Interview: What Is Your Moral Philosophy? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Interview: What Is Your Moral Philosophy?
in Philosophy

By ShadowtongueShadowtongue 41 Pts
Morality is the regard for the ways in which people behave toward themselves and others. Given this, what moral worldview do you hold?
Grafix
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @Shadowtongue

    I prefer utilitarianism. Specifically- rule utilitarianism. 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 2
    Oh, this is a hard one for me to answer... At first I started writing a huge post explaining my voluntarist anti-coercion moral ruleset, but then I realized that there is something much more fundamental than this. I do not want to call it "moral relativism", as that is too vague and lukewarm a term. Let me call it "individualism", albeit it is more than that.

    Something I respect in people more than anything else is their devotion to their own ideas. I think this trumps everything else in my book. If you know what your values are and pursue them with extreme determination, regardless of what everyone else tells you, then you are a hero, whether a good one or a bad one. You are someone to think about crossing.

    Your ideas can be anything. They can even state that the best outcome for humanity is to be exterminated by the most violent means. I will strongly disagree with you, but if you have a good explanation of why that is (rather than just some basic frustration with life) and are not afraid of stating your views and even, dare I say, acting on them, no matter if every single person in the world vilifies you for it - then all the power to you. You might not be someone you would invite to a party, but you will be someone I have a huge amount of respect towards.

    My personal choices led me to having strongly voluntaristic views, with a bit of an "outsider" perspective. I will exploit the societal flaws and systematic loopholes relentlessly and boast about it, I will turn people's conformism to my advantage and to their disadvantage, I will mock societal norms and beliefs I see as impractical and so on. All collectivist elements are to be exploited and abused, not respected.
    At the same time, I have immense amount of support and respect for the individual. As much as I like exploiting the system for selfish gains, I also like supporting others. Especially if you are struggling dealing with the ridiculousness of the system and the society, I will come to your help in a flash. Sometimes something as tiny as a simple smile can make a day of someone who is in a really dark place emotionally. I like pulling people out of the abyss and taking them for an adventure!

    I think my morals are very close to those of Ace Ventura. Even my personality aligns! I love doing innocent pranks on people, I love mocking authorities in silly ways, and I like saying the most cheesy pickup lines that never work, but give people many friendly laughs. I am a good-natured person, but I do not expect others to be good-natured and value their individuality.

    So, I suppose, the most general way to characterize my overall views would be "extreme support for individualism and extreme rejection of collectivism", and my personal moral views are "voluntarism and good treatment of others". If you want someone to be well off, then go ahead and help them. If you cannot do so or do not do so, then do not make excuses and say, "I cannot help others, but you can, so give your money to the collective so it can help others". Just say, "I will not help others", and move on. Do not expect others to do the job for you, regardless of whether you can or cannot and whether they can or cannot. You want others to do a job per your request - pay them for the job, and if you cannot or do not want to, then forget about the job.
    If you partake in charity, then you have my full support. If you demand that others partake it, and if they do not, then you are prepared to employ violence to compel them to - then begone, evil spirit.

    In the Dungeons & Dragons alignment system you could place me under Chaotic Good, and I could be great friends with other Chaotic Good / Chaotic Neutral people, and I would have huge respect for Chaotic Evil people, although I might not want to be around them too much. Lawful alignments are against my nature, on the other hand, as well as Neutral Good, where you care too much about the world being full of good deeds to worry about the consequences of that. Still, if you are Lawful Good, then I might want to be around you a lot, even though, no offence, I might decide to exploit your goodness some. I will generally try to give something in return, however, but do not count on it!
    Josh_Drake
  • @SkepticalOne

    Well, I’m not going to watch the whole video as I’m more interested in what you specifically have to say. However, I’ll go with the earliest provided definition of utilitarianism, which asserts that intentions are irrelevant and that instead what matters is the results or consequences of actions. This moral code is, in logical analysis, absurd because people will inevitably be regarded as malicious if they accidentally engage in harm while trying to do something beneficial or, vice versa, be regarded as beneficial if they accidentally engage in benefit while trying to do something harmful. For example, let’s say a pedophile spots a kid by a tree and chases after him to kidnap him, but while the kid runs from the pedophile the tree snaps and falls down, but the kid ends up not getting hit by the tree since he was running from the pedophile and the kid escapes overall. By just the end result, the kid was saved from a tree and was just fine, so should we treat this pedophile like a hero? No, of course not, because his intent was to kidnap the kid. This shows that both intent and end result are important to take into account because, while the intent may not always deliver the aimed result, the intent characterizes the nature of the action the person himself was engaging in and thus how we should understand, judge and engage with this person upon the basis of their mindset.

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @MayCaesar

    In essence, it seems your overall idea is a sort of moral individualism, where each and every person constructs their own moral principles and foundations and act on their own terms. There lies an absurdity in your perspective, for this moral groundwork of yours logically allows a person to develop a personal moral code of moral suppression and be in the right, in terms of logical consistency, to deny others their individual moral codes and make his individual moral code supreme and undeniable, thus rendering your code futile and destroyed by its own devising.

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Shadowtongue

    Yes, but, like I said, my voluntarist views are a step above the individualistic logical foundation. Individualism is the moral base, and voluntarism is what I choose to build on that base - but that base remains regardless.

    Someone can accept individualism and interpret it in a way that "I can do anything I need to others in order to get what I want", and that will be a perfectly valid interpretation as well. As long as they are consistent in practicing it, I will highly respect their position, even if I personally strongly disagree with it. I will also heavily criticize and exploit it if I want and can, of course.

    One can, in principle, build a collectivist moral ruleset on the individualist base. What matters here is the order. Think of an analogy: consider the difference between anarchic socialism and anarchic capitalism. In the first case, fundamentally the collective runs everything, and in the second case, fundamentally the free individualistic market runs everything. Now, in the first case a collective can, in principle, choose to organise itself by free market individualistic principles, and in the second case individuals can voluntarily choose to form a collective. However, the basic framework is different, and, while individual persons and groups can operate in different ways within this framework, the framework itself remains intact.

    What I want to see when analyzing someone's moral position is the individualistic base. I am okay with such position as, "I believe that I will be very happy in a collectivist society, and that is why I want it to be built". I am not okay with such position as, "A collectivist society is the only morally just one, hence it must be built." I personally would not mind living in Japan at all, which features a heavily collectivist society: their particular brand of collectivism is quite to my taste in many ways. What I do not want is to see people advocating for this collectivism all over the world; let those who want to live in Japanese collectivism move to Japan, and leave other people alone.

    Whether we like it or not, people will always try, to some extent, suppress each other's individuality. This is just a constant of life that we should accept and adapt to. But within the system that arises, individuals can choose to promote individual values in spite of all the suppression, and that is exactly what I am advocating for: do not conform blindly; be unique, think for yourself and act in the way that is true to you, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Do this, and you have got my respect, even if you hold the vilest position possible.
    Josh_Drake
  • @Shadowtongue

    I think you have oversimplified utilitarianism to mere consequentialism disregarding the principle of utility (the greatest good for the greatest number)  that is integral to utilitarianism. Beyond that rule-utilitarianism is built on the notion that some actions which might 'produce the greatest good for the greatest number' would be destabilizing to society in general, and, not actually the greatest good. The example of the pedophile's actions would be eliminated under this understanding of utilitariansim.
  • @SkepticalOne
    Well, as I said before, I was just going by the earliest provided definition of utilitarianism in your video link. So, to give me the best clarity, sum up in your own words what your whole utilitarian moral code is. This way I can see where you as an individual are coming from. I'm not interested in videos or other links because I want to see what you yourself believe.
    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @MayCaesar

    While your post does give me some more insight into your perspectives, I still find it hard to construct a solid moral worldview from it. I want to know exactly where you’re coming from. So, can you try to summarize, to the best degree that you can, what your total moral code is? I just need specifics to work with here.

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @SkepticalOne
    Well, as I said before, I was just going by the earliest provided definition of utilitarianism in your video link. So, to give me the best clarity, sum up in your own words what your whole utilitarian moral code is. This way I can see where you as an individual are coming from. I'm not interested in videos or other links because I want to see what you yourself believe.
    I believe I've given sufficient information, but I'm not a philosopher, so what do I know!? :smiley:
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    Morality is a social construction. All is anarchy!!!! 
  • @SkepticalOne

    You may have given me information, but what I’m trying to articulate is that I’m not necessarily interested in information from other sources. I want you to say what you believe yourself so that I can know directly where you yourself are coming from so I can know what you precisely believe and thus adequately respond and potentially critique your thought process. That’s what I’m interested in- you. So, could you just give me some sort of definition in your own words?

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @piloteer
    Well, regardless of whether or not morality is a mere social construct, is there a particular code of conduct you go by? Surely you abide by certain codes, like not killing other people, maybe sparing some change to a homeless person, et cetera. Since you most likely do this, hopefully aside from just the threat from governmental authority, there is some sort of moral compass you follow. Whether you deem it all subjective, just go ahead and define the rule set by which you conduct yourself.
    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Shadowtongue

    Well, that is the specifics: on level one you are just an individual and the right thing to do is to develop your own views and promote them openly despite what the society says, and on level two I personally have developed a "chaotic good" system of views where I respect everyone's freedoms and try to do deeds that make people's lives better.

    People who agree with me on level one, but disagree with me on level two, I respect and can acquaint.
    People who agree with me on both levels, I respect and like.
    People who disagree with me on level one, but agree with me on level two, I like, but might exploit for personal gain to some extent, however always trying to give something in return.
    People who disagree with me on both I see as the societal background and are going to be exploited for the gain of the other three groups in practice.

    Now, my system is not rigid; this is just my rough attempt to describe how I see things. There is a lot of "but"-s, obviously, and the more I interact with various people, the more I realize just how complex and ambiguous everything is at the end of the day. Perhaps having a properly defined moral system is just the wrong way to live, and it makes more sense to be more flexible and adjustable. One does need some guidelines to not be completely lost in the sea of options, but those guidelines can be very light and strongly vary based on the circumstances.
    SkepticalOneJosh_Drake
  • @MayCaesar

    I will have unique responses to both levels of your moral compass…

    “…on level one you are just an individual and the right thing to do is to develop your own views and promote them openly despite what the society says…”

    This notion contradicts itself a little. You say here that morality is individualistic but then you say individuals developing their own moral codes is ‘the right thing to do’. To say anything is the right thing to do is making a universal claim, which naturally goes against your assertion of morality being relative to the individual.

    “…on level two I personally have developed a ‘chaotic good’ system of views where I respect everyone’s freedoms and try to do deeds that make people’s lives better.”

    This statement will lead to an absurdity since it contains both unconditional respect for people’s freedoms while also striving to make people’s lives better. The reason this is an absurdity is because you would easily end up having to respect the freedoms of someone who wants to cause harm to one or more people, and so by respecting this person’s freedoms you’d end up causing or allowing harm to some people rather than making their lives better, despite wanting to make their lives better.

    Also, as a follow-up, why and how do you want to make other people’s lives better?

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1232 Pts
    Do unto to those as you would have those do unto to thee.
    Grafix



    I'm on my level!





  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 3

    “…on level one you are just an individual and the right thing to do is to develop your own views and promote them openly despite what the society says…”

    This notion contradicts itself a little. You say here that morality is individualistic but then you say individuals developing their own moral codes is ‘the right thing to do’. To say anything is the right thing to do is making a universal claim, which naturally goes against your assertion of morality being relative to the individual.

    Well, my moral system has to originate somewhere. Individualistic morality implies that it is up to the individual to develop their own morals. So many people simply accept the morals they have been taught by their parents, peers, teachers and so on, without truly processing them and tracing them back to their origin - this is something that I see as being wrong, albeit, again, as you noted, what is "right" and what is "wrong" somewhat depends on the perspective.

    Shadowtongue said:

    “…on level two I personally have developed a ‘chaotic good’ system of views where I respect everyone’s freedoms and try to do deeds that make people’s lives better.”

    This statement will lead to an absurdity since it contains both unconditional respect for people’s freedoms while also striving to make people’s lives better. The reason this is an absurdity is because you would easily end up having to respect the freedoms of someone who wants to cause harm to one or more people, and so by respecting this person’s freedoms you’d end up causing or allowing harm to some people rather than making their lives better, despite wanting to make their lives better.
    I do respect freedoms of people who want to cause harm to others, but I also have my own freedom to mitigate/counteract that harm. Where I personally draw the line is that this harm contains coercion. If someone just takes advantage of others and causes them harm as a result of their voluntary cooperation, then, while I will often criticize this actions, I will not want to interfere generally. But if someone threatens someone else with violence, trying to compel them to do something, then I will think it right to do something about it.

    For instance, a conman taking people's money via a pyramid scheme upon a mutually agreed contract is a fair game, but someone taking people's money by robbing them on the streets with a knife is not.
    Shadowtongue said:

    Also, as a follow-up, why and how do you want to make other people’s lives better?
    I do not know the "why" of it very well; I suppose I just have natural empathy, and other people being happy makes me happier as well. I could rationalize it morally by saying that my respect for individual freedoms features, as a "side effect", also my respect for individual happiness, but I cannot make a very obvious connection here.

