News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)

Started by billy rubin, February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Old Seer

Quote from: Icarus on March 06, 2021, 12:14:05 AM
Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................
I'd say you are correct under the present circumstances of societies. Every one has their standard of morals, but morals must be a constant and have a base meaning or it's not morals. If morals can be anyone's description then there's no such thing as morals, when it can be seen that there are. The application of morals is what burdens people place upon another. A moral person is reluctant to place others in harm of one's own doings. Civilizations depend on the harm of each other in order for it to function, meaning that its an immoral social structure by default. The rulership over each other for gain is steeped in immorality. All wish to be free persons and live their own life according to their own determinations.

This is something we learnt.

It's an immoral process to infringe upon another's right for of self existence for one's own purposes. Immorality is anything one does that's harmful to another person in any manner for any purpose. It is an intrusion and an attempt to overtake the freedoms of another. Any such attempt would constitute immorality, as all are entitled to their personal natural freedoms on a natural equal basis. Civilization intrudes on one's freedoms to serve a central cause, producing a static immorality where the meaning of morals becomes lost in the concept and becomes a normal process and necessity for a civilization to exist.

Source of information.

Example: As it has been said, As Nimrod a mighty hunter before the lord. Nimrod instituted civilization for a certain region in the middle east saying to build his city to above the heights of the heavens. Nimrod gathers the people to his central cause recreating the people to an artificial person from natural person. A civilized person is not a natural person, made according to the mandates of people rather than remaining under the powers of being natural. The people were duped into becoming like Nimrod the predator (Capitalists) and set to the mandates of Nimrod. Today this is still the mandates of civilization, to subdue each other for profit in a predator prey system of life, where-under each seeks to dominant and use others for self gain. Laws are created to regulate the harm/immorality. The waters above the firmament in creation denote the the immoral (animalistic) (above the heights of the heavens) mental characteristics of person, creating an immoral contract between the rulers and the ruled, because it is immoral to seek powers over others which is an attempt to interfere in the personal freedom of another for one's own gains.
One can then understand why civilizations all end, as immorality is the cause of the undoing of the contract, and no civilization can be without failure as civilization is a division of powers that cannot be sustained, as all participants are friend and foe alike.
People of ancient times understood quite a bit more then given credit for.
(as per our psychologists)
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Randy

Something just occurred to me. Abortion. Is it moral? The country is heavily divided on that topic. It all depends on one's point of view I suppose. But here, morality is subjective.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

billy rubin

that all depends on the premises going in. whether an abortion is moral or not is an easy decision once you decide which criteria should be used to evaluate th eaction.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Davin

Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Recusant

Rape seems to give heavy competition to abortion in that sweepstakes. I ranted about that here over ten years ago.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


xSilverPhinx

I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Old Seer

Quote from: Randy on March 07, 2021, 09:02:46 PM
Something just occurred to me. Abortion. Is it moral? The country is heavily divided on that topic. It all depends on one's point of view I suppose. But here, morality is subjective.
One question is, what justifies it? If for one it's immoral and to another not it's then a question of morals entering into the works. You may find the answer in the beginning question.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?

I don't know, how many?
It is an extreme  thing, is it surprising it keeps coming up? it is an interesting issue.
I'm OK with a woman aborting a foetus.
If a mother is hurting her three month old I'd probably be OK with retribution
If a mother kills her three month old I'm not in a hurry to punish, she probably had issues.
I'm OK with leaving unwanted children in the woods and letting the gods decide their fate.
In my judgment there are too many people and society doesn't have a good record of looking after by-blows.
China's one child policy, ye great, although I had two...
India's efforts, cruel as they may seem I quietly applaud.
Yet I  accept the moral principle that people shouldn't kill people, but it's only a guideline really.
I feel someone shouldn't be able force another to go through a pregnancy for the usual liberal reasons.
If I had a vial that on release would limit, force all woman to have no more than two children, I'd release it.
Thou shalt not kill, is it rule one?
Let's argue the definition, it's not really a person yet.
It's not a bad approach but as I've said, I'm an extremophile, if you don't think you can/don't want to nurture a child as Patsy says, "ABORT".



extremophile: (biology) an organism that lives under extreme conditions of temperature, salinity, acidity, etc.

Shut up Green, I'm expanding the definition.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Recusant on March 09, 2021, 06:54:33 PM
Rape seems to give heavy competition to abortion in that sweepstakes. I ranted about that here over ten years ago.

I enjoyed reading the beginning of that thread, I think the forum has slipped a bit since 2008.



So Britney was raped in parliament house.
Our prime minister's wife Jenny explained to him why he should be concerned, think of your daughters.

Assumedly he has never had a sister, or a mother or a female friend, not much regard for females in general unless Jenny explains why he should.

A woman started action against the federal Solicitor General last year for an alleged rape that happened years ago when she was sixteen and he was seventeen.  Covid and things got in the way an she killed herself, probably.
She's dead, The Solicitor General is off the hook says Prime Minister Morrison, the law, the sacred law says so, I don't know what Jenny had to say.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Randy

Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

No one

My thoughts on abortion:
If you are not the pregnant woman, you have no lines in that play.

Davin

Quote from: Randy on March 11, 2021, 05:18:51 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
Introducing a "moral grey area" does not demonstrate that morality is subjective. It's not uncommon to find a large portion of a sample to be wrong about something. See the [Monty Hall Problem] for example. Even though it can be mathematically proven and objectively demonstrated that switching increases your odds for success, people still incorrectly think that there is no difference between switching or sticking with the original. You wanted to introduce a grey area to show that morality is subjective, but maybe you're simply exposing the difference between people who accept facts, science, and reality and people who don't.

I don't think that morality is wholly subjective. Harm can very often be objectively demonstrated, as can benefits.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Randy

Quote from: Davin on March 11, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 11, 2021, 05:18:51 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
Introducing a "moral grey area" does not demonstrate that morality is subjective. It's not uncommon to find a large portion of a sample to be wrong about something. See the [Monty Hall Problem] for example. Even though it can be mathematically proven and objectively demonstrated that switching increases your odds for success, people still incorrectly think that there is no difference between switching or sticking with the original. You wanted to introduce a grey area to show that morality is subjective, but maybe you're simply exposing the difference between people who accept facts, science, and reality and people who don't.

I don't think that morality is wholly subjective. Harm can very often be objectively demonstrated, as can benefits.
That makes sense. I never thought to look at it that way. Thanks!
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg