� killing for survival.

Which is it? Do animals kill for self-gain, personal pleasure, insanity, madness. etc., or do they kill for survival?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: are you saying all truth is relative? because it certainly is not --------------

Although truth ultimately may not be relative, our knowledge of the truth is not and can not be absolute, so we can never be 100% certain of whether what we see as truth is actually truth.

quote:

there is a difference between murder and killing as some of you have made examples of war and then murder for self-gain. murder is simply for self-gain. killing maybe applied to a murder, u kill the person, but i apply it to killing as a way to survive. in war, u kill to survive. just like in nature. so, ill restate question #1, the revised edition. #1. What would you consider murder in the sense of it being "wrong"? Why is it wrong for a human to kill for personal gain when in nature thats called natural selection?

Basically the reason why murdering someone is wrong is that it destabilizes the community and makes it less safe for the members of that community to survive. The reason why we consider murdering wrong is that we are group animals and we instinctively strive to preserve the group, in this case by removing the destabilizing element, or the murderer. Same goes for murdering in monkey tribes, dog packs, bat colonies, etc. That's the same reason why we don't consider killing someone from another opposed community a murder, and that's why we consider it normal for people to hunt animals and to wage wars.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Sure it is. Here�s an example � I think your argument is flawed and ill-conceived. That�s my truth, and many others here likely share that truth as well. It�s highly likely you do not, however, at least not yet. Therefore what you consider �truth� is different than what I consider as �truth�.

sure, what we perceive as truth is relative. but what really is the truth? some people's truth is that the Holacaust never happened. whereas most people know it happened. who is right? are they both right? is that what relativism is? everyone is right? help me out here.

quote:

Did you not state earlier that there�s a difference between killing and murdering? The former is for protection and survival, whereas the latter is for �self-gain�, correct? But then you falsely equate killing in wars as a means of survival to animals� killing for �self-gain�, when previously you equated war killing to animals� killing for survival. Which is it? Do animals kill for self-gain, personal pleasure, insanity, madness. etc., or do they kill for survival??

animals kill for self-gain and for survival. orangatangs will fight to the death for a peice of territory and for females that live in that territory. they are fighting for personal gain. for the females, for their own plot of land. do they need that land. no, they live their first 15 or so years travelling around and getting by just fine. but in order to be the top orangatang in the arena, u have to fight.

i kind of didnt understand your rebuttal to my explaination of murder and killing. murder to me is killing for self-gain. maybe im getting my wording wrong. killing in war is a matter of personal survival and the survival of your comrades. i dont know what to call that type of killing, but its not murder.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Although truth ultimately may not be relative, our knowledge of the truth is not and can not be absolute, so we can never be 100% certain of whether what we see as truth is actually truth.

i agree with you to the extent that truth is not ultimately relative, but what we see as truth is definately relative. but there is a right and a wrong. even if we dont know it or think we dont know it. is 2+2 always 4?

quote:

Basically the reason why murdering someone is wrong is that it destabilizes the community and makes it less safe for the members of that community to survive. The reason why we consider murdering wrong is that we are group animals and we instinctively strive to preserve the group, in this case by removing the destabilizing element, or the murderer. Same goes for murdering in monkey tribes, dog packs, bat colonies, etc. That's the same reason why we don't consider killing someone from another opposed community a murder, and that's why we consider it normal for people to hunt animals and to wage wars.

when rival gorillas fight for leadership of a group, they fight viciously, sometimes to the death of one of them. but they dont get ejected. the winner becomes the leader of the group. even though they seemingly "destabilized" the group. ive never heard one case of dog packs or bats ejecting or removing a member for killing another member. elephants will fight and sometimes impale each others tusks into the others throat. the loser dies. the winner is not ejected, but becomes #1 in the land.

quote:

That's the same reason why we don't consider killing someone from another opposed community a murder, and that's why we consider it normal for people to hunt animals and to wage wars.

how do u tell that to the millions of people who actually do think killing in war is murder? think back to the massive protests in march 2003.

Ok I think you have this the wrong way round...

Instead of trying to coax everybody to the point you are trying to make, why dont you just come out and tell us what point you want to make, and then we'll take it from there k?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok I think you have this the wrong way round... Instead of trying to coax everybody to the point you are trying to make, why dont you just come out and tell us what point you want to make, and then we'll take it from there k?

evolution is philosophically unstable, and truth is not relative.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: sure, what we perceive as truth is relative. but what really is the truth? some people's truth is that the Holacaust never happened. whereas most people know it happened. who is right? are they both right? is that what relativism is? everyone is right? help me out here.

Oh sure, we can discuss relativism but this does not assist your argument in any way if we do. Perhaps you need to discuss your personal definition of "truth" first before we go any further. I think most people accept a simple definition of something like an event or phenomena that has been verified.

If someone refuses to believe in the Holocaust, that's not a truth, even to them by this definition. Rather, that's simply their ignorance if they refuse to accept verification.

quote:

animals kill for self-gain and for survival. orangatangs will fight to the death for a peice of territory and for females that live in that territory. they are fighting for personal gain. for the females, for their own plot of land. do they need that land. no, they live their first 15 or so years travelling around and getting by just fine. but in order to be the top orangatang in the arena, u have to fight.

