Stripped
YourJesus wrote:i am not the one who is being irrational here, narbus. matt himself said "Murder is wrong.......and of course right."
that is a contradiction, man! contradictions are irrational!
Yes. So are people. Emily's refusal to just stop clicking on the fucking thread should be enough proof of that. People are who we are talking about, so irrationality is a fact of the matter. People are complicated. What did you expect? More elementary arithmetic? Please.
YourJesus wrote:blanket statements like "murder is wrong" are a function of rational thought. when a person looks at reality in a rational and objective fashion they will always find murder to be wrong. there is no grey area. it is never alright.
it is irrational to declare otherwise.
1. Yes. And people are irrational. So.
2. It's wrong IN. YOUR. EYES. If you have posted any kind of reasoning as to why murder is wrong, then please point it out to me, because I haven't seen it. Or is this just one of those "divine" things. Because assuming we have rights given to us from some great being in the sky is oh so rational.
3. Do you honestly think that the only way to understand humanity and morality is to remove yourself from it? Then explain why anthropologists go to great lengths to immerse themselves into the societies they are studying. Maybe because if you want to understand something you have to see if from both the inside and the outside? Maybe?
YourJesus wrote:if you think i'm wrong, prove it. don't just say "you're wrong" and quote little bits of my post and act like a dickhead. PROVE. ME. WRONG. use examples. maybe draw a diagram. but for fucks sake, back up your assertion that i don't know what i'm talking about.
You first. The only thing I've seen from you as to why, exactly, murder is wrong is "mans rights are inalienable. they cannot be taken away or suspended. they can be violated, but that does not change the fact that they exist," which, again, leads me to say "what makes them so inalienable?"
"Well, they just are!!" is not a suitable response, especially coming from such a rational, objective, logical person.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
Narbus wrote:Yes. So are people. Emily's refusal to just stop clicking on the fucking thread should be enough proof of that. People are who we are talking about, so irrationality is a fact of the matter. People are complicated. What did you expect? More elementary arithmetic? Please.
Apparently some people can't TAKE A JOKE! I was kidding! And I never said a word about it after that, so you have nothing to base that insult upon, besides the thing I said one time.
And my other message with the "again" was to Liam, not you.
!EMiLY!
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
Quick run for switzerland!
"How can we justify spending so much on destruction and so little on life?" Matthew Good
"The white dove is gone, the one world has come down hard, so why not share the pain of our problems, when all around are wrong ways, when all around is hurt, i'll roll up in an odd shape and wait, untill the tide has turned.....with anger, i'm dead weight, i'm anchored"- IME, God Rocket (Into the Heart of Las Vegas) ^ Some say this song is about a terrorists thoughts before 911
"Pray for the sheep" Matt Good
"But it's alright, take the world and make it yours again" Matt Good
I felt it in the wind, and i saw it in the sky, i thought it was the end, i thought it was the 4th of July.
"Hold on, hold on children, your mother and father are leaving, hold on, hold on children your best freind's parents are leaving, leaving,.......*AHHH*! " - Death From Above - Black History Month
"The white dove is gone, the one world has come down hard, so why not share the pain of our problems, when all around are wrong ways, when all around is hurt, i'll roll up in an odd shape and wait, untill the tide has turned.....with anger, i'm dead weight, i'm anchored"- IME, God Rocket (Into the Heart of Las Vegas) ^ Some say this song is about a terrorists thoughts before 911
"Pray for the sheep" Matt Good
"But it's alright, take the world and make it yours again" Matt Good
I felt it in the wind, and i saw it in the sky, i thought it was the end, i thought it was the 4th of July.
"Hold on, hold on children, your mother and father are leaving, hold on, hold on children your best freind's parents are leaving, leaving,.......*AHHH*! " - Death From Above - Black History Month
-
Brooklin Matt
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 3/16/2002, 2:01 am
- Location: Pickering, ON
Yourjesus wrote:
Man, you just filter out everything don't you?? I said murder in our society which is obviously wrong, may be a practical and a necessary step in another society. The word murder can simply be broken down into "taking a human life by force". Under that pretext this action may be necessary for social change, war, and an assortment of other reasons that promote something greater than just one life. Again, these points are largely ignored by you. Why?? Also, what's your stand on mercy killings, euthanasia, etc.
You thinking in the box you are in is what's wrong. You keep assessing murder as a function of evil in its totality without comprehending the situation in which it is occuring. or more to the point, the direct consequences of murdering as to not murdering. The word itself is a taboo here because it is a stupid thing to do....however, not in other places in other situations. Social upheaval, a grand stand against government involves murder.....and yet it could be a great thing for a society......would you just have them throw stones and complain a lot, or maybe you would just "badly wound" these people??
Narbus, you should apologize to Emily. that was pretty harsh. I think he just used it as an example Emily......more frustrated by the conversation and that blasted Yourjesus then by your action. I hope you can see that.
i am not the one who is being irrational here, narbus. matt himself said "Murder is wrong.......and of course right."
that is a contradiction, man! contradictions are irrational!
Man, you just filter out everything don't you?? I said murder in our society which is obviously wrong, may be a practical and a necessary step in another society. The word murder can simply be broken down into "taking a human life by force". Under that pretext this action may be necessary for social change, war, and an assortment of other reasons that promote something greater than just one life. Again, these points are largely ignored by you. Why?? Also, what's your stand on mercy killings, euthanasia, etc.
blanket statements like "murder is wrong" are a function of rational thought. when a person looks at reality in a rational and objective fashion they will always find murder to be wrong. there is no grey area. it is never alright.
it is irrational to declare otherwise.
You thinking in the box you are in is what's wrong. You keep assessing murder as a function of evil in its totality without comprehending the situation in which it is occuring. or more to the point, the direct consequences of murdering as to not murdering. The word itself is a taboo here because it is a stupid thing to do....however, not in other places in other situations. Social upheaval, a grand stand against government involves murder.....and yet it could be a great thing for a society......would you just have them throw stones and complain a lot, or maybe you would just "badly wound" these people??
Narbus, you should apologize to Emily. that was pretty harsh. I think he just used it as an example Emily......more frustrated by the conversation and that blasted Yourjesus
then by your action. I hope you can see that.
ok narbus, remember that you asked for me to explain this all to you later when you're rolling your eyes and bitching about how boring i am.
the thing that seperates man from the lesser animals is his rational mind. this is the key to man's survival, without the ablity to wield logic and reason man would not last long in a world filled with animals of a predatory nature.
because man is an animal, however, he has certain instincts. he wants to be loved, fed, etc. he will take action in order to have his needs met, based on instinct. this is called acting in rational self interest.
the only time a man is not acting in rational self interest is when he is not using his rational mind. because man is a creature of free will, he can choose to disable the use of his mind. the only time when mans mind is rendered useless is when force is invovled.
force is a tool of the lesser animals because they do not have a mind capable of reason. when a man resorts to force, he is not using his mind, and therefore, not acting in rational self interest.
my morals are based on the principle of rational self interest. they are the "natural laws", based on the mans instincts and the golden rule: "the freeomd of your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"
a man acting in a rational way does not murder, steal or rape. ever. for any rational man, the end does not justify the means. a rational man realizes that men are ends in themselves and not tools to be used for some greater purpose. a rational man recognizes that all men are his equals, and as such are entitled to the same rights he would have for himself: the rights to go about their business unmolested.
an attempt to suspend those rights only stems from irrational and ureasonable behavior.
our rights are not given to us by governors or created by laws. they are given to us by other men, acting with rational self interest in mind.
now you go. tell me why i'm wrong.
the thing that seperates man from the lesser animals is his rational mind. this is the key to man's survival, without the ablity to wield logic and reason man would not last long in a world filled with animals of a predatory nature.
because man is an animal, however, he has certain instincts. he wants to be loved, fed, etc. he will take action in order to have his needs met, based on instinct. this is called acting in rational self interest.
the only time a man is not acting in rational self interest is when he is not using his rational mind. because man is a creature of free will, he can choose to disable the use of his mind. the only time when mans mind is rendered useless is when force is invovled.
force is a tool of the lesser animals because they do not have a mind capable of reason. when a man resorts to force, he is not using his mind, and therefore, not acting in rational self interest.
