Spirituality
06 Feb 09
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltondo you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
[b]….well, without morality, how will you decide what is evil and what is not?
..…
My knowledge of my emotional responses to peoples behaviour (whether actual behaviour or hypothetical behaviour).
I regard what I call “evil” as being a bit subjective as a result of this although I think most of us would call the deliberate killing of an in ...[text shortened]... of the same laws they would generally agree with but without any redundant concept of morality.[/b]
knowledge of emotional response to peoples behaviour? why does this communicate more than "this is morally wrong"?
i know what wrong and right mean. what you are saying is not the "true" meaning of the word, just one of them. and equally relevant to the others. i thought i made myself clear as to what wrong i am talking about.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong
1 a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another ; especially : tort2: something wrong, immoral, or unethical ; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a: the state of being mistaken or incorrect b: the state of being guilty
I regard what I call “evil” as being a bit subjective
of course. morality is always subjective. someone(more or less people) decides what is moral and what is not and the others agree and support said decisions. that is why it is immoral to impose said drug. because morality change it shouldn't be impose on humanity for all eternity.
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzido you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
do you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
knowledge of emotional response to peoples behaviour? why does this communicate more than "this is morally wrong"?
i know what wrong and right mean. what you are saying is not the "true" meaning of the word, just one of them. and equally relevant to the others. i thought i made myself clear as ...[text shortened]... ose said drug. because morality change it shouldn't be impose on humanity for all eternity.
is it more difficult to explain something complex in simple terms or something simple in complex terms?
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis case is about presenting the same thing in simple or complex terms.
do you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
is it more difficult to explain something complex in simple terms or something simple in complex terms?
10 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….do you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
do you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
knowledge of emotional response to peoples behaviour? why does this communicate more than "this is morally wrong"?
i know what wrong and right mean. what you are saying is not the "true" meaning of the word, just one of them. and equally relevant to the others. i thought i made myself clear as ...[text shortened]... ose said drug. because morality change it shouldn't be impose on humanity for all eternity.
knowledge of emotional response to peoples behaviour? why does this communicate more than "this is morally wrong"?
.…
It doesn’t. It communicates less because to talk PURELY of emotional responses is not saying anything about “moral” or “immoral“.
….I regard what I call “evil” as being a bit subjective
of course. morality is always subjective. ..…
-yes, I know this is true to YOU because of what YOU mean by “evil“. But I do not mean the same thing by the word “evil“. To ME the word “evil” has nothing to do with morality but rather only to do with emotions. Thus to ME “evil” is a bit subjective BECAUSE EMOTIONS vary from one person to another ( and not because of variable “morality“ ) so that some deliberate behaviour one person finds emotionally horrific may not necessarily be what another person finds emotionally horrific.
Let me put it this way: when I say something is “evil”, I am ONLY expressing my emotional horror I have for it -nothing else!; thus I am not saying or implying it is “immoral”.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm not sure I understand the question. The thinking that bothers me is that there are more luteralists that I thought (hoped) there were. Some of these literalists believe Jesus never partook of alcohol, could not have been 100% divine AND 100% human, that bartism is a requirement for salvation, and too many others to name.
What would be an example of that thinking pink?
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonso why is your definition supporting in any way of the miracle hotfix? if "your emotional response" is subjective to each individual, who is the right man to impose his emotional responses on others?
[b]….do you most of the time use 10 words when 2 would suffice?
knowledge of emotional response to peoples behaviour? why does this communicate more than "this is morally wrong"?
.…
It doesn’t. It communicates less because to talk PURELY of emotional responses is not saying anything about “moral” or “immoral“.
….I regard what I call ...[text shortened]... otional horror I have for it -nothing else!; thus I am not saying or implying it is “immoral”.
and seriously dude. are you really thinking your definition is different than mine? that when i say something is evil it is different than you saying "my emotional response to this is that it is wrong"? when i talk about moral and immoral, i get emotional responses. so do you, only you fail to caracterize your emotional responses into good and evil, moral and imoral. don't you realize it is the same thing, described with different words?
