The more religious you are the less compassionate:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what good are they? we have no issues, the matter is clear and settled for us
personally, what other people do is their concern, if it has any bearing upon us, the Law
takes care of it, but its useless to talk of a moral framework that does not take the
individuals conscience into consideration and here secular law can only go so far, to be
...[text shortened]... punitive action which may result from them transgressing this
law, this is entirely different.

Even something as simple as you thinking people drive 55 because of coercion is not totally true, the point being things are not always black and white as it is with your moral code. For instance in the 55 mph situation you give, people do 80 on hwy 78 in New Jersey here, but I found out if I follow the traffic at 80 I only get 32 miles per gallon, but if I stick to 55 I get over 36 mpg so there is another angle of speeding not in your codebook.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't disputing that you had made up your mind and that you had a very firm conviction about
what the morally right thing to do was.

I was pointing out that you were wrong and how terrible the consequences of you being wrong
were.

To conclude that (for example) it is morally wrong to shoot down an airliner to prevent it being flown
into a ogy and situations not envisioned when the
moral code was first set out.

You can't.

as i stated before imaginary hypothetical scenarios and useless speculation are not my
thing. We have no issues and no fences facing us, the matter is completely resolved.
The words of Gandhi are very appropriate for those who attempt to justify taking life
in war,

“I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.”

you justify what you like, life is sacrosanct to us and we shall never take that which
does not belong to us, anothers life, not through war, not through abortions! War is for
the faithless.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Even something as simple as you thinking people drive 55 because of coercion is not totally true, the point being things are not always black and white as it is with your moral code. For instance in the 55 mph situation you give, people do 80 on hwy 78 in New Jersey here, but I found out if I follow the traffic at 80 I only get 32 miles per gallon, but if I stick to 55 I get over 36 mpg so there is another angle of speeding not in your codebook.

ummm it was only used as an analogy, but its good that you drive carefully. Do you
guys have like an MOT (ministry of transport) certificate where you need to get your
vehicle checked every year by a garage to make sure its roadworthy?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i stated before imaginary hypothetical scenarios and useless speculation are not my
thing. We have no issues and no fences facing us, the matter is completely resolved.
The words of Gandhi are very appropriate for those who attempt to justify taking life
in war,

“I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to ki ...[text shortened]... elong to us, anothers life, not through war, not through abortions! War is for
the faithless.

It is not an imaginary hypothetical.

On 9:11 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew 3 of them into highly populated buildings.


We are currently testing out defences that as a last resort would shoot down aircraft killing
those inside to prevent anyone doing something similar (worse) to the 2012 Olympics.

It's a real world, present day, in this country, moral question as to whether or not its better
to shoot down a hijacked aircraft to prevent a repeat of 9:11... It is not an imaginary hypothetical.

And WWII is a historical example of what I am talking about and is also not a hypothetical.


However even if they were hypothetical examples, the whole point of hypothetical questions is
to explore issues and work out what the best response is before they happen in reality to enable
us to be prepared for such an eventuality if or when it should occur.


Dismissing these issues as mearly being hypothetical (which they are not) is asinine.


Quoting Gandhi at me will get you nowhere, first because it is irrelevant who makes an argument but
how good the argument is, and simply quoting a conclusion to me is not an argument.
And second because Gandhi was just as wrong about this issue as you are, and for exactly the same reasons.

None of which you have answered.


Life is not sacrosanct for you because you are not prepared to protect it.


I value life more highly than you do.

I can see that the consequences of allowing a passenger plane to be flown into a stadium with 80,000+ people
inside are worse than those of shooting that plane down because MORE PEOPLE DIE if you don't shoot the plane down.

You value the 'sanctity' of your own 'soul' over the lives of others and I find that repugnant.



And you continue to demonstrate the fundamental problem with your 'morality' in that you can't and wont debate moral
issues and can't adapt to cope with moral situations not envisioned or codified by people a couple of thousand of years
ago.




You have no arguments for why you position is 'better' you simply assert it.


I have arguments and reasons for why my position is superior, you have yet to answer any of them.






And claiming that 'war is for the faithless...'

The number of wars throughout history started by and fought by those of faith...

That is a truly asinine and evidently false statement.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is not an imaginary hypothetical.

On 9:11 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew 3 of them into highly populated buildings.


We are currently testing out defences that as a last resort would shoot down aircraft killing
those inside to prevent anyone doing something similar (worse) to the 2012 Olympics.

It's a real world, present day, in thi ght by those of faith...