my morals are based on the principle of rational self interest. they are the "natural laws", based on the mans instincts and the golden rule: "the freeomd of your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"
a man acting in a rational way does not murder, steal or rape. ever. for any rational man, the end does not justify the means. a rational man realizes that men are ends in themselves and not tools to be used for some greater purpose. a rational man recognizes that all men are his equals, and as such are entitled to the same rights he would have for himself: the rights to go about their business unmolested.
an attempt to suspend those rights only stems from irrational and ureasonable behavior.
our rights are not given to us by governors or created by laws. they are given to us by other men, acting with rational self interest in mind.
now you go. tell me why i'm wrong.
matt, you're a collectivist.
this ideology is based on the irrational idea that the lives and rights of the many are more important then the lives and rights of the few. this is why you and i cannot see eye to eye.
you feel that it is okay to sacrifice human life to gain an end, because you see men as tools to further some grand scheme of societies. i see men as individuals who are not means to an end, but ends within themselves.
you would sacrifice the life of one innocent if it meant saving the entire world from disease, whereas i would not. this is because for me, circumstances do not dictate morality. my morals do not "depend" on the context of an action. if an action is to be taken, and considered moral, then it must be moral to take that action in all circumstances. otherwise you are NOT ACTING RATIONALLY, and therefore, NOT ACTING HUMAN.
see my longwinded post to narbus if you need more reasoning.
this ideology is based on the irrational idea that the lives and rights of the many are more important then the lives and rights of the few. this is why you and i cannot see eye to eye.
you feel that it is okay to sacrifice human life to gain an end, because you see men as tools to further some grand scheme of societies. i see men as individuals who are not means to an end, but ends within themselves.
you would sacrifice the life of one innocent if it meant saving the entire world from disease, whereas i would not. this is because for me, circumstances do not dictate morality. my morals do not "depend" on the context of an action. if an action is to be taken, and considered moral, then it must be moral to take that action in all circumstances. otherwise you are NOT ACTING RATIONALLY, and therefore, NOT ACTING HUMAN.
see my longwinded post to narbus if you need more reasoning.
First: Emily
Given the earlier statement you made about locking the thread, I took your comment to mean "Again, lock the thread." I apologize for the remark I made. I didn't know you were talking about something else.
Let's begin.
I'll keep it in mind. Heh.
A bit of a nitpick: There are a lot of animals whose species have survived a very long time even without having as great an ability to reason as we do.
Okay, let's take a bit of a closer look here. You are saying that when man acts on the interests of his instincts, he is being rational. I'd say that it's when he ignores his rational mind that he begins acting on instinct, and just doing what his body tells him, without weighing the situation. For example, I'm walking down a street late at night, and someone starts following me. My instinct might tell me to try and attack this person. My rational mind looks at the situation, realizes that it's a friend who's decided to be a dork, and I don't try and beat him.
I'm hungry. I steal food, or kill a man and take his food, but my rational mind tells me that will lead to great trouble, so I get a job and go buy food from a store.
I see an attractive woman walk by, and my instincts demand some immediate attention. My rational mind, however, tells me that forcing myself upon her would lead to great trouble, so I restrain myself.
Also, there are many times when we aren't logical that don't involve force. Procrastination, overindulging in alcohol, eating that last slice of pizza that makes us feel like we're going to explode, saying the very wrong thing to your girlfriend, driving while tired or angry, the list goes on. There's a lot of times when minds are rendered useless, and not all depend on force. They depend more on us not taking a closer look at the situation.
Not true. Back to the alley, let's have a girlfriend in tow. We take a wrong turn, not being familiar with that part of town, and find ourselves in a dead end. Then I realize we've been followed. This isn't a friend, this is a mugger, and he threatens my girlfriend. My instincts tell me that I should try and get away at any cost to preserve my own life. My rational mind tells me that could cost my girlfriend her life, so I weigh the situation, notice the mugger smells of beer, and has no weapon, and fight him off.
Force protected lives, thereby protecting myself and my girlfriend. Plus, I was rational, and I acted in self interest.
The golden rule contradicts a lot of man's instincts, you realize. If I have no food, my instincts tell me to go get food. If I have no money, and am starving, my instincts will tell me to steal food, thereby violating the rights of a grocery store owner, or they'll tell me to kill a man and steal his food, violating his right to life.