    As for the "how", it heavily depends on the context: how I feel at the time, who the person in question is, what my financial situation is, how much time I have, etc. In general I try to do small things that do not deplete me of my resources in any significant way for people I do not know very well, and big things constituting a serious investment for people who play an important part in my life - but I often surprise myself by, say, offering a person I just met to be their free Uber driver (I love driving for some reason).

    I do draw the line, again, at helping people by pushing something on them they clearly oppose. In the past, I would offer a friend in financial trouble a large sum of money with no strings attached, and as they would decline, I would keep convincing them to take it - but nowadays, once I hear a clear "No", I back away. And I certainly will not help people in controversial ways that can potentially backfire and harm them in the end without both their agreement and my own conviction.
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Shadowtongue

    I would say I abide by an individualistic point of view. I take that individualistic approach to an extreme. I adhere to a solipsistic world view. That doesn't mean I believe I'm the only coherent living thing in the universe. It just means I could be the only sentient being in the universe. Solipsism is an observation of the fact that all we have to gather information about our existence is our senses. But those senses are unreliable when it comes to gaining any empirical verification about whether anybody beside myself actually exists.    
    Josh_Drake
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1249 Pts
    edited March 4
    This is the Code to which I adhere and try to live by.

    There is no meaning to Existence, 
    There is only the Absurd.

    Through Serenity I gain Freedom,
    Through Knowledge I gain Power,
    Through Rebellion I gain Purpose.
    Through Others I gain Context,
    Through Passion I gain Focus,
    And in the moment, transcend.

    Facing Fate, defiantly laughing,
    I am an Absurdist Jedi. 
    DustinPfeiferZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @ZeusAres42
    This actually has a flaw to it. You could have someone who, out of delusions of self-hatred, thinks that others should hurt himself, and so, by mechanic of this principle, this person would then be in the right, in terms of logical consistency, to hurt others because he'd be doing unto those as he'd want others to do unto himself. 
    ZeusAres42
    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @MayCaesar

    On the discussion of the origin of your moral system, this is a very crucial point to think on since the origin of your morality is what ultimately serves as the foundational reasoning behind why you engage in the morals you exercise to begin with.

    How are you respecting a person’s freedom to cause harm to others if you’d happen to be using your freedom to mitigate/counteract that harm? Isn’t active, forceful opposition the polar opposite of respect? Additionally, why do you feel compelled to do something about coercive harm but not voluntary harm if both kinds of harm are both supposedly just personal, individualistic moral codes? Your differing reaction toward coercive harm seems to go against your own notion that all actions and consequences are of an equal moral playing field. Both should yield the same response, logically speaking, if your notion of morality being relative to the individual is true.

    On the last section of your reply post, specifically on the part regarding the ‘how’ aspect of things, I was going more in the direction of wanting to know how you think people should engage with one another, if all people voluntarily decided to follow your codes of conduct, in order to produce better lives.

    Josh_Drake
    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @piloteer

    Well, other entities outside of yourself definitely exist since they exist to be sensed. Now, whether these sensed entities exist outside of the processes of the self or, even further, have sentience of their own is indeed unverifiable. This isn’t me so much disagreeing as much as I am just making a minor critique for adjustment of your position here.

    Now, why would you construct morality around this principle and what would this moral conduct look like?

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I’d prefer if you give me something more solidly laid out than a poem. I get the sardonic-esque nature of what you’re doing here but I’m here to debate and can’t do much with this.

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 4
    Keep my head down and my arse up working my butt off to provide the best education that I can afford for my kids, so that they may be equipped to forge for themselves a successful, happy, moral, decent and contented life and also make sure that they are well-equipped to produce yet another generation of the same ilk, who will support the same moral and decent ethos.  

    Also conscientiously keep the Sabbath, Honour our Creator and only stick my head above the parapet to defend that moral and decent ethos, when someone is shooting at our national Western cultural values, or at my personal values, once held dear by this nation as a collective of moral and decent citizens and when I do stick my head above the parapet, make sure I am well prepared to take the return fire and give back more than I receive in every way on every front, in war, love, work and spirit.  There is no other way to live, work, play and hold one's head up with self-respect.  I abhor the "me, me, me" generation and think they will be the death of civilization.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen - In a phrase your values are dumb and self-centred and will not serve the social backbone of any society.  That's the problem with the left.  They have no vision.
    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 4
    Deleted, double post.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    My Moral Philosophies:

    Pro Adoption, pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, pro Humanity, pro Law abiding, pro Freedom of Religion, pro non Religious, pro legal U.S. citizen, and pro Equality and Fairness.
    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 4
    @SkepticalOne - I don't disagree with the premise per se  of Utilitarianism, namely batting for the team which believes in taking action only where it brings happiness and no unhappiness, however at the same time I recognize its nature is actually highly impractical and hardly a viable utility at all, making it a rather paradoxical idealogue, but philosophers are full of such waffle, so no surprises there.  Its major flaw is that it fails to acknowledge the real world, a world created by less-than perfect beings with no clue as to how to preserve and protect  a logical social and moral construct with any enduring  commitment.  Collectively society always chooses the low bar.

    Utilitarianism is simply too purist.  It ignores the paradox of life itself.   Such high idealism is bound to fail in a flawed and imperfect world and it does.  An example can be found in the axiom, "It is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind", or similarly it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a minority in order to rescue the majority and so on.  That's realism and nothing else will ever nor ever can serve us so well.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 4
    @piloteer - Gawd.  I didn't realize you were off with the fairies.  Why don't you just go and live in a cave and put yourself out of your misery, instead of choosing to be perpetually in a state of flux wondering whether real people are responding to your posts, but clearly convinced they must be, otherwise why would you respond with such energy and diligence.  LOL!
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited March 4
    @Grafix

    ****"Its major flaw is that it fails to acknowledge the real world, a world created by less-than perfect beings with no clue as to how to preserve and protect  a logical social and moral construct with any enduring  commitment."

    That objection could more-or-less be lodged against any moral philosophy ...including those which attribute guidance from a perfect being.

