the hidden premise that it’s obligatory to not murder was a key part of my OP — Pfhorrest

Hehe, i completely missed that.

Leave it to a psychopathic immoralist, to misunderstand a question which has one of the basic human values as an unspoken premise.

It's the notion that Good & Evil are inherent in the Thermodynamic duality of our temporal world. — Gnomon

My goodness. So you say that P=V*T is an evil, while V=P/T is goodness?

Are you saying that the preservation of momentum is actually really evil, while the preservation of energy is goodness itself?

or are you actually saying that

mF/t^2 is an evil derivation of energy in terms of mass, force, and time?

Harold Bloom. Ay-vey. Sh'ma o Yisroel.

If his god represents the absolute of the good and just, why does the bad and unjust exist? If his god was perfect, why would these opposing ideas exist? Is there an opposite God of evil? — One piece

I don't know how Plato would answer this, but my impression is that the men who live it in a cave there, in dark, deep forest, and essentially who we are according to Plato, are not Bad or Evil or Unjust, just uninformed. We are imperfect in our disability to sense reality. Therefore our creations are also imperfect.

I doubt if Playdo meant that them cavemen's world is populated by bad or evil or unjust; it is just simply removed from the perfect, the good, the just, and this removal makes it imperfect, but not evil, etc.

Nor is it easy to find people in this ignorant town i live in to have philosophical discussion with — One piece

You live in New York City, too? Try moving to Athens, or to Delphi, PA, (good fortune tellers there), or to Paris, Ontario (great for existentialists), or to Coppenhagen, GA (modern moralists), or to San Francisco (Great drugs, lots of them).

You cant really get people to talk about philosophy on martial art forums or anime forums, so here i am. — One piece

I noticed that on the forums run on singles' sites there was quite a big talk on philosophy. This was back 10-20 years ago before I got finally banned good on PoF and before I got married ten years ago. There was also good philosophy on CraigsList (does it still exist? I must check.)

Also, I think the argument is missing the critical premise which is this: It is obligatory that you don't murder. — TheMadFool

I appreciate this. Many a classic or modern conundrum is often served up missing essential elements.

Well spotted, TMF. I did not have the wherewithal to assume this may be missing something.

You ought not to murder... why not? It is carved in stone or something?

Sure you ought to murder. There are times when it can't be avoided, and there are times when it is even beneficial. But when you do, do it painlessly, without glee (or with hidden glee), doing it as if doing a kind deed or a favour to the victim. This will make the victim (supposedly, I don't believe it) feel good about himself, the murder, and his death. Therefore murdering gently is a good thing.

The funny thing is, it is easiest to die and it is with the least amount of anxiety when you die while your adrenaline levels are high. I am thinking of battle, the old fashioned kind. The old fashioned kind, when you go into battle because you want to, because you are angry, because you want to destroy the other person. If the other person destroys you, instead, in the proceedings, then it's the easiest way out, I think. The easiest way out while conscious and sentient. Even the pain of the blade in your throat is lessened, due to high adrenaline levels, compared to the largest anxiety when you are tied to the stake after extended and very painful periods of torture, getting the amount of wood and tree branches lit up to fire under you with no escape from the certainty of burning to death.

What is it supposed to prove to expect something from a prophecy that those who believe in them don't claim? — BlueBanana

1. Truth (if the prophecy is accurate, precise and not trivial).
2. A revelation that all prophecies in the bible are false, misleading and just for show, there is / was / has been no divine intervention, and the whole thing is a hoax (in case there is not even one prophecy in the bible that is accurate, precise, and not trivial).

Ok, that's a good point that negates the bet. But we do not switch on beliefs. — Relativist

That is true. But our beliefs are not the issue. The reality is the issue... our beliefs may be false, totally false, and we wouldn't know it. There is no assurance either way.

However, and here I am arguing against myself, if you act according to your beliefs, at least you get the satisfaction for the time being that you are doing the right thing. That is worth something, too.

A strict follower of rule ethics, or deontology, would think that a moral rule should always be obeyed regardless of consequences. The principles are always moral and always right. If you find that unreasonable, as your introduction indicates, it’s probably because you prefer a consequentialist ethics — Congau

Either because a person prefers a consequentialist ethic, or because the deontological ethics finds itself in self-contradictory quagmire very soon into its short-lived existence.