I would like to point again out that acting according to your definition of rational self interest could find a man stealing for food to satisfy his instinct to eat, or killing to satisfy a number of instincts, or raping, to satisfy more carnal instincts. I see a hole in your logic, would be the point.
Also, you are saying that "rational self interest is rational," and you are saying "being rational means acting in rational self interest." This is circular logic. It doesn't work, and is a large problem that I have with your idea.
Rationality is different to different people. In western society, we value the individual. Other cultures value the collective. Who's right? The society where you are raised, in small way, helps determine who you are. The who you are then comes back and helps to define society. You can't have one without the other. How can you say that one is more imporatant?
On that idea, let's imagine a small, country. Collectivist or not. There is a famine, and they have a choice to make. They can either try and feed everyone, and run the very real risk of everyone dying, or they can kill off the very old and very young, both of whom are physically unable to help during the crisis, and thereby save their country, so they'd have the chance to get out of famine and their race to have survived.
Which do you pick?
I agree totally up until the bit about acting with rational self interest, for the reasons stated up above.
You still haven't really defined what is rational. I really don't know that you can, in the sense you are trying. Different people see different things as being rational.
Given the earlier statement you made about locking the thread, I took your comment to mean "Again, lock the thread.
" I apologize for the remark I made. I didn't know you were talking about something else.
Let's begin.
YourJesus wrote:ok narbus, remember that you asked for me to explain this all to you later when you're rolling your eyes and bitching about how boring i am.
I'll keep it in mind. Heh.
the thing that seperates man from the lesser animals is his rational mind. this is the key to man's survival, without the ablity to wield logic and reason man would not last long in a world filled with animals of a predatory nature.
A bit of a nitpick: There are a lot of animals whose species have survived a very long time even without having as great an ability to reason as we do.
because man is an animal, however, he has certain instincts. he wants to be loved, fed, etc. he will take action in order to have his needs met, based on instinct. this is called acting in rational self interest.
the only time a man is not acting in rational self interest is when he is not using his rational mind. because man is a creature of free will, he can choose to disable the use of his mind. the only time when mans mind is rendered useless is when force is invovled.
Okay, let's take a bit of a closer look here. You are saying that when man acts on the interests of his instincts, he is being rational. I'd say that it's when he ignores his rational mind that he begins acting on instinct, and just doing what his body tells him, without weighing the situation. For example, I'm walking down a street late at night, and someone starts following me. My instinct might tell me to try and attack this person. My rational mind looks at the situation, realizes that it's a friend who's decided to be a dork, and I don't try and beat him.
I'm hungry. I steal food, or kill a man and take his food, but my rational mind tells me that will lead to great trouble, so I get a job and go buy food from a store.
I see an attractive woman walk by, and my instincts demand some immediate attention. My rational mind, however, tells me that forcing myself upon her would lead to great trouble, so I restrain myself.
Also, there are many times when we aren't logical that don't involve force. Procrastination, overindulging in alcohol, eating that last slice of pizza that makes us feel like we're going to explode, saying the very wrong thing to your girlfriend, driving while tired or angry, the list goes on. There's a lot of times when minds are rendered useless, and not all depend on force. They depend more on us not taking a closer look at the situation.
force is a tool of the lesser animals because they do not have a mind capable of reason. when a man resorts to force, he is not using his mind, and therefore, not acting in rational self interest.
Not true. Back to the alley, let's have a girlfriend in tow. We take a wrong turn, not being familiar with that part of town, and find ourselves in a dead end. Then I realize we've been followed. This isn't a friend, this is a mugger, and he threatens my girlfriend. My instincts tell me that I should try and get away at any cost to preserve my own life. My rational mind tells me that could cost my girlfriend her life, so I weigh the situation, notice the mugger smells of beer, and has no weapon, and fight him off.