    The fact of the matter is perfection and absolute certainty is not required to know some actions are better than others especially where human well-being is concerned. For example, it doesn't take an omniscient being to know chopping someone's head off is bad for their well being or that vaccinations (while causing pain) are beneficial to human life. Of course there are more nuanced problems out there, but just as our accumulated knowledge tells us the better course of action in the examples above it guides us in these scenarios too.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 4
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote, firstly quoting me ...
    ****"Its major flaw is that it fails to acknowledge the real world, a world created by less-than perfect beings with no clue as to how to preserve and protect  a logical social and moral construct with any enduring  commitment."
    You replied with this ...
    That objection could more-or-less be lodged against any moral philosophy ...including those which attribute guidance from a perfect being.
    Well, obviously that's your belief system simply repudiating mine and showing your ignorance of its brilliance.  The Christian deity presents itself as the  epitome of perfection and it is considered by those who have a full and educated knowledge of the teachings that it DOES provide the absolute solution to perfection, which you and all the whacko atheist philosophers have already in front of you, yet refuse to contemplate its merits, due to an inherent bigotry and therefore a consequential ignorance of it.  Even if these so-called "intelligentsia" could climb down from their cross and accept the wisdom of the Biblical teachings, without any obligation to accept its faith or the author's divinity, it would be an intelligent start, but yet they choose to cling to their irrational bigotry and instead flounder around offering inferior solutions and inadequate answers to the profundity of life and its contradictions concerning the question of consciousness.  What a waste of time, when it is has already been written down for them..

    Then you wrote ...
    The fact of the matter is perfection and absolute certainty is not required to know some actions are better than others especially where human well-being is concerned. For example, it doesn't take an omniscient being to know chopping someone's head off is bad for their well being
    PHAW!  Now you would boldly deny the historical record.  I seem to recall reading of many an empire and civilization daily chopping off Christian's heads, and can point to one which still does so, to this day, yet you would dishonestly pretend that humans were not civilized and educated by a higher wisdom pointing out such barbarism was unacceptable, or even deny that it was Christianity which civilized the world and made laws against it including others, which are to this day reflected in our very own Statutes, and all drawn from the original law of the Ten Commandments, but still you will deny it because your bigotry demands it.  

    Your last sentence is just prattle and does not support the philosophy.  I say again, the philosophy is for unrealistic dreamers and is impractical. If it had a remote chance of success, it would be reflected in our system of law.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited March 4
    @Grafix

    ****"The Christian deity presents itself [...]"

    We have only the words of men claiming to speak on behalf of the Christian diety recorded in the Bible and through "special revelation". The contradictory nature of the revelations shows them to be either from an inconsistent source or many sources.

    *****"PHAW!  Now you would boldly deny the historical record."

    You discount the historic record regarding  Christian committed atrocities (while acting on behalf of their god). When the entire historic record and the claimed motivations are considered we see a very different picture than the one taught in Sunday School. Christians are certainly not innocent bystanders historically speaking.

    Given that these revelations or special revelations can just as easily lead to barbarous, benign, or beneficial acts it should be obvious god, or the men who speak on its behalf, do not hold human well-being (of all humanity) as a high priority and subjectivity (not objectivity) is the only consistent component of a morality built on 'the will of god' (regardless of the god claimed). 

    *****"Your last sentence is just prattle and does not support the philosophy."

    I will happily take any moral philosophy which can learn from mistakes over a morality which does not recognize error.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1249 Pts
    edited March 4
    @Shadowtongue

    It’s nonetheless laid out in there...  Being fundamentally an absurdist, I am ultimately amoral, so there’s that... “Through Others I gain context” is the line where I start to diverge from other more traditional absurdists and sort of address Morality.  

    There is no universal moral truth, because the “universal” qualifier dismisses context altogether and there is no morality without context. My context is being human and as such, a fundamentally social and empathetic being. Thus, in order to rebel against the Absurd to gain purpose, I chose to embrace humanism and recognize that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. 

    I can be said to be somewhat of a moral pragmatist too, in that I do not hold any known moral criteria as beyond potential for revision and focus on society, rather than on lone individuals, as the entity which achieves morality, in John Dewey's words, "all conduct is ... social." 

    And I embrace paradoxes, I don't recoil from them... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    On the discussion of the origin of your moral system, this is a very crucial point to think on since the origin of your morality is what ultimately serves as the foundational reasoning behind why you engage in the morals you exercise to begin with.

    How are you respecting a person’s freedom to cause harm to others if you’d happen to be using your freedom to mitigate/counteract that harm? Isn’t active, forceful opposition the polar opposite of respect? Additionally, why do you feel compelled to do something about coercive harm but not voluntary harm if both kinds of harm are both supposedly just personal, individualistic moral codes? Your differing reaction toward coercive harm seems to go against your own notion that all actions and consequences are of an equal moral playing field. Both should yield the same response, logically speaking, if your notion of morality being relative to the individual is true.

    On the last section of your reply post, specifically on the part regarding the ‘how’ aspect of things, I was going more in the direction of wanting to know how you think people should engage with one another, if all people voluntarily decided to follow your codes of conduct, in order to produce better lives.

    At the very fundamental level the goal of live is to be happy; happiness is what perceived by organism as good and misery is perceived by it as bad, and there is nothing, as far as I can tell, we can do to change that. As such, the primary objective of the moral system should be to guarantee individual happiness.

    Now, every individual has their own version of happiness. Someone is happy just having a regular stable family. Someone else is happy crossing the oceans in a small boat. Someone else still wants to wage wars and redefine the history of humanity.
    Hereby, individualism is the logical choice to make to build one's moral system off, and that is the choice I make. It is not the only valid choice, but I fail to see how any other choice can have an inherent vector pointed at happiness. Any degree of collectivism attributes some collective values to the individual, and if those values are not aligned with a given individual, then there is an unresolvable discrepancy that will prevent them from achieving the maximum degree of happiness possible for them.

    With regards to your next question, there is a reason I use the word "respect", rather than a word with a strictly positive connotation, such as "like" or "support". "Respect" does not have to coincide with approval; in fact, you can respect your worst enemy, and so you should, as respecting a worthwhile enemy and taking them seriously is the prerequisite to defeating them.
    I can respect someone, but still take steps to prevent, counter or undo their actions.

    In case of voluntary harm the victim gives their agreement on being harmed, so to speak, and I do not feel it right to intervene and force my will on them.
    Coercive harm is different, in that here the victim has no choice but to be harmed. When someone puts them into such a situation, I feel that the intervention is warranted.