That is a truly asinine and evidently false statement.

i dont need to answer nor justify anything, that matter is resolved, dribbling on about
events that have no relevance to me nor my morality is asinine. The Gandhi quotation
was not meant to be an argument, its a statement of intent, how this could have
evaded you i cannot say, i have no need to argue the matter as its absolutely resolved,
regardless of whether you think that events should dictate otherwise. My morality
transcends the system, transcends events for it is based upon a higher and more
deeply rooted source than a reactionary or pro reactionary evaluation of what may or
may not happen, the faculty of conscience The folly of the moral relativist is that his
morality is determined not by the faculty of conscious but by external factors, war,
terrorism, security concerns etc etc I really should thank you for demonstrating it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont need to answer nor justify anything, that matter is resolved, dribbling on about
events that have no relevance to me nor my morality is asinine. The Gandhi quotation
was not meant to be an argument, its a statement of intent, how this could have
evaded you i cannot say, i have no need to argue the matter as its absolutely resolved,
re ...[text shortened]... s, war,
terrorism, security concerns etc etc I really should thank you for demonstrating it.

I am not a moral relativist.

I don't believe for one second that there are no, or can be no, objective moral truths.
Or that moral decisions can't be objectively analysed.


The difference between us is that my objective moral grounding is based on observation
of reality and reasoned argument, and yours is based on the authoritarian dictates of an
imaginary god as recorded in an ancient manuscript.


The matter is not 'resolved' because we disagree.

The fact that you are convinced you are right does not make you right.

And the point of debate is to work out who is right and why.


You entered this debate by declaring your position.

Now you are being asked to defend it.

You seem incapable of doing so which is reason enough not to take your word that you are correct.

Any objective outside party watching this debate will currently see one side making reasoned arguments
and the other simply asserting that they are right and refusing to engage...



Which side do you think 'wins' the debate?

Which side has the more convincing arguments?

The side making arguments or the side not making arguments?

Right or wrong, I am winning this argument because I am the only one of the two of us actually MAKING any arguments.

Originally posted by googlefudge
.. And the point of debate is to work out who is right and why....

Are you saying that whoever 'wins' the debate is right?

Who has more points wins the debate and is right?

Who has more arguments wins the debate and is therefore right?

Right and wrong cannot be established over a debate.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not a moral relativist.

I don't believe for one second that there are no, or can be no, objective moral truths.
Or that moral decisions can't be objectively analysed.


The difference between us is that my objective moral grounding is based on observation
of reality and reasoned argument, and yours is based on the authoritarian dictates of ng this argument because I am the only one of the two of us actually MAKING any arguments.

I have said all i needed to say, your morality is governed by external events as you
have unwittingly demonstrated, ours by the dictates of conscience which transcends
these events. Couldn't have done it without you.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Are you saying that whoever 'wins' the debate is right?

Who has more points wins the debate and is right?

Who has more arguments wins the debate and is therefore right?

Right and wrong cannot be established over a debate.

No I am not saying that whoever 'wins' the debate is right.



However in a setting where people might make an opinion as to which side is right the person who
'wins' the debate is the one who influences more people to their side. Whether they are right or wrong.


I had a debate assignment one time where we were debating (in two person teams) assisted euthanasia
in the case of terminally ill patients.

My side was given the 'against' brief and I was to give the closing argument.

I gave a really emotional speech about how valuable life was and how we couldn't allow doctors to kill people and
how dangerous it was ect ect, and I saw a couple of the 'audience' had tears in their eyes.

When it came to a vote on which side you supported only 3 people voted for the Pro position and everyone else voted
for the against position. The three people where the two on the opposing side and me.

I won the debate with far more effective arguments then the other side.

However I didn't agree with my position and would have been confident of winning the debate had I been on the other
side because I think that the pro side has the better arguments. I Believe in allowing people to end their own lives in these
circumstances.

I could have given an equally emotional, and more rationally powerful argument from the other side.

Debates can and do move minds, If you don't show up, and just assert your position as true without any supporting reasons
then you lose. Not necessarily by being wrong but for not showing up.






However...

That said right and wrong CAN be established by reasoned debate.

If one side presents a watertight argument supported by the evidence in which both the premises and the reasoning can't
be faulted then you can objectively conclude that that side is correct and the other is wrong.


The problem with faith based positions is that you are not allowed to debate them or question them they have to
be held against and despite of any and all evidence or reason.


Non-faith based positions however can be modified if they are tested and found to be incorrect.

Reasoned debate is one way to do this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have said all i needed to say, your morality is governed by external events as you
have unwittingly demonstrated, ours by the dictates of conscience which transcend
these events. Couldn't have done it without you.

No my morality is based on the consequences of an action and the evaluating the comparative
level of good or harm various outcomes have.

The evaluating of those outcomes and deciding what is good or what is harm is what conscience is for.


A 'morality' that can't tell the difference between a situation where a 100 people die and 100,000 is not
a morality worth having.


The whole point of morality is that it is a guide for interacting with other people and for minimising harm
to others and maximising good, and well-being.


If your morality can't tell the difference between outcomes of radically different levels of harm then your morality
is failed and objectively inferior to mine.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No I am not saying that whoever 'wins' the debate is right.



However in a setting where people might make an opinion as to which side is right the person who
'wins' the debate is the one who influences more people to their side. Whether they are right or wrong.


I had a debate assignment one time where we were debating (in two person teams) a ...[text shortened]... they are tested and found to be incorrect.