11 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….if "your emotional response" is subjective to each individual, who is the RIGHT man to impose his emotional responses on others?
so why is your definition supporting in any way of the miracle hotfix? if "your emotional response" is subjective to each individual, who is the right man to impose his emotional responses on others?
and seriously dude. are you really thinking your definition is different than mine? that when i say something is evil it is different than you saying "my , moral and imoral. don't you realize it is the same thing, described with different words?
.… (my emphasis)
There is no objectively “RIGHT man” and I didn’t say nor imply otherwise.
….that when i say something is evil it is different than you saying "my emotional response to this is that it is WRONG"? ..… (my emphasis)
But I wouldn’t and didn’t say that! What do you mean by “WRONG” above? -I presume you mean “MORALLY WRONG” -right? -if so, I point out that I don’t think there is such thing as “MORALLY” so I wouldn’t believe this.
…when i talk about moral and immoral, i get emotional responses. so do you
.…
I do NOT get an “emotional response” to something that I don’t believe exists.
I may or nay not get an emotional response to some rhetoric even if it is about something that I don’t believe exists but not directly to those things that I actually don’t believe exists such as “moral” or “immoral”.
…only you fail to characterize your emotional responses into good and evil, moral and immoral.
..…
That is only half correct:
I sometimes characterize some of my emotional responses using the words “good” and “evil” ( with these two words having a subtly different meaning from what you mean by them )
But NOT “moral” and “immoral”.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by buckkyI'm a Christian and I'm far from smug. I also don't prosyletize (sp?).
I ask myself why does the Christian doctrine aggravate me so much, and this is what I came up with. Telling someone that they will spend eternity in Hell, because they don't see it like you see it, is beyond rude. It's savage ,and lacking in any type of kindness or understanding of humanity. It's cave man thought.
The smugness that most Christians have ab ...[text shortened]... 's read it in the Bible and shut up heathen. God said it, I believe it ,and that settles it.
I believe what I believe and expect to be unencumbered in doing so (unless I harm someone else in the process). I give others the same rights, wrong though I believe them to be 😀 But I assure you I have no view of heaven as an Iced Tea commercial with everyone stand around God's celestial pool, laughing at those who drank "the kool aid" instead. I am happy and convinced in my faith--that doesn't mean cocksure. There are atheists who are equally firm in their belief as I am. The difference is I don't get mad at them over their beliefs, nor do I try to take away their right to express said beliefs.
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyou said you would support the hotfix. that means you must have thought there would be someone worthy to define it. or you didn't stopped to think the consequences of your decision, further than the first( yay, no more violence)? did you?
[b]….if "your emotional response" is subjective to each individual, who is the RIGHT man to impose his emotional responses on others?
.… (my emphasis)
There is no objectively “RIGHT man” and I didn’t say nor imply otherwise.
….that when i say something is evil it is different than you saying "my emotional response to this is that it is ...[text shortened]... ving a subtly different meaning from what you mean by them )
But NOT “moral” and “immoral”.
"I don’t think there is such thing as “MORALLY”"
yet you have emotional responses. which is the same thing, you just think you made a grand breakthrough in philosophy. you didn't morally wrong and morally right are emotional responses towards some actions, events that makes us label them into right, wrong, "righter", "wronger". we are saying the same thing, you just think you have evolved intellectually and philosphically that you have a new understanding about morality.
"I do NOT get an “emotional response” to something that I don’t believe exists."
you gets an emotional response about something and you decide for or against or thumbs up or down. i get an emotional response, label it as a certain shade of right or wrong and then a big clown in red suit with blue dots appears and if he honks his nose twice, i approve it and if he honks only once i disapprove.