Is it okay to lie?

Is it okay to cause death?

There are many scenarios in which these two qestions throw the deontologist into a wicked web of indecision and undecideability.

So yes maybe in a hypothetical scenario in which humans all around the world share the same societal structures my theory could be more Applicable to the whole collective human consciousness but for now it has to be restricted to a regional level since we are all so divided in our values. — EpicTyrant

I agree.

"But that's not morality; that's merely doing good." That clearly shows you think of them as two different things. — tomatohorse

Thanks for the clarification.

I am glad you raised this point. In my opinion there is no definition of morality. I think of morality and of doing good as two different things, because they have two different names in the English language. "Table" and "chair" are two different things. Therefore they have two different names. Morality and doing good have two different names, therefore one ought to assume they are two different things.

But they are not different, yet people treat them as different. That is what I am objecting. If you do good, that's not moral. To do good is to do good. But what is to do moral? I don't know. Nobody knows. It is a phantasm created by the human mind, and it serves a purpose, but it is flawed as a philosophical entity.

If one could form a belief by flipping a switch, it would make sense for anyone who thinks there's at least a small chance of a god who rewards us after death for believing in him. Switching to believer costs you nothing, and it at least has that small chance of benefitting you. So the problem is that beliefs don't work that way. — Relativist

There is a huge switch. Switching to a belief may be a switch to a bad belief.
1. God may not be straight with us; maybe the life he promises to reward is the life he punishes. There is no guarantee this way or the other.
2. God may not be the god we imagine, but a different god, who punishes people for behaviour prescribed in the bible.

Thus, the original Pascal's wager is a wager on a sure bet; you cannot lose, you can only break even or you can win. The REAL wager is a win-lose situation, with the odds being equal on both sides.

Why are the odds equal on both sides? Because nobody has come back to tell us how it really plays out in the afterlife.We have no information on what happens on the other side.Therefore the best approximation is a hundred percent margin of error.

We are blindly placing wagers, and there are no guarantees.

Think of me marking the blackboard with a rising, green line.

That's the moral line. It symbolizes, when judging sense data, this is what's beneficent. — Qwex

This does not address the issue. At all.

It's like saying

"Imagine a black knight on a white horse riding toward the mountains. The mountains represent you, and the horse, the moral judgment, and rider, a moral guide." or something similar.

You have to do better that that. Or else there is a chance, however slight or diminutive, that the MODs will yank you out of here.

Incidentally, there was also a Jewish refugee problem created by Jew fleeing Arab countries to Israel. — Jacob-B

Israel refused entry to the Jews fleeing persecution in Arab countries? Come ON!

I can see some problems where Israeli intelligence had to screen the incoming masses for infiltrators such as spies and terrorists. But other than that, I can't see any refusal of immigrants of Jews into Israel.

Right. But what are your moral criteria. You must weigh the pros and the cons; you must have some guidlines for yourself. You can't just arbitrarily judge "this is moral, that is not moral", because then there are no rules that others can see you apply. And judgment always depends on how well someone or some event follows or adheres to the rule.

So you say "

I judge based on the morality of the matter. — Qwex

But what is morality of the matter? You speak of it as if it is an independent judging measurement, against which you can measure how well things stand up to being moral. So what is your "stick"? how do you define the measure of morality?

what is "right" is judged upon by those who own the moral high ground(Maybe Obi-Wan Kenobi). If a larger mass of people consider it to be morally and just to {whatever} — EpicTyrant

So this is regional. You attach moral right to moral majority. This is a purely personal, subjective criteria of what constitues morality. So far so good, I have no problem with that, because you did state that it's your idea, and you are not trying ot force it on others as "the ultimate morality".

If one is to accept your definition, however, then the issue becomes contradictory. The larger portion of the population of the USA, say, morally condenms the mass immigration, or trans migration. But the world, most of the people in the world, morally support trans migration and mass immigration into the USA.

What then?

If I sense the world, there is the sense data which is judgable. I can make a wrong decision, but a lot of the time the best decision is the right one. — Qwex

How do you judge? On what basis?

What is a good decision and a bad decision? How do you rank decisions from bad to good to better to best?

"A lot of the time... (implies but not always)" so in other times the best decision is not the right one. And the right decision is not the best one.

How do your statements support your original claim, that morality is not entirely subjective? There I see no reason or explanation of your claim.