    Well, in case all people followed my voluntaristic ideas, they would interact in an exclusively peaceful manner. They would typically engage with each other with gestures of good will, smile at each other, offer mutually beneficial exchanges regularly, etc. At the same time, they would know what they want from life and pursue it despite potentially being disliked by the society - but, again, the society would be accepting of them, if all the people in it followed my morality, so this issue would not even be present.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1232 Pts
    edited March 4
    @ZeusAres42
    This actually has a flaw to it. You could have someone who, out of delusions of self-hatred, thinks that others should hurt himself, and so, by mechanic of this principle, this person would then be in the right, in terms of logical consistency, to hurt others because he'd be doing unto those as he'd want others to do unto himself. 
    @Shadowtongue ; As it is what you're saying here is equivalent to the exact statement I made which was "Do unto those as you would have those do unto thee." It doesn't matter if the person's morality dictates that others should hurt him or not; this doesn't affect the statement in any way.

    With that being said, it is often assumed that when one makes this statement they are referring to most people of which are of sound mind that doesn't want to be harmed. I actually see two flaws here in this statement that you have provided: one is the appeal the possibility that a person might out of delusion think others should hurt him; oftentimes many things are possible where they're actually unlikely. Secondly, if the person who thinks this is not of sound mind then we cannot conclude that this is their moral philosophy as it is unlikely that it would be if they were of sound mind. And it's even more unlikely that they would think this even if they were of sound mind. 



    I'm on my level!





  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 4
    @Grafix

    Thanx for sharing your opinion without being asked. Everybody always REEEEAALY fu€kin likes it when you share your opinion. :/  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Grafix

    There are a lot of issues with your post, so I’ll go over them bit by bit…

    The beginning of your post doesn’t lay down your morality for the most part but is you simply talking about your personal life goals. I'm looking for you to tell me what morality itself looks like to you. Now, when you say you want your kids to lead a moral life among other things, what does it mean exactly to you to be moral? Also, terms like decent can also be attributed to moral claims and positions, so define decent when you speak of decency.

    On the second part of your post, you make it clear that you’re a Christian. Tell me what has led you to believe that Christianity is in fact valid, for if you’re basing your moral codes upon this religion then it is important to discern that this religious belief is true to begin with. I would ask you here to define what constitutes morality and decency, but I already asked that in the first portion of this reply so I won’t do so again. Just make sure to clarify your morals and decency by precisely defining them.

    When you speak of ‘national western cultural values’, specify what these values are.

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    What does being an absurdist mean to you and what does being amoral mean for you?

    When you say speak of the ‘universal qualifier’ dismissing moral truth in absence of context, can you elaborate? I do not quite understand what you’re trying to articulate here. When you say you rebel against the absurd to find purpose, what absurdities are you rebelling against? Define what humanism means for you personally. On your last point of your second paragraph, all things are ultimately assessed through human experience alone because all things we come to know about reality are ultimately derived from our sensing of outside existence, but this includes objectives rules like the number four being necessarily created from the addition of four singular units, so just because something is gathered from human experience doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have objective, universal foundation, and such can be possible for moral codes too if objective argumentation for morality can be found at all.

    On your third paragraph, what do you mean to focus on society, rather than on lone individuals, as the entity which achieves morality? Society itself isn’t an entity but is a collection of individual human entities which associate together in manners which are overseen and regulated.

    What paradoxes do you embrace?

    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @MayCaesar

    Now we seem to be coming to a curious point in the conversation. Much of what you said about happiness and misery is true indeed in regard to the human condition. Now, when you say that beings should then behave in accordance to achieving individual happiness, couldn’t striving for individual happiness mean that one would then be in the right, in terms of consistency with your line of reasoning, to exploit or outright harm others if it solely benefits them in turn for their individual happiness? How does one objectively decide that their happiness is of more gravity than another’s happiness?

    To your second paragraph, do you recognize that saying that individualism is the logical choice to make moral systems off of is now asserting objectivity into the moral conversation when you recently stated that there are no universal metrics by which morality can be constructed? You on one hand say individualism is the logical choice but then say it’s not the only valid path, isn’t the logical path the valid path? Also, how can you determine what is or isn’t a valid moral foundation if, again, you stated before that morality is relative to the individual and not something that can be assessed universally?

    On your point about collectivism versus individualism, both can result in unresolved discrepancies because, like a collective, individuals can also use their will to try to force their ways upon another, and that’d be logically consistent in a purely individualistic system, so this is not at all a problem unique to collectivism. Also, wouldn’t it be far more likely that people could attain individual happiness, a thing which you herald, if they work together in some sort of fashion to bring about protection and advancement to one another, rather than sole individualism?

    As for your point on respect, you’re just simply not correct here. Respect is either deep admiration for something or the consideration or regard for something. You’re not taking someone into regard, consideration or admiration if you’re outright opposing them. Opposition and respect are clear antonyms.

    On your point on voluntary versus coercive harm. I know what both mean, but you seemed to miss the heart of my question. If morality is purely relative to the individual, how are you being logical when you react to involuntary harm but do not react to voluntary harm? In the case of your moral philosophy, it doesn’t matter if one signed up to be harmed or not, both types of moral scenarios should, logically speaking, be of equal weight in your eyes if there is no means of universal moral criticism.

    For your final point, wouldn’t you say that people agreeing to exchanges and mutually benefiting from one another is them following a collective code of conduct by virtue of them agreeing to engage in the same ways with one another? Also, your proposal would lead to an absurdity because, while you want people to be peaceful and find mutual happiness, if also people were accepted by your society to get whatever they wanted for their happiness, this could also include things like coercive harm and thus go against your original aims.


    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • @ZeusAres42

    For your first point, it one wanting people to hurt himself definitely would affect your statement. If your statement is do unto those as you would have them do unto you, then this follows. You do [harm] unto those as you would have them do [harm] unto you. This is clearly able to be inserted in the statement and thus why the statement is flawed, given its intended outcome.

    “…oftentimes many things are possible when they’re actually unlikely.”

    That’s very true, like it’s technically possible that there’s an invisible elf next to me since I can’t directly disprove it, despite it being very unlikely due to a lack of evidence to give credibility to the idea. However, the fact that the thing is possible means that , in the advent of this possibility occurring, your statement would conform to this delusional person’s way of being.

    " Secondly, if the person who thinks this is not of sound mind then we cannot conclude that this is their moral philosophy as it is unlikely that it would be if they were of sound mind."

    To your point of them not being of sound mind, yes, they wouldn’t be of sound mind. That’s why the prospect would be flawed. That’s why we debate things, whether by simple ignorance or from delusion, people make flawed claims. That’s why I challenge your statement. It is flawed.


    My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1232 Pts
    edited March 4
    @ZeusAres42

    For your first point, it one wanting people to hurt himself definitely would affect your statement. If your statement is do unto those as you would have them do unto you, then this follows. You do [harm] unto those as you would have them do [harm] unto you. This is clearly able to be inserted in the statement and thus why the statement is flawed, given its intended outcome.


