A Thought Experiment (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
If you read back this thread you'll notice there were very sterile scenarios given that excluded the child issue. That was Rev's intention.
Btw it's slightly amusing to me that people fawn over this family values issue like it's the crucial principle in civilization. Whereas family is actually just a byproduct of evolution that turned out to be the best means of reproduction, and is fairly incidental. Which means if tomorrow we had an equally good method of bringing up children then the family question would cease to exist from an evolution standpoint. Of course it would still have cultural significance.
But it's amusing how people commonly view the world that they see and say "since things are as they are that means they should be as they are, we must not tamper with anything".
Btw it's slightly amusing to me that people fawn over this family values issue like it's the crucial principle in civilization. Whereas family is actually just a byproduct of evolution that turned out to be the best means of reproduction, and is fairly incidental. Which means if tomorrow we had an equally good method of bringing up children then the family question would cease to exist from an evolution standpoint. Of course it would still have cultural significance.
But it's amusing how people commonly view the world that they see and say "since things are as they are that means they should be as they are, we must not tamper with anything".
Let me clarify:
He said gay sex is not immoral but that doesn't mean he would have gay sex. Ok, understood, because most people who have gay sex are GAY. So assuming he's a heterosexual male AND that he prefers women over men then having sex with his mother and sister is totally different than having GAY sex. In other words, the example given wasn't such a good comparison.
He said gay sex is not immoral but that doesn't mean he would have gay sex. Ok, understood, because most people who have gay sex are GAY. So assuming he's a heterosexual male AND that he prefers women over men then having sex with his mother and sister is totally different than having GAY sex. In other words, the example given wasn't such a good comparison.
A problem with the definition again. Morality is objective in the sense that it holds true regardless of what anyone thinks, not because everyone agrees with it.
If everyone in the world really believed that 2+2=5, that would not make it true. Because it is an objective truth that 2+2=4. It's the same with morality, if everyone on earth believed it was right to torture newborn babies for pleasure, that would not make it right.
So then would you not say the Nazism is objectively wrong since it cannot be rationally justified? The fact that you cannot accept Nazism as being morally right indicates that you at least think you possess some sort of objective morality. I don't think you'll admit it though.
I find it astounding how you are willing to base morality in its entirety on rational basis alone. It's an innate part of us and more often than not, it is our intuition that guides through moral decisions rather than rational thought.
Consider this example. A Boeing 747 is travelling over Amarican skies, it carries 400 passengers on board. One of the passengers receives a text message that says the plane is being hijacked and will be heading into a crowded shopping center. The news reached the authorities, how do they react? Do they shoot down the 747 or do they just wait and see what happens?
In such a situation, how can rational thought apply?
I realized.
I didn't intentionally use the Nazi's example. I suppose I felt it was neccessary.
The problem is with the definition. If you are using my definition of objective morality, then it would make a lot more sense to you.
If everyone in the world really believed that 2+2=5, that would not make it true. Because it is an objective truth that 2+2=4. It's the same with morality, if everyone on earth believed it was right to torture newborn babies for pleasure, that would not make it right.
Hmm let's see. Can you rationalize that helping Jews is immoral?
What have we gotten ourselves into, Martin?
What have we gotten ourselves into, Martin?
I find it astounding how you are willing to base morality in its entirety on rational basis alone. It's an innate part of us and more often than not, it is our intuition that guides through moral decisions rather than rational thought.
Consider this example. A Boeing 747 is travelling over Amarican skies, it carries 400 passengers on board. One of the passengers receives a text message that says the plane is being hijacked and will be heading into a crowded shopping center. The news reached the authorities, how do they react? Do they shoot down the 747 or do they just wait and see what happens?
In such a situation, how can rational thought apply?
I realized.
I didn't intentionally use the Nazi's example. I suppose I felt it was neccessary.
The problem is with the definition. If you are using my definition of objective morality, then it would make a lot more sense to you.
Who condemns women wearing a Hijab?
I wasn't adressing you personally, because I assume you're smart enough not to let a personal belief lead to violence and negative discrimination. But there are a lot of people who aren't.
Mutation.
Who said that?
The way Martin and I used 'objective': unbiased, basing your judgement only on facts. If the facts change, so would the judgement.
The way you use 'objective': originating outside of the human mind, not influenced by our perception of the outside world.
As for your second statement. Thats a low blow, one that i didn't think was in you
Mutation.
Who said that?
So then would you not say the Nazism is objectively wrong since it cannot be rationally justified? The fact that you cannot accept Nazism as being morally right indicates that you at least think you possess some sort of objective morality. I don't think you'll admit it though.
The way you use 'objective': originating outside of the human mind, not influenced by our perception of the outside world.