I didn't bother to read, what seems to be at a glance, pompous intellectualism.

In any case, religious beliefs are a product of natural selection. So yes, something akin to 'moral values' may exists without the 'religion'.


THREAD CLOSED.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the fact that morality changes between groups of people is irrelevant when discussing them imo.

Yeah, why would the fact that morality is different for different people be relevant when discussing morals? What is this, bizarro world?

quote:

if we can forget the pedantic technicalities

Let's all close our minds, yes, yes, I understand.

quote:

there are some things that are universally wrong, such as rape or murder. just becoz a particular society does not view either of these 2 crimes as crimes at all, does not mean they do not have absolute applications.

Well, I guess you're right, god.

quote:

dissenting views about some fundamental human rights are irrelevant as far as im concerned.

We just welded that door shut.

quote:

there are obvious wrongs that (no matter how facetious one might want to be) should be prevented the world over.

Like you posting here? Okay that was harsh. I meant, like you posting here?

quote:

i think the term \"morality\" is a bit problematic, id go simply for \"human rights\". i think that the very basic components of rights for all humans is an absolute, and universal rule, that should exist across all nations and cultures.

You obviously know much more about this than I do. What are these basic human rights you have thought of to impose on everyone whether they want them or not? You obviously know what is best for everyone.

quote:

and the self does not always come first. millions of people everyday commit altruistic endeavours with no thought of themselves. the groups that say total self interest is a part of the human condition do so to justify a system of social organisation that rewards greed.

That's a right pretty story, mate, but i'm sure you weren't thinking about that kid with the bright eyes on the Christian Children's Fund commercial when you bought Nu-Nrg's newest album.

___________________

quote:

Addy fo SHADDY ! hiccup, KA pladdy.

ok, lets go, you condescending little turd

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil Yeah, why would the fact that morality is different for different people be relevant when discussing morals? What is this, bizarro world?

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil Let's all close our minds, yes, yes, I understand.

because i believe in *universal* (sound it out) "laws" that should be there to protect all human beings, regardless of where they are or behind which arbitrary line on a map. this isnt something i dreamt up one day, so if you have enough in you, bring me something new to make me think about. having an opinion does not go hand in hand with having a closed mind. just coz ive thought a bit about it thru the years and have reached an opinion doesnt mean i dont listen to other people. unless of course theyre like you and dont have anything remotely intelligent or challenging to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil Let's all close our minds, yes, yes, I understand. We just welded that door shut.

oh! i have a MUCH better plan. lets give every single concept and idea that has ever ever existed an equal standing with each other. coz all ideas are of equal worth of course. youre undermining your own "argument". if you think that all ideas are equal then (to be consistent) shut your trap now.
lets repeal ALL laws, which are nothing more than a legal codification of one idea or another. lets stop all meaningful dialogue in philosophy or international relations, coz theyre just "different ideas, everyone's theory is of equal weight" etc etc. wouldnt that be marvellous. lets cease any thought processes at all; i mean, whats the point if theres no cogent synthesis at the end of it? lets roll back 100s of years since the enlightenment when we actually started to actively (and rationally) question the structures and systems of organisation, and just let whatever exists now exist until the death of the human race. no need for improvement. how can improvement occur if no theory/idea is any better than another?

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil Like you posting here? Okay that was harsh. I meant, like you posting here?

yeah, good one noob. 6 posts a day eh? dont get out much? not surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil You obviously know much more about this than I do. What are these basic human rights you have thought of to impose on everyone whether they want them or not? You obviously know what is best for everyone.

well, how about we try some basic things like freedom of religion. freedom of the press. freedom to criticise ones govt without one's family disappearing. freedom of speech. freedom from torture. freedom from genocide. state-sponsored murder. its a long list.
if you dont think that these ideals are worth anything, then i feel very sorry for you.
if you also think that these ideals arent more important than inherited ideologies stagnant in irrational cultural norms, then you may as well jump back in time 500 years and youd be happier.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil That's a right pretty story, mate, but i'm sure you weren't thinking about that kid with the bright eyes on the Christian Children's Fund commercial when you bought Nu-Nrg's newest album.

firstly, i said there are millions of ppl out there that act altruistically everyday. i didnt say that i act selflessly ALL the time seriously, i think you need a better grasp of criticising an argument. so chew balls! and come back when you have a better understanding and are capable of providing the forum readers with something worthy to think about.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh! i have a MUCH better plan. lets give every single concept and idea that has ever ever existed an equal standing with each other. coz all ideas are of equal worth of course. youre undermining your own "argument". if you think that all ideas are equal then (to be consistent) shut your trap now. lets repeal ALL laws, which are nothing more than a legal codification of one idea or another. lets stop all meaningful dialogue in philosophy or international relations, coz theyre just "different ideas, everyone's theory is of equal weight" etc etc. wouldnt that be marvellous. lets cease any thought processes at all; i mean, whats the point if theres no cogent synthesis at the end of it? lets roll back 100s of years since the enlightenment when we actually started to actively (and rationally) question the structures and systems of organisation, and just let whatever exists now exist until the death of the human race. no need for improvement. how can improvement occur if no theory/idea is any better than another?

I'm curious: if you're so interested in having a "meaningful dialogue" in philosophy or international relations and don't want to "just let whatever exists now exist until the death of the human race," then why is it your position that "dissenting views about some fundamental human rights are irrelevant as far as [you're] concerned."

It seems to be to be more than a little bit inconsistent - unless of course you have some absolutely reliable and objective measure by which to determine which ideas are worthy of consideration and discussion and which aren't. In that case, I'd be interested to hear a detailed explanation of the transcendental or rational basis for these "rights," to begin with:

quote:

well, how about we try some basic things like freedom of religion. freedom of the press. freedom to criticise ones govt without one's family disappearing. freedom of speech. freedom from torture. freedom from genocide. state-sponsored murder. its a long list.

I only ask, because this "long list" of "basic" and "fundamental" human rights seems to me not only to not be more important than "inherited ideologies stagnant in irrational cultural norms" but in fact to be an example of some of those. But I'm more than willing to reconsider my perspective on that particular issue if you can succeed where innumerable philosophers, politicians, sociologists, and theologists have failed and provide a conclusive, demonstrable, and cogent basis for each of these rights.

I don't understand the false dilemma that suggests that we either must accept a set of absolute moral principles, or else accept that every proposed set of moral principles is equal. Just because some particular morality fails to meet the standard of being absolute or universal doesn't mean that it can't be superior to another in some or all circumstances. It seems to me that both thoroughly contemptible extremes are merely excuses for intellectual laziness: you either decide upon a particular set of morals and expeditiously judge everything by them, or you refuse to compare the merits of different sets of morals to begin with. In both cases, the individual is freed from the intellectual obligation of an ongoing, dynamic analysis of moral questions under widely varying conditions over one's entire lifetime - in my view, the only type of morality that has any value to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But I'm more than willing to reconsider my perspective on that particular issue if you can succeed where innumerable philosophers, politicians, sociologists, and theologists have failed and provide a conclusive, demonstrable, and cogent basis for each of these rights.

lol I nearly spat coke all over my LCD...

Cheers,
-Noble

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!