    @Shadowtongue

    I know this follows. Generally speaking, morality is subjective. So, according to the deluded person here, the statement is not flawed; it still stands. According to their own current subjective view, they believe that they should hurt people as they would like to be hurt by others themselves. This according to them is their current moral philosophy. 

    I am not sure what you're trying to do here. If it's an attempt at reductio ad absurdum it's not working. We're actually both in at least one respect in agreement. I am not sure that you know this yet though.



    I'm on my level!





  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1249 Pts
    edited March 5
    @Shadowtongue

    Before I can get into many of your questions about Absurdism and what it may mean to be an absurdist, have you read Camus? Specifically, The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel?  I'll try to convey the basics and we can go further from there...I didn't stop at Camus mind you, and I keep on expending my study and understanding of the Absurd and its realization in everyday life.

    But for now, I'll say that to be an absurdist, one has to first recognize the fact that there is no inherent purpose or meaning to Existence...  In this regard Absurdism theoretical template overlap with Existentialism and Nihilism. All three make the same basic observations:

    1: We are Human.
    2: This is the only reality we have.
    3: Our human experience is incongruent with that reality. 

    An absurdist is consciously experiencing the fundamental conflict between human experience and reality, conflict from which the Absurd emerges. 

    Absurdists accept that we seem to function best within a belief structure (whether religious or some sort of spirituality), but that science has shown the nihilists are right about both revealed and constructed meaning. And as a result, choose to use some parts of a meaning structure—either borrowed or constructed—to get the human benefits thereof, but without relaxing so far that they start believing it’s actually true, that would be the failing of religious beliefs, to lose oneself in self-delusion.

    I'm amoral in the sense that since there are no inherent meaning to Existence, notions of good and bad are ultimately meaningless too... It doesn't imply that I have no sense of right and wrong, it's just that I recognize that they are intrinsically meaningless. 

    The act of rebellion I'm talking about is fighting for meaning that we know we can never have. It's the refusal of suicide and the intentional search for meaning despite the revelation of the Absurd that none exists. It's arguing for rights & wrongs despite knowing it's ultimately irrelevant... This act of rebellion also implies assigning value to conscious human life in spite of its inherent lack of value, Absurdism demands humanism, its own brand of humanism maybe but still, it's a belief in contradiction where all is valueless and in this valuelessness human life is given precedence, for we must be living in order to encounter the universe and confront the Absurd. Thus there arises a logic within Absurdism that mandates the good of human life, for without the possession of one’s life, we're unable to interact with the Absurd. To say that life is absurd, the conscience must be alive. And to quote Camus, in contrast to Nietzsche's Übermensch; "In rebellion the individual is not, in himself alone, the embodiment of the values he wishes to defend. It needs all humanity, at least, to comprise them. When he rebels, a man identifies himself with other men and so surpasses himself."

    Of course society are entities. In the same sense that you are not just the sum of your individual cells, which themselves are not just the sum of fundamental particles that compose them... When we speak of the Roman, Greek, Chinese or any other civilization, we're talking about social entities... They all have unique characteristics that distinguishes them from one another, art, civics, language, etc... Morality is realized within those social entities, never in an individual... And morality is not exclusive to human societies. Wolves, whales, dolphins and most (if not all) gregarious mammal species have their own Morality... Some studies suggest it may also be true of birds, but that is still speculative... See the works of Patricia Churchland if this is of any interest to you...

    The most obvious paradox every absurdist embrace, is the problem of Free Will (Libertarian v. Compatibilism v. Incompatibilism ), which is just another manifestation of the Absurd... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 5
    @SkepticalOne ; -  In your reply you quoted me as follows ... (I give my full sentence, unlike your truncation),
    Grafix said: The Christian deity presents itself as the  epitome of perfection and it is considered by those who have a full and educated knowledge of the teachings that it DOES  provide the absolute solution to perfection, which you and all the whacko atheist philosophers have already in front of you, yet refuse to contemplate its merits, due to an inherent bigotry and therefore a consequential ignorance of it.
    You replied to that sentence of mine as follows ....
    @SkepticalOne said: We have only the words of men claiming to speak on behalf of the Christian diety recorded in the Bible and through "special revelation". The contradictory nature of the revelations shows them to be either from an inconsistent source or many sources.
    LOL!  And there it is, as it always is.  The usual defence made in deliberate and wilful ignorance of the actual Christian philosophy by dishonest atheism, pretending the innumerable and every-mounting historical proofs do not even exist, proofs which support the reality of Christ, His divinity and that He was who He said He was, all denied by you in a single sentence.  A veritable confirmation of the wilful ignorance of atheism as already stated.  Thanks for the second confirmation. To even think a single sentence is sufficient to dismiss thousands of years of proven historical record, decades of science and archaeology proofs, really is mind-numbing.  Time to step out of the Dark Ages friend.  We are in the 21st Century and knowledge has progressed in leaps and bounds, every bit of it every time proving the Christian account.  You have simply proved and reinforced  my statement that ...
    Grafix said: Even if these so-called "intelligentsia" could climb down from their cross and accept the wisdom of the Biblical teachings, without any obligation to accept its faith or the author's divinity, it would be an intelligent start, but yet they choose to cling to their irrational bigotry and instead flounder around offering inferior solutions and inadequate answers to the profundity of life and its contradictions concerning the question of consciousness.  What a waste of time, when it is has already been written down for them.
    Your reply bears testimony to my above sentence, that you and all atheists are too proud to climb down from their cross and look at another philosophy.  I thought comparing philosophies and critiquing other philosophies including their own, was the very crux of the business of philosophy.   Then you launch straight into proving another of my statements, which I even used as a topic title on this forum ....
    @skepticalOne said:  You discount the historic record regarding  Christian committed atrocities (while acting on behalf of their god). When the entire historic record and the claimed motivations are considered we see a very different picture than the one taught in Sunday School. Christians are certainly not innocent bystanders historically speaking.
    The logic of that dippy daft argument is as follows.  Although, the Law of Christianity is listed in its Ten Commandments, it is nevertheless logical to define it according to those people who rabidly, egregiously and shockingly demonstrate a total disregard for those ten Laws and for Christ's teachings, the Christian precepts, doctrines and disciplines.  Instead, atheists pretend these wicked people are representatives of Christianity.  Huh?  Why not look to the source, Christ Himself and the Gospels to define "Christianity"?  Oh! but that would be far too logical for a bleedin', impractical dreamer and dishonest debater.
     