I'm sorry, you really haven't shown a very good understanding of biology in the past. For this very reason I'm a tad bit skeptical that you have been able to grasp it recently at all. Your example here of orangs is a prime example - you state they kill for personal gain. By your strange and arbitrary definition this may be true on its face, but in truth they fight for territory not just for their own survival but they do so as well as fight for females to ensure their genes are passed on to the highest probability of fitness possible. IOW - they are fighting for survival of both themselves AND their offspring.

This is basic Biology 101, and although is not entirely universal (territorial behavior), it is most certainly not exclusive to orangs or any other ape/gorilla.

quote:

i kind of didnt understand your rebuttal to my explaination of murder and killing. murder to me is killing for self-gain.

That's not what you said earlier. THIS is what you said earlier, and what I was referring to:

quote:

there is a difference between murder and killing as some of you have made examples of war and then murder for self-gain. murder is simply for self-gain. killing maybe applied to a murder, u kill the person, but i apply it to killing as a way to survive. in war, u kill to survive. just like in nature.

So by your own definition and rationale:
murder = self-gain
killing = survival

quote:

maybe im getting my wording wrong.

I think you're having a bit of difficulty with your wording throughout all of your posts here so far. Give us some definitions and stick to them. If you change them arbitrarily as you go, then your arguments become muddled and flawed.

quote:

killing in war is a matter of personal survival and the survival of your comrades. i dont know what to call that type of killing, but its not murder.

I'm simply sticking to your definitions. So let's stick with one definition and go from there.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: evolution is philosophically unstable, and truth is not relative.

Well I think we all knew where you were going with this. However you haven't supported this conclusion very well at this point.

Even if you were to successfully come to this conclusion about evolution being philosophically "unstable", although I'm a bit unsure as to how you would define that, how does that change the scientific evidence that has been tested, observed, verified, and falsified supporting evolution in any way? IOW, why discuss this philosophically when, in fact, we should be discussing this scientifically?

Your concept of truth not being relative really is a bit of a stretch when referring to evolution. I would suggest you create a new thread on this concept alone so we can discuss absolute verses relative "truth". Or perhaps more to the point you're attempting to make - absolute verses relative morality.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well I think we all knew where you were going with this. However you haven't supported this conclusion very well at this point. Even if you were to successfully come to this conclusion about evolution being philosophically "unstable", although I'm a bit unsure as to how you would define that, how does that change the scientific evidence that has been tested, observed, verified, and falsified supporting evolution in any way? IOW, why discuss this philosophically when, in fact, we should be discussing this scientifically? Your concept of truth not being relative really is a bit of a stretch when referring to evolution. I would suggest you create a new thread on this concept alone so we can discuss absolute verses relative "truth". Or perhaps more to the point you're attempting to make - absolute verses relative morality.

you are very much intelligent. lets talk relativism in another thread.

So thats that HUH....i was looking forward to the scientific discussion....as regards evolution being philosophically unstable....why didnt you just say that in the beginning....and the flaming could have started earlier.....

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: i agree with you to the extent that truth is not ultimately relative, but what we see as truth is definately relative. but there is a right and a wrong. even if we dont know it or think we dont know it. is 2+2 always 4?

You can't be absolutely sure that there is right and wrong. Besides, how do you define right and wrong in absolute terms? Right and wrong are just conventions, created partially by the society and partially by our adaptation to group existance. Numbers are just our own model by which we estimate nature. Mathematical terms aren't absolutely defined either, so you can't prove or disprove that 2+2=4 without using unprovable postulates that we take for granted.

quote:

when rival gorillas fight for leadership of a group, they fight viciously, sometimes to the death of one of them. but they dont get ejected. the winner becomes the leader of the group. even though they seemingly "destabilized" the group.

A group needs a leader and a fight for leadership is necessarry to reach a stable situation. But you mixed up the terms here. First of all, the intention of the fight is not to kill the other gorilla. Secondly, both gorillas agreed to the fight. If one of the gorillas did not want to win the position and the other gorilla would still go after the first one then I guess it could be classified as a murder. But after all, the world isn't perfect, so murders do sometimes go unpunished, both in gorilla tribes and in human societies.

quote:

ive never heard one case of dog packs or bats ejecting or removing a member for killing another member.

Well, too bad. It does happen. When a member is too agressive, other members usually team up against that specific member to kick him out or kill him. Sometimes, however, the murderer does not get rejected. That is not because the other animals don't want him to be rejected, quite the opposite, they do have a very strong feeling that the murderer should be rejected, but because the murderer is powerful they're afraid of taking any actions against him. Some of them even suck up to the murderer in order to improve their own positions. But if the murderer is too brutal, then the majority of the animals will join in to kill the leader and his few followers. That situation does not really happen with dogs or bats, but it happens quite often in monkey tribes. And you must admit it's very similar to people. Everyone likes a good leader, and nobody likes a leader who kills people but people usually stand quiet. But if that leader gets too brutal or shows a sign of weakness, people usually revolt.

quote:

elephants will fight and sometimes impale each others tusks into the others throat. the loser dies. the winner is not ejected, but becomes #1 in the land.