Reasoned debate is one way to do this.

In your example of assisted euthanasia, there is no right and wrong. There are just differences of opinion. If you argue well then you win your debate, but you cannot establish right and wrong by a few people debating.

Originally posted by Rajk999
In your example of assisted euthanasia, there is no right and wrong. There are just differences of opinion. If you argue well then you win your debate, but you cannot establish right and wrong by a few people debating.

Actually there is a 'right and wrong' in the euthanasia issue.

Which ever side objectively and measurably leads to less suffering and harm and best
promotes well-being is objectively the best.

However that wasn't the point.


The point was that winning or losing a debate has consequences. It may not mean that
one side has actually demonstrated that they are right. But people's opinions can and
do shift on the basis of those arguments.

So if you care at all if other people agree with your position (and I really can't understand anyone
posting their opinions and trashing those of others like robbie does if he didn't care) then you
need to care whether or not you are making a good case for your position.

Robbie is currently making no case for his position, he has presented not one solitary argument, or
reason, for holding his position.



And a 'few people debating' CAN establish what is right and wrong, (potentially, not claiming it for all
cases obviously).

Originally posted by googlefudge
No my morality is based on the consequences of an action and the evaluating the comparative
level of good or harm various outcomes have.

The evaluating of those outcomes and deciding what is good or what is harm is what conscience is for.


A 'morality' that can't tell the difference between a situation where a 100 people die and 100,000 is not ...[text shortened]... ly different levels of harm then your morality
is failed and objectively inferior to mine.

No my morality is based on the consequences of an action and the evaluating the
comparative level of good or harm various outcomes have.

yes on external circumstances, that's what I said although more succinctly. No it
has not failed at all, it has been shown to be superior, for it is able to transcend
these very events, the evaluation of which forms your relative morality (relative to
the external event and its evaluation).

You have lost googly one, go hame to yer maw and get some Findus crispy pancakes
and a bottle of Barrs Irn Bru and Geek up for the night with a good Star Trek
video. It will be all right in the morning, i will have forgotten all about it probably.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No my morality is based on the consequences of an action and the evaluating the
comparative level of good or harm various outcomes have.

yes on external circumstances, that's what I said although more succinctly. No it
has not failed at all, it has been shown to be superior, for it is able to transcend
these very events, the evaluation of ...[text shortened]... rek
video. It will be all right in the morning, i will have forgotten all about it probably.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No my morality is based on the consequences of an action and the evaluating the
comparative level of good or harm various outcomes have.

yes on external circumstances, that's what I said although more succinctly. No it
has not failed at all, it has been shown to be superior, for it is able to transcend
these very events, the evaluation of which forms your relative morality (relative to
the external event and its evaluation).

You have lost googly one, go hame to yer maw and get some Findus crispy pancakes
and a bottle of Barrs Irn Bru and Geek up for the night with a good Star Trek
video. It will be all right in the morning, i will have forgotten all about it probably.

Thank you for stating so clearly and impolitely that you care not one jot for making the world
better of achieving better outcomes.

You care not for making the world a better happier safer place.

You care only for keeping your head firmly placed inside your sanctimonious arse.


You don't care about life, or suffering or good or bad.

You care only about keeping your 'precious soul' intact and ready for inspection by your imaginary god.

You have said clearly here for all to see.

You don't care about the consequences of your actions or decisions no matter how many people are
harmed by them.

You are immoral and repugnant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, it was a personal one, but is probably legal as well.. They may be motivated
by public concern for safety but the fact that they are broken with impunity
consistently is evidence that either the majority of persons consciences are not
working or are desensitised to the point of failing to alert them, or that the laws
themselves are inef ...[text shortened]... learly secular laws do not motivate the majority of individuals to exercise their
consciences.

Let's do some simple math and logic in each example.

1) 'some drivers break speeding laws consistently' does not show that 'the majority of consciences are not working'. You don't get to condemn the majority based on an unspecified group of bad drivers. You need to show that over 50% of drivers break speeding laws.

2) let's be generous and allow that each of the 11M dishonesty crimes are committed by different persons. The US population in 1986 was 240M+. 11M/240M = 4.6% of the population. On your evidence, the vast majority [95.4%] of people do not commit these crimes.

3) The US govt took in ~696B of income + social taxes in 1986. 250B/946B = 26.4% uncollected revenue. On your evidence, the govt successfully collects the vast majority [73.6%] of revenue mandated by income/social tax.

4) about 1.5B people ride the NYC subway per year. 1.5B/365.25 = 4.1M per day. 100K/4.1M = 2.4%. On your evidence, the other 97.6% of riders pay their fares. [Note: sorry, could not find data on passengers in 1986]

5) only now do you actually present evidence that a secular law is ineffective. Well, one out of five ain't bad. 🙂

I will leave out the railway example because I'm not sure whose railways we're talking about.

In light of your evidence, I reach the opposite conclusion: secular laws generally are effective in motivating people to exercise their consciences.