    This para below on blaming God and Christianity for the atrocities committed by those under the pall of Satan, really takes the cake and shows just how little you understand, how little you put your brain to work and how little is your capacity to think logically.  It directly connects with your inability to accurately define Christianity, as per my previous paragraph.
    Given that these revelations or special revelations can just as easily lead to barbarous, benign, or beneficial acts it should be obvious god, or the men who speak on its behalf, do not hold human well-being (of all humanity) as a high priority and subjectivity (not objectivity) is the only consistent component of a morality built on 'the will of god' (regardless of the god claimed). 
    So with all your side-stepping, ducking, diving, weaving and obfuscation, coated with a crown of froth and bubble, you ignore my statement that Christianity civilized the world.  What then is left of your words and their impact?  They fail to address my original argument at all.  They digress horribly into a bible bashing fest. Worse, are based on a bed of ignorance.  Well done, Shylock.  How about we now debate my original remarks rebutting your  philosophy. I argue that it is impractical, does not address the nature of mankind and that if it had any merit it would be reflected in our system of law, but it is not, while Christianity's Laws are.
    .
    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 5
    @Shadowtongue - Wondering what your "lots of issues" with my post are when you claim but two.  To begin my response to your request, I'll firstly re-post my original post.  Here it is ,,,
    Keep my head down and my arse up working my butt off to provide the best education that I can afford for my kids, so that they may be equipped to forge for themselves a successful, happy, moral, decent and contented life and also make sure that they are well-equipped to produce yet another generation of the same ilk, who will support the same moral and decent ethos.
      
    Also conscientiously keep the Sabbath, Honour our Creator and only stick my head above the parapet to defend that moral and decent ethos, when someone is shooting at our national Western cultural values, or at my personal values, once held dear by this nation as a collective of moral and decent citizens and when I do stick my head above the parapet, make sure I am well prepared to take the return fire and give back more than I receive in every way on every front, in war, love, work and spirit.  There is no other way to live, work, play and hold one's head up with self-respect.  I abhor the "me, me, me" generation and think they will be the death of civilization.

    To that you responded with ...

    @Shadowtongue said:  There are a lot of issues with your post, so I’ll go over them bit by bit…

    The beginning of your post doesn’t lay down your morality for the most part but is you simply talking about your personal life goals. I'm looking for you to tell me what morality itself looks like to you. Now, when you say you want your kids to lead a moral life among other things, what does it mean exactly to you to be moral? Also, terms like decent can also be attributed to moral claims and positions, so define decent when you speak of decency.

    The moral code is demonstrated in the goal itself as outlined and is clear - To provide a stable, moral, decent, hardworking and diligent generation of children, in the hope that they will follow our parental example for the benefit of the nation and all its people.  The moral precept is clear.  Sacrificing one's endeavours for the good of the whole, rather than out of any self-preservation or self-interest of the individual.  This moral precept is then backed up in the second paragraph by revealing how it is imparted and upon what basis it is founded.  It is then declared as an adherence to the Christian ethos. It is also demonstrated how it is imparted - by keeping the Sabbath, taking my children to church regularly + making the financial sacrifice of sending them to a private Christian school to reinforce that moral ethos - all of this already stated or understood.  You then wrote ...

    Tell me what has led you to believe that Christianity is in fact valid, for if you’re basing your moral codes upon this religion then it is important to discern that this religious belief is true to begin with. I would ask you here to define what constitutes morality and decency, but I already asked that in the first portion of this reply so I won’t do so again. Just make sure to clarify your morals and decency by precisely defining them.

    In short, the moral code means adhering to the Ten Commandments laid down by the Christian God, endeavouring to always put oneself last, instead of first and loving thy neighbour as thyself - a mixture of Christian philosophy and Confucian philosophy.  How I came to accept this philosophy was through a life's journey of enquiry.  Then you ask ...

    When you speak of ‘national western cultural values’, specify what these values are. 

    The Western value system was founded upon and is defined in the Judeo-Christian ethos - The Ten Commandments - five of which laws appear in our own set of laws with a further demonstration of the same ethos in monogamy, enshrined in our Marriage Act, while others appear in our Western Judeo-Christian culture, such as keeping holy the Sabbath, our Christian holidays, (holy days), founded upon the birth of Christ, (Christmas) and His ultimate death, (Easter).  As well the words "In God We Trust" carved into the facade of every Court House in our land, also printed on our currency and even the opening of Congress with a Christian prayer +  the custom of taking Oaths with our right hand placed upon the Christian Bible, as well as marriages and baptisms in churches, together with a plethora of axioms in common usage, taken directly from the Christian Biblical texts ,,,

    "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

    "The love of money is the root of all evil"

    "A drop in the bucket"

    "A house divided against itself"

    "By the skin of his teeth"

    "A scapegoat"

    "Gird one's loins", [in preparation to do battle]

    "Bite the dust"

    "The blind leading the blind"

    "Cast the first stone"

    "A leopard cannot change its spots"

    "A fly in the ointment"

    "Go the extra mile"

    "Pride comes before a fall"

    "Rise and shine"

    "See eye to eye"

    "The twinkling of an eye"

     "Wash your hands of the matter"

    "The writing is on the wall"

    You can check each axiom's source  here. There are scores more in similar vein and the origin of which, (The Christian Biblical text), bears testimony to our Judeo-Christian heritage which literally is the definition of our identity as "Western", according to scholarly definition.  It is why Israel is the only Western nation smack bang in the centre of the Middle East for it is from Israel that we inherited our Western values and Western identity.

    .