"That is only half correct:
I sometimes characterize some of my emotional responses using the words “good” and “evil” ( with these two words having a subtly different meaning from what you mean by them )
But NOT “moral” and “immoral”"
because there is no moral and immoral right? only good and evil?
so would you say that giving a donkey a handjob while eating a sandwich in the middle of new york, naked and wearing a t-shirt depicting santa clause having sex with the easter bunny is good or evil? and if you cannot characterize it as evil, would you say you cannot tell it is good either? so do you need another set of standards?
12 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….you said you would support the hotfix.
you said you would support the hotfix. that means you must have thought there would be someone worthy to define it. or you didn't stopped to think the consequences of your decision, further than the first( yay, no more violence)? did you?
"I don’t think there is such thing as “MORALLY”"
yet you have emotional responses. which is the same thing, you just you say you cannot tell it is good either? so do you need another set of standards?
.…
What are you referring to by the word “hotfix” above?
….that means you must have thought there would be someone worthy to define it.. ..…
Define what? -The law of the land?
…"I don’t think there is such thing as “MORALLY”"
yet you have emotional responses. which is the same thing,
.…
That is simply not true. Suppose someone by his deliberate behaviour deliberately made you feel jealous and gives you the emotional response of wanting to harm him. Would you conclude that it be “morally right” to harm him?
The point I am making here is that; do you believe that your emotional responses towards another person is synonymous to or at least corresponds to the “morally right” way to behave towards that person? -if so, give me an example of this and explain to me how so.
…you gets an emotional response about something and you decide for or against or thumbs up or down.
..…
Yes -and I decide for or against on the bases of my emotions and not because of any belief in “morally right” or “morally wrong“.
….because there is no moral and immoral right? only good and evil?
.…
With the meanings I personally attach to those words -yes.
….so would you say that giving a donkey a handjob while eating a sandwich in the middle of new york, naked and wearing a t-shirt depicting santa clause having sex with the easter bunny is good or evil?
…
Neither -I would call that “odd”.
…. and if you cannot characterize it as evil, would you say you cannot tell it is good either?
…
That would entirely depend on the emotional responses I naturally get from the particular thing I am trying to characterize ( thus it is subjective ).
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyou find the term drug repulsive. so we are now referring to the means by which a person would force the human race to become sheeplike "hotfix" as in the hotfixes that microsoft is constantly trying to apply to our windows..
[b]….you said you would support the hotfix.
.…
What are you referring to by the word “hotfix” above?
….that means you must have thought there would be someone worthy to define it.. ..…
Define what? -The law of the land?
…"I don’t think there is such thing as “MORALLY”"
yet you have emotional responses. which is the same ...[text shortened]... naturally get from the particular thing I am trying to characterize ( thus it is subjective ).
define in in what cases violence is acceptable and in what cases it isn't. the purpose we were having this conversation, remember?
yes, you are right. your emotional responses and my morality are not the same things. your emotional responses are the paperwork, many times useless, through which we make our decisions. you get the emotional response of wanting to hurt him, then you decide whether it is moral or imorral. and then in some situations you decide if you care or not care that is moral or imorral in order to perform or not a certain action.
"Yes -and I decide for or against on the bases of my emotions and not because of any belief in “morally right” or “morally wrong“."
then, as you said before, this would cause you to act on your impulses, the first impulses. any claim of yours that you would act on your second would imply either that you perform actions completely chaotic or that you compared your first response to a moral standard(or code of laws if you prefer, be it yours or societies)
With the meanings I personally attach to those words -yes.
i attach the meaning red to the word blue. am i cool or not? and if were to ask for a blue baloon, would it be correct to say that i have no right to get upset if someone brings me a blue one instead of red as i asked?
12 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….you find the term drug repulsive.
you find the term drug repulsive. so we are now referring to the means by which a person would force the human race to become sheeplike "hotfix" as in the hotfixes that microsoft is constantly trying to apply to our windows..
define in in what cases violence is acceptable and in what cases it isn't. the purpose we were having this conversation, remember? hat i have no right to get upset if someone brings me a blue one instead of red as i asked?
