I see.
If a tree fell in the middle of the woods when all life forms did not exist. Did the tree make a sound?
If a tree fell in the middle of the woods when all life forms did not exist. Did the tree make a sound?
Buy on AliExpress.com
A Thought Experiment (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Depends on how you define 'sound'. I don't see the point in starting a discussion about language conventions.
Now, if the perceptors of sound did not exist, would sound exist?
WOW!! What a load of bullshit has been going on in this thread. I can't believe I didn't see it before.
You are all arguing and coming up with theories and ideas but no one has definded the purpose of intercourse at question.
For me, when two agree on sexual intercourse it is becuase of one or more of the following reasons:
1- To satisfy a sexual pleasure and in that case I find it hard for someone being raised with the love that family provides to seek sexual pleasure there.
2- To satisfy the feeling of love and in that case also I can see a distinct separation between the love we achieve with our potential sex partner and the love we achieve from our family members.
3- Pure reproduction and that has been scientifically proven that it might cause abnormality when done among relatives.
4- Curiousity and this brings me back to the first point, what is driving your curiousity? It has to be one of the first three reasons I listed. And if it's not, I'd rather satisfy my curiousity somewhere else.
You are all arguing and coming up with theories and ideas but no one has definded the purpose of intercourse at question.
For me, when two agree on sexual intercourse it is becuase of one or more of the following reasons:
1- To satisfy a sexual pleasure and in that case I find it hard for someone being raised with the love that family provides to seek sexual pleasure there.
2- To satisfy the feeling of love and in that case also I can see a distinct separation between the love we achieve with our potential sex partner and the love we achieve from our family members.
3- Pure reproduction and that has been scientifically proven that it might cause abnormality when done among relatives.
4- Curiousity and this brings me back to the first point, what is driving your curiousity? It has to be one of the first three reasons I listed. And if it's not, I'd rather satisfy my curiousity somewhere else.
I can ask you another question, is having sex with your wife right or wrong?
And you will not get an answer from me before I knowing why am I to have sex with my wife? Some men rape their wives, is that right? Some men beat their wives six days a week and have sex with them on the seventh, is that moral?
And you will not get an answer from me before I knowing why am I to have sex with my wife? Some men rape their wives, is that right? Some men beat their wives six days a week and have sex with them on the seventh, is that moral?
There is nothing wrong with that statement per se. Now, when you include more information like you have above, then I would say it was immoral. I don't see why it is the intention that decides whether something is moral or not.
If I shot a man, I did something immoral.
It doesn't matter if I shot him because he pissed me off, or because I was drunk, or because he slept with my wife, the act of shooting a man and killing him is wrong.
If I shot a man, I did something immoral.
It doesn't matter if I shot him because he pissed me off, or because I was drunk, or because he slept with my wife, the act of shooting a man and killing him is wrong.
That was the first reason I provided:
And if it happens then the family love was absent due to some reason. And when the family love is absent then there is something extremely wrong in that particular nucleus of the society. And for this I cannot judge the sexual action itself, I have to look at the reasons behind seeking sexual pleasure there.
Since sound can exist without the perception of humans, so can morality. We don't have identify something as being moral immoral for it to be so. I think there is an evident framework that defines humanity, I don't know if it was God or some green alien, but it seems very clear to me that our actions are constantly being measured up to a certain unknown standard.
Let me clarify. A political dispute broke out in the US. Some people believed that it was moral to go into Iraq because it would mean spreading democracy and freedom to the oppressed. Others believed it was immoral because it would mean killing innocent lives. My point is this, it seems to me that both parties reach for an unstated fixed moral standard. If this moral standard did not exist, neither party would have any merit for even arguing in the first place.
What I am basically trying to say is, like sound, an objective moral standard exists regardless of how differently we perceive morality or whether we even perceive it at all.
Let me clarify. A political dispute broke out in the US. Some people believed that it was moral to go into Iraq because it would mean spreading democracy and freedom to the oppressed. Others believed it was immoral because it would mean killing innocent lives. My point is this, it seems to me that both parties reach for an unstated fixed moral standard. If this moral standard did not exist, neither party would have any merit for even arguing in the first place.
What I am basically trying to say is, like sound, an objective moral standard exists regardless of how differently we perceive morality or whether we even perceive it at all.
It's still immoral. There is no reason why my life is more valuable than his. If he, however, threatened to kill 5 children if I didn't kill him, then I would. The context is very important, not so much the intent.
For example, I killed a man that was about to blow up a shopping mall. I did something moral, and notice my intention doesn't really matter here. It doesn't matter if I killed him because I hate Jews(He was Jewish), what matters is that I saved hundreds of lives. Why I did it is irrelevant.
For example, I killed a man that was about to blow up a shopping mall. I did something moral, and notice my intention doesn't really matter here. It doesn't matter if I killed him because I hate Jews(He was Jewish), what matters is that I saved hundreds of lives. Why I did it is irrelevant.
On the contrary, you did it because you wanted to save hundred of lives. Your motive is the most relevant.
And notice, I did not say I killed the man, I said I shot the man in self defence. It can happen in several situations, is war moral? I am against all kinds of wars but these things happen. If it reaches your home would you just watch others shoot you just because your life is as valuable as theirs?
And notice, I did not say I killed the man, I said I shot the man in self defence. It can happen in several situations, is war moral? I am against all kinds of wars but these things happen. If it reaches your home would you just watch others shoot you just because your life is as valuable as theirs?