Force protected lives, thereby protecting myself and my girlfriend. Plus, I was rational, and I acted in self interest.
my morals are based on the principle of rational self interest. they are the "natural laws", based on the mans instincts and the golden rule: "the freeomd of your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"
The golden rule contradicts a lot of man's instincts, you realize. If I have no food, my instincts tell me to go get food. If I have no money, and am starving, my instincts will tell me to steal food, thereby violating the rights of a grocery store owner, or they'll tell me to kill a man and steal his food, violating his right to life.
a man acting in a rational way does not murder, steal or rape. ever. for any rational man, the end does not justify the means. a rational man realizes that men are ends in themselves and not tools to be used for some greater purpose. a rational man recognizes that all men are his equals, and as such are entitled to the same rights he would have for himself: the rights to go about their business unmolested.
an attempt to suspend those rights only stems from irrational and ureasonable behavior.
I would like to point again out that acting according to your definition of rational self interest could find a man stealing for food to satisfy his instinct to eat, or killing to satisfy a number of instincts, or raping, to satisfy more carnal instincts. I see a hole in your logic, would be the point.
Also, you are saying that "rational self interest is rational," and you are saying "being rational means acting in rational self interest." This is circular logic. It doesn't work, and is a large problem that I have with your idea.
Rationality is different to different people. In western society, we value the individual. Other cultures value the collective. Who's right? The society where you are raised, in small way, helps determine who you are. The who you are then comes back and helps to define society. You can't have one without the other. How can you say that one is more imporatant?
On that idea, let's imagine a small, country. Collectivist or not. There is a famine, and they have a choice to make. They can either try and feed everyone, and run the very real risk of everyone dying, or they can kill off the very old and very young, both of whom are physically unable to help during the crisis, and thereby save their country, so they'd have the chance to get out of famine and their race to have survived.
Which do you pick?
our rights are not given to us by governors or created by laws. they are given to us by other men, acting with rational self interest in mind.
I agree totally up until the bit about acting with rational self interest, for the reasons stated up above.
You still haven't really defined what is rational. I really don't know that you can, in the sense you are trying. Different people see different things as being rational.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
-
Brooklin Matt
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 3/16/2002, 2:01 am
- Location: Pickering, ON
I think you just proved that you are totally illogical in assessing what is truly moral Yourjesus.
I'm immoral for killing one life to save millions more?? It might it difficult, but as an objectivist, isn't it a numbers game. Why is that innocent worth more that than million others. Because he has to die............million of innocents would die if I didn't act. I would be deranged to let millions die......Its not a pleasent task, but indeed it is very necessary. Call me what you wish, it still makes for a very weak statement. You are not for society.........just yourself........nothing can come between that......even the end of the world???
It sounds extremely weak to let your own conscience dictate the lives of millions. I thought an objectivist puts themselves aside and contemplates rationally what's best..............not uses pride in his morals. Sounds quite fishy and contradictory to me.
I'll get back to this later, but I have to go the library.........seriously.
I'm immoral for killing one life to save millions more?? It might it difficult, but as an objectivist, isn't it a numbers game. Why is that innocent worth more that than million others. Because he has to die............million of innocents would die if I didn't act. I would be deranged to let millions die......Its not a pleasent task, but indeed it is very necessary. Call me what you wish, it still makes for a very weak statement. You are not for society.........just yourself........nothing can come between that......even the end of the world???
It sounds extremely weak to let your own conscience dictate the lives of millions. I thought an objectivist puts themselves aside and contemplates rationally what's best..............not uses pride in his morals. Sounds quite fishy and contradictory to me.
I'll get back to this later, but I have to go the library.........seriously.
If you are pro "self-interest".. who are you to tell others that they are "irrational"? If all you care about is yourself, then I guess what others think is none of your business and they would actually be "right" because how they feel is in THEIR self-interest. Hmm.. so much for being against double-standards.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
YourJesus wrote:narbus, your post was long so i'll get to it in a while
matt:
i am a rational thinker, therefore, i do not believe in contradictions or double-standards.
i am about to prove you to be irrational.
would you kill that innocent baby if nothing was at stake?
...
I should really just put this in my sig.
"Well, yes, if everything was totally different, everything would be totally different."
You have changed the scenario so much that it no longer relates to the original set up in any way that Matt intended. You have totally removed the point of matt's arguement, and then said, "well, look. If your arguement has no point, it has no point."
Well no shit.
Matt's been saying that you can't just blanket all situations with one big judgement. Take situations as they come, weigh the individual situation, and make a decision.