.…
no
….so we are now referring to the means by which a person would force the human race to become sheeplike "hotfix" as in the
..…
don’t know what you mean.
…define in in what cases violence is acceptable and in what cases it isn't.
.…
Why?
…the purpose we were having this conversation, remember?
..…
no
….yes, you are right. your emotional responses and my morality are not the same things. your emotional responses are the paperwork, many times useless, through which we make our decisions. you get the emotional response of wanting to hurt him, THEN you decide whether it is moral or immoral.
.… (my emphasis)
no. Why can’t you just accept the way I think is just the way I think?
I would probably not hurt him because of my emotionally driven social instinct to not do to others that I would not want to do onto me. That sounds like a moral principle and it IS a moral principle to you but to ME it is just an emotionally driven social instinct which isn’t quite the same thing. I may also have an emotionally driven social instinct to kill someone but you may not call that act of me killing someone because of that emotional instinct a moral act.
….then, as you said before, this would cause you to act on your impulses, the FIRST impulses.
… (my emphasis)
Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Obviously I may then have a different emotion that is in conflict with the first one and thus think twice about what I am going to do and possibly NOT do the very first thing I feel like doing.
…. any claim of yours that you would act on your second would imply either that you perform actions completely chaotic or that you compared your first response to a moral standard
…
Niether would be the case -if the strength of emotion for the second “impulse” is stronger than that of the first then I will act out the second one else I would act out the first one. It has nothing to do with any “moral” beliefs (because I have none) nor is it completely “chaotic” because, when I have conflicting emotions, it is determined by which emotions and for what are the strongest in me in that moment of time.
12 Feb 09
1 edit
=====================================
I would probably not hurt him because of my emotionally driven social instinct to not do to others that I would not want to do onto me. That sounds like a moral principle and it IS a moral principle to you but to ME it is just an emotionally driven social instinct which isn’t quite the same thing.
=========================================
If moral decisions simply are social instincts explain why sometimes people ignore a stronger instinct and rather obey the weaker one.
For example, a person hears someone getting mugged in an alley. His stronger instinct tells him not to get involved in the trouble. Yet he may obey a weaker instinct to do a more noble thing like assist the person being assaulted.
If a person finds himself effected by two impulses, one stronger and one weaker, what makes that person sometimes follow the weaker impulse as opposed to the stronger one?
=================================
It has nothing to do with any “moral” beliefs (because I have none)
==================================
Do you have children? If and when you raise your children are you going to teach them to have no moral beliefs ?
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwell since you can't focus on the subject, then i guess there is no more point in discussing anymore.
[b]….you find the term drug repulsive.
.…
no
….so we are now referring to the means by which a person would force the human race to become sheeplike "hotfix" as in the
..…
don’t know what you mean.
…define in in what cases violence is acceptable and in what cases it isn't.
.…
Why?
…the purpose we were ...[text shortened]... is determined by which emotions and for what are the strongest in me in that moment of time.
it is a matter of opinion anyway, like thinking mars is better than twix, who would win if bruce lee and chuck norris were to fight or what is the best movie of all times. won't lead anywhere even if you would manage to stay awake.
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by jaywilla measuring system. what hammie fails to understand is that such a system does exist. and humans choose to call it morality. what hammie talks about is animal instinct: act on the emotions most strong. hunger, thirst, sexual drive, they are emotions. an animal shall act on these drives because it has no morality. a human shall measure the morality of these emotions(and several more complex ones) and then decide if his needs are greater than the outcome of that measuring.
[b]=====================================
I would probably not hurt him because of my emotionally driven social instinct to not do to others that I would not want to do onto me. That sounds like a moral principle and it IS a moral principle to you but to ME it is just an emotionally driven social instinct which isn’t quite the same thing.
=========== ...[text shortened]... dren? If and when you raise your children are you going to teach them to have no moral beliefs ?
of course, hammie is much more evolved than us. he might have a point, and we are deluding ourselves with nonsense concepts like morality.