Can you explain your definitions of "morality" and "good"? It's strange that you dichotomize them like this. — tomatohorse

I just said, in my post, that morality is undefinable. My definition is as good as yours and Maria Theresia's and the pope's and Hitlers. There is no definition of morality other than wholly subjective.

I did not dichotomize them... I showed that a lot of people use the same definition for morality as they use for doing good. Their definition does not delineate between the two. I did not dichotomize; I showed they are equivalent in some people's definitions.

That is is not going to happen/ Unlike the Jews of Europe, the Muslim minorities have powerful backers in the Muslim majority countries where they could flee if it comes to the worst. — Jacob-B

You may be right, but then again, look at the Palestinian refugees. Which Muslim country embraced the Muslim Palestinian refugees to enter their countries?

My understanding is that Eastern (Oriental, far East, East Asian) societies are extremely into unification of styles (Mao-era clothing dressing -- the uniform drab blue-ish gray outfit), of social customs, of sex, of morality, of work ethic, of social stratification and of culturally binding myriads of other societally codified behaviour patterns.

Teaching the Chinese the advantages (what advantages?) of diversity is like teaching fish how to ride a bicycle.

You are always happy! I have yet to see you once being unhappy.

I attribute your happiness, from what I've seen in earlier long threads in which you participated, to your complete and utter resilience and incapacity to understanding reason, or even spotting it and recognizing it when you look at it.

The point about love is that it has to be its own rationale — Wayfarer

Yes, Christians LOVE to run around circular reasoning. "I believe the Bible. Why? Because the Bible is true How do I now that? Because it says that in the Bible. And why do I take it as true? Becasue I believe in the Bible."

Now, Wayfarer, you just applied the same beloved circular reasoning to the notion of love. "It has to be its own rationale".

God forbid that you think outside the box and go outside your circles.

Darwinian rationalism does not constitute a philosophy. The point about love is that it has to be its own rationale - as soon as it serves something other than love, then it ain't love. — Wayfarer

This aint' philosophy. This is a personal belief, a personal opinion, a statement of personal values. Love, with all its acoutrements, based on Darwinian evolution, however, is believable, logical, and proven.

If something is believable, proven and logical, and stands to reason is NOT philosophical to you, then I don't know what is.

Noah Te Stroete likes to call me a "psychopathic asshole". I think. My rote memory is not so perfect.

I have actually grown to like that nic. It has a ring to it. His calling me that is not without compassionate, cuddly feelings.

I haven't seen the film, but I read the criticism of it. "A word to the wise is sufficient". I believe the poster who said it was convoluted and I believe you when you said "the sphere was turned on and off".

I believe things. That's why I don't believe things.

The technology in question, should it actually exist, would be more advanced then ours and based most likely on processes we don't currently understand. — Coben

This has been documented? If you want to pull in fantasy and imagination to prove conspiracy theories, then you are really gone far out.

I tell young people, where possible, always have a positive spirit. — 3017amen

An HIV positive spirit?

Protecting oneself isn't a moral question, but a function of life. — Tzeentch

Ultimately, nobody knows what morality is, or can define it in a fool-proof way.

Consequently I think all moral decisions are stupid. From a philosophical point of view.

From a philosophical point of view the best model of morality, as I have seen it over and over, is "doing good". But that's not morality; that's merely doing good.

Morality is a buzz-word that everyone takes ownership of and does good or bad things, under the auspices of being moral.

Some moral questions, and the true answers to them with a clear conscience:

Was it moral to decimate their population and rob the land from the American natives? Yes and no.

Was it moral to force Christianity over the heathen population of Europe in the beginning of the middle ages? Yes and no.

Is it okay to lie? Yes and no.

Is it okay to steal bread to feed your starving children? Yes and no.

Is it okay to rape and pillage Muslim countries by force as done by the USA? Yes and no.

Was it okay to blow up the two towers in 9/11? Yes and no.

You see, all moral questions, be they big or small, can be answered either way. And there is justification, both ways. Even under the same "rules" of morality.

I spit on those who evoke morality in their arguments. Morality has no place in philosophical arguments.