In the first case, a single individual's death would save the lives of millions of individuals. Are those millions not just as worthy of life as the single person?
A group (or collective, if you will) is composed of many individuals. You are saying that a single individual has greater rights to life than a group of individuals. You are saying that the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
Last edited by Narbus on 1/20/2003, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
CoreyRIT wrote:If you are pro "self-interest".. who are you to tell others that they are "irrational"? If all you care about is yourself, then I guess what others think is none of your business and they would actually be "right" because how they feel is in THEIR self-interest. Hmm.. so much for being against double-standards.
except for that reality, logic, and rational action are not realitive.
so it doesn't matter what they think is rational.. that doesn't make it so.
whenyoukissedme wrote:wait. what is this killing one saves millions scenario?
Make one up.
For example:
A crazy man has his hand over the big red button of nuclear death. I have a gun. I can kill him, and prevent him from hitting said button. Or I can respect his individual right to life, tell all the millions out there that they don't have such a right, and let him hit said button.
Example 2:
A man is infected with a terrible disease. If I shove him in a volcano, all is well. If I do not, he infects a lot of people who then die.
Example 3: Dr. Wily's robots are trying to take over the world. Being small, metal, and blue, I have a unique opportunity to prevent this from happening. Do I kill mean Dr. Wily and save the world, or do I let millions become slaves to his horrible robot clan?
YourJesus:
Reality is relative. I have scientific evidence to back this up. Einstein, man. Einstein.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
but by allowing these single individuals to live, there is no 100% guarantee others will die.
example: man with hand on button could get light headed and pass out. police would then apprehend him. he did not have to die and he did not die.
example: man with hand on button could get light headed and pass out. police would then apprehend him. he did not have to die and he did not die.
we are the brand new beatniks. we are the down and outers.
we are the bleeding hearts, beating syncopated, broken rhythm.
our speed is often break neck. we need to slow it down.
tired of being sleepless. tired of being broken.
we are the bleeding hearts, beating syncopated, broken rhythm.
our speed is often break neck. we need to slow it down.
tired of being sleepless. tired of being broken.
what would your advantage be being small metal and blue? and yes, you would have to kill the person in all those situations.
!EMiLY!
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
but then you have to take the risk that if he did push the button, millions would be killed. 1 or a million?
!EMiLY!
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
-
starvingeyes
- Oskar Winner: 2007
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
No. What I said is that it is right to them. Those are two very important words you left out there.
i am ending this. i repeat: you are arguing that people have different beliefs on morality. fine. i am NOT arguing that people don't. how a person chooses to live his or her life is up to them.
however, morality exists outside of the beliefs of you, or me, or george bush. it doesn't matter what you think about something, it only matters what is. if i believe the sky to be green, does that make it so? no matter how much i may say the sky is green, and no matter how strongly i may believe this, i will still be wrong.
no matter how sure a murderer is that it is ok to murder, he is still wrong. morality is not relative. the beliefs of people on the subject may be, but morality itself is not.
Take the South Americans, again. They have decided that a quick death is preferable to a short, painful life in slavery, hunger, or at the violent end of a gun. Can you argue they are wrong?
the termination of any innocent person's life without their consent is wrong. period.
Wrong, no, and no (yes, I realize these are a type of blanket statement, and if anyone really feels like trying to argue semantics, then please just do it by yourself).
BUT I believe these things to be wrong not because of some inherent value in humanity, rather I consider them wrong because I, personally, put value on human life and freedom.
sure, whatever. the point here is that you have just agreed with me that morality is not relative. between the owners of black slaves and you, one of the two of you HAS to be right. which is it?
either it was ok for them to own slaves and you're wrong, or it's not ok and you're right. to believe otherwise would be a CONTRADICTION.
CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT LOGICAL.
i have trapped you. either you will now admit that either you or the slave owners are 100% wrong, regardless of your belief on the subject, or you will admit to being illogical and irrational, as well as unreasonable, and i will end the discussion as i do not waste time with those who refuse to be reasonable.
ps. and for the love of god, man, rationality is not "different to different people". do you even know what the word means? christ. is the color blue "different to different people"? do you nihilists really believe EVERYTHING is relative?