Same as for gorillas. Is duel a murder? No, because both sides agreed to it.

quote:

how do u tell that to the millions of people who actually do think killing in war is murder? think back to the massive protests in march 2003.

Umm, killing civillians is a murder. Killing armed soldiers isn't. But the protests weren't happening because US soldiers were murdering Iraqis, protests were happening because Bush attacked Iraq for no real reason and lied to the general public by presenting false evidence. So in a way you could consider Bush a murderer because he indirectly did cause deaths of people who were not a threat to the well being of him or his country.

PS. It's orangutan not orangatang.

Us gorillas don't fight to the death normally. But normally folks do over in Iraq. Killing insurgents there is not murder, but rather the justified riddance of bad elements. Sometimes there's collateral damage. That which is inflicted by the US Forces is normally brought on by the initiation of a gunbattle by insurgents, so we are not really to blame in those instances and in the large majority of cases. When we overbomb sh*t in taking out insurgent hideouts or bomb the wrong house, then we are generally to blame in those instances. Keep in mind the US military is only one of the few armies in the world even concerned about civilian casualties. Bosnia should have taught you that.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Us gorillas don't fight to the death normally. But normally folks do over in Iraq. Killing insurgents there is not murder, but rather the justified riddance of bad elements. Sometimes there's collateral damage. That which is inflicted by the US Forces is normally brought on by the initiation of a gunbattle by insurgents, so we are not really to blame in those instances and in the large majority of cases. When we overbomb sh*t in taking out insurgent hideouts or bomb the wrong house, then we are generally to blame in those instances. Keep in mind the US military is only one of the few armies in the world even concerned about civilian casualties. Bosnia should have taught you that. [[[smoke]]]

One mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter........your whole statement above could be turned right around,just change killing the insurgents bit to killing Americans....from an Iraqi point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Us gorillas don't fight to the death normally. But normally folks do over in Iraq. Killing insurgents there is not murder, but rather the justified riddance of bad elements. Sometimes there's collateral damage. That which is inflicted by the US Forces is normally brought on by the initiation of a gunbattle by insurgents, so we are not really to blame in those instances and in the large majority of cases. When we overbomb sh*t in taking out insurgent hideouts or bomb the wrong house, then we are generally to blame in those instances. Keep in mind the US military is only one of the few armies in the world even concerned about civilian casualties. Bosnia should have taught you that. [[[smoke]]]

Why do you post here?

Re: Re: Ethical Questions/You Answer

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I'd say yes because the aborted child is a result of parent's actions. If women just happened to get pregnant without outside influence and had no control of their pregnancies, then it would be in a somewhat grey area. Since they are in control, getting pregnant with an unwanted child is their own fault and therefore it's them who should pay for it and not the child.

what about rape? Should a women be allowed have terminate its unborn then?

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Us gorillas don't fight to the death normally. But normally folks do over in Iraq. Killing insurgents there is not murder, but rather the justified riddance of bad elements.

i am sure thats the way the insurgents feel aswell.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Sometimes there's collateral damage. That which is inflicted by the US Forces is normally brought on by the initiation of a gunbattle by insurgents, so we are not really to blame in those instances and in the large majority of cases.

you invaded there country, so i think you are to blame actually.

None of these would be natural selection. Technically it's artificial selection because other people are deciding the fates of these individuals, not nature.

Re: Re: Re: Ethical Questions/You Answer

quote:

Originally posted by Michael19 what about rape? Should a women be allowed have terminate its unborn then?

Eh, rape is an issue that I'm kinda split on. On one hand it's not the child's fault that the guy raped the woman, and on the other hand it's not that the woman had any choice. Besides, the child might inherit the genes for rapist tendencies. Eh, I dunno, I'd say I'd allow it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethical Questions/You Answer

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Eh, rape is an issue that I'm kinda split on. On one hand it's not the child's fault that the guy raped the woman, and on the other hand it's not that the woman had any choice. Besides, the child might inherit the genes for rapist tendencies. Eh, I dunno, I'd say I'd allow it.

Even if he had rapist "tendencies", depending on the enviroment the child is raised (e.g. seeing his mother suffer), this child would probably supress them. Allowing abortion out of "possibilities" is the same as condemning people for something they haven't done yet.

And no film Tom Cruise starred can be applied here, by the way

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethical Questions/You Answer

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Even if he had rapist "tendencies", depending on the enviroment the child is raised (e.g. seeing his mother suffer), this child would probably supress them. Allowing abortion out of "possibilities" is the same as condemning people for something they haven't done yet.

Yeah, that's also true. The child might not even inherit that part of his genes. But I didn't say I'd force it, I said I'd allow it. Seriously, why force such a mother to have a child that she'd hate whole her life because it reminds her of the rapist?

quote:

And no film Tom Cruise starred can be applied here, by the way

What's wrong with Tom Cruise movies?!?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.