The reactor could be on or off, which he explained. Your reaction to him is he is making this stuff up? — Coben

"Wrong reaction to the reaction to the reactor." I like this. Three occurances of the very same concept that have three different and distinct meanings, in one sentence, with each meaning unmistakeable for the other two. Sort of a humourless pun. But those of us who revel in puns, find a somewhat perverse pleasure reading something like this.

↪creativesoul The reactor could be on or off, which he explained. Your reaction to him is he is making this stuff up? — Coben

I haven't watched the movie, but "Creating gravitational waves" with a reactor sounds fishy. Force of gravity is a funcion of mass and distance. In the classical physics sense. Neither can be faked. If someone claims to be generating "gravitational waves" with a reactor, methinks he is blowing it from the hothole. In other words, his or her credibility is gone. Because the person obviously has no physics knowledge, yet tries to use physics, false and impossible physics, to prove his or her point.

This is beside the point of believeing the conspiracy theory or not.

Another point is the convoluted serving of the topic. They don't have a point; they try to pull the wool over the viewers' eyes by presenting their own self-contradictory facts so far away from each other in time and in topic line, that they hope nobody notices it. If they had a clear case, believe me, they would present it clearly. If they don't have a clear case, their (the conspiracy theorists') only hope is to not be noticed for that, and the only way to do that is to convolute their presentation.

These are not criticism of the theory of conspiracy in the film, these are general observations also applicable to the film, which conspiracy theorists often use, but not necessarily always use.

Yes, in your mind, in which

"Logical reasoning that destorys Noah Te Stroete's arguments" is equivalent to "psychopathic asshole".

Nowhere else is this more clearly defined, than in your mind. And nowhere else is it defined this way, but in your mind.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet someone in this society who has repented. — Noah Te Stroete

Nice point, but it's irrelevant to the topic of "wealth." Your escape route is blocked.

My point is that whether we are wealthy or not judging by our own best judgment, we have no knowledge what amount of wealth disqualifies a person from entering into heaven.

Read the gooddamned post I wrote.

Secondly, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified that did not come to alter, modify, abolish or abrogate Jewish law. — alcontali

"Blessed are the Cheesemakers for theirs is the inheritance of the Earth."

^That actually applies to all manufacturers of dairy products.

Jesus literally said that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence, wealthy people don’t get into Heaven. They must give up their wealth and follow Jesus. — Noah Te Stroete

Wealth is a relative term. There is no such point in the Bible or anywhere else where it is decided NON-ARBITRARILY who is wealthy and who is poor.

Therefore Bill Gates can get to heaven, if, in Heaven's books, Jesus' books, wealth starts at 300 trillion dollars in the possession of one person.

This is fantasy, of course, but so is the claim that there are poor and rich in this world. Everyone has wealth, to different degrees and to different amounts, but what constitutes wealth for the purposes of Heaven or for the purposes of getting into Heaven has no indication given in the Bible or anywhere else.

There, Noah Te Stroete, you can hurtle insults at me for destroying your argument and your point again.

However, notwithstanding my defence of the example I'd given, I admit you are right, @Possiblity.

Love has been a complex, individual mix of emotions and desires, wants and cravings. It has certain elements that we assume are the same for each person, but as persons in a population go, the DNA section that governs feelings of love has been mutated beyond recognition by its own mother. This is my belief, anyhow.

I consider that for some, love is:
- a partnership based on sexual attraction and common life goals, that commands mutual tenderness, support, and sharing
For some others, love is:
- a devotion, a submission (physical and emotional);
For some others, love is:
- dominance, providing protection, and establishing the leadership of the self via paining the other;
For some others, love is:
- a religious doctrine to follow;
For some others, love is:
- getting as many sex partners to bed as possible;

ETC ETC

The mutations are myriads in numbers.

I think when you say that the macro tendencies are predictable, but not the individual tendencies, there is a big difference between human tendencies and the corresponding physics theory of indeterminism. In the human response, individuals can be predicted for their responses, after getting to know the individuals. On a sub-atomic level, this is not possible.

but you’d be wrong to presume this to be the case. — Possibility

Or else I'd be right to presume this to be the case.

You can't have a monopoly on my being probably wrong or probably right.

comment by to god must be atheist, in another thread:
Furthermore, you’re a psychopathic asshole.
— Noah Te Stroete

reply to the above by god must be atheist:
No further comments.

Furthermore, you’re a psychopathic asshole. — Noah Te Stroete

No further comments.