    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    My moral philosophy is based on the golden rule for me that’s all that needed as morality is purely subjective. All morality is based on individual value judgements which are purely subjective as nothing is of value until we give it value. Basically all morality follows the Boo - Hoo theory of morality as in when we call something immoral we are saying “boo” to this and when we don’t we are saying “hooray “ to this as it’s fits who and what we think we are at that given moment .Our moral codes are not set in stone and change constantly and evolve with our particular society and it’s influences on our moral philosophies
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne ; -  In your reply you quoted me as follows ... (I give my full sentence, unlike your truncation),
    Grafix said: The Christian deity presents itself as the  epitome of perfection and it is considered by those who have a full and educated knowledge of the teachings that it DOES  provide the absolute solution to perfection, which you and all the whacko atheist philosophers have already in front of you, yet refuse to contemplate its merits, due to an inherent bigotry and therefore a consequential ignorance of it.
    You replied to that sentence of mine as follows ....
    @SkepticalOne said: We have only the words of men claiming to speak on behalf of the Christian diety recorded in the Bible and through "special revelation". The contradictory nature of the revelations shows them to be either from an inconsistent source or many sources.
    LOL!  And there it is, as it always is.  The usual defence made in deliberate and wilful ignorance of the actual Christian philosophy by dishonest atheism, pretending the innumerable and every-mounting historical proofs do not even exist, proofs which support the reality of Christ, His divinity and that He was who He said He was, all denied by you in a single sentence.  A veritable confirmation of the wilful ignorance of atheism as already stated.  Thanks for the second confirmation. To even think a single sentence is sufficient to dismiss thousands of years of proven historical record, decades of science and archaeology proofs, really is mind-numbing.  Time to step out of the Dark Ages friend.  We are in the 21st Century and knowledge has progressed in leaps and bounds, every bit of it every time proving the Christian account.  You have simply proved and reinforced  my statement that ...
    Grafix said: Even if these so-called "intelligentsia" could climb down from their cross and accept the wisdom of the Biblical teachings, without any obligation to accept its faith or the author's divinity, it would be an intelligent start, but yet they choose to cling to their irrational bigotry and instead flounder around offering inferior solutions and inadequate answers to the profundity of life and its contradictions concerning the question of consciousness.  What a waste of time, when it is has already been written down for them.
    Your reply bears testimony to my above sentence, that you and all atheists are too proud to climb down from their cross and look at another philosophy.  I thought comparing philosophies and critiquing other philosophies including their own, was the very crux of the business of philosophy.   Then you launch straight into proving another of my statements, which I even used as a topic title on this forum ....
    @skepticalOne said:  You discount the historic record regarding  Christian committed atrocities (while acting on behalf of their god). When the entire historic record and the claimed motivations are considered we see a very different picture than the one taught in Sunday School. Christians are certainly not innocent bystanders historically speaking.
    The logic of that dippy daft argument is as follows.  Although, the Law of Christianity is listed in its Ten Commandments, it is nevertheless logical to define it according to those people who rabidly, egregiously and shockingly demonstrate a total disregard for those ten Laws and for Christ's teachings, the Christian precepts, doctrines and disciplines.  Instead, atheists pretend these wicked people are representatives of Christianity.  Huh?  Why not look to the source, Christ Himself and the Gospels to define "Christianity"?  Oh! but that would be far too logical for a bleedin', impractical dreamer and dishonest debater.
     
    This para below on blaming God and Christianity for the atrocities committed by those under the pall of Satan, really takes the cake and shows just how little you understand, how little you put your brain to work and how little is your capacity to think logically.  It directly connects with your inability to accurately define Christianity, as per my previous paragraph.
    Given that these revelations or special revelations can just as easily lead to barbarous, benign, or beneficial acts it should be obvious god, or the men who speak on its behalf, do not hold human well-being (of all humanity) as a high priority and subjectivity (not objectivity) is the only consistent component of a morality built on 'the will of god' (regardless of the god claimed). 
    So with all your side-stepping, ducking, diving, weaving and obfuscation, coated with a crown of froth and bubble, you ignore my statement that Christianity civilized the world.  What then is left of your words and their impact?  They fail to address my original argument at all.  They digress horribly into a bible bashing fest. Worse, are based on a bed of ignorance.  Well done, Shylock.  How about we now debate my original remarks rebutting your  philosophy. I argue that it is impractical, does not address the nature of mankind and that if it had any merit it would be reflected in our system of law, but it is not, while Christianity's Laws are.

    Question: Is your behaviour in this reply a demonstration of your moral philosophy in action?



    DeePlaffelvohfen
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 5
    @SkepticalOne - Damned right it is a demonstration of my moral philosophy.  You should be familiar with it by now.  Falsehoods, fakery and deceptions, especially deeply insidious ones, which persist and persist, even after a first attempt to discuss them and understand them, even after a 2nd attempt and pointing out inconsistencies and exposing them, when you still doggedly defend the deceit, worse toss back insults, then that demands a final curtain call, the ridicule of such deceptions - not only for their fakery but for their stupidity - to ensure they never get traction. 

    The point is, the truth does not need to be ridiculed by using lies.  If something is in and of itself ridiculous then the truth will show it to be ridiculous without the need of fabrication.  However, when we seek to ridicule something which does not deserve or warrant ridicule, then we must engage in fabrications to make the truth appear to be ridiculous, wherever it really isn't.  The latter is what you attempt to do.  Whenever you have no rebuttal, without fail =  you attempt to ridicule the truth, so i give back what I get.  If you can't ridicule truthfully, then I use the truth to ridicule your lies. 

    Look at what you just tried to pull in your last post.  I am replying to it.  Exposed.  It is impossible to stay on topic with you, because you DO  resort to such lowly debating tactics.  You always drive the discussion away from the topic and onto the personal, attempting to ridicule your opponent, whenever you have no refutation.  It's textbook Alinsky.  Now can we drop the personal, together with your fettish?
    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited March 5
    Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - Damned right it is a demonstration of my moral philosophy.  You should be familiar with it by now.  Falsehoods, fakery and deceptions, especially deeply insidious ones, which persist and persist, even after a first attempt to discuss them and understand them, even after a 2nd attempt and pointing out inconsistencies and exposing them, when you still doggedly defend the deceit, worse toss back insults, then that demands a final curtain call, the ridicule of such deceptions - not only for their fakery but for their stupidity - to ensure they never get traction. 

    The point is, the truth does not need to be ridiculed by using lies.  If something is in and of itself ridiculous then the truth will show it to be ridiculous without the need of fabrication.  However, when we seek to ridicule something which does not deserve or warrant ridicule, then we must engage in fabrications to make the truth appear to be ridiculous, wherever it really isn't.  The latter is what you attempt to do.  Whenever you have no rebuttal, without fail =  you attempt to ridicule the truth, so i give back what I get.  If you can't ridicule truthfully, then I use the truth to ridicule your lies. 

    Look at what you just tried to pull in your last post.  I am replying to it.  Exposed.  It is impossible to stay on topic with you, because you DO  resort to such lowly debating tactics.  You always drive the discussion away from the topic and onto the personal, attempting to ridicule your opponent, whenever you have no refutation.  It's textbook Alinsky.  Now can we drop the personal, together with your fettish?

    If your behaviour here is a demonstration of the moral philosophy you adhere to, then you make my point. I sincerely question the consistency and validity of morality built on the 'will of gods'. As I suggested in my original reply, this type of morality manifests in wildly different ways depending on the god, the creed, the culture, and the degree of religious beliefs, etc.

    As for the thrust of your posts, I've told no lies, hurled no insults, made no personal attacks while pointing out problems with an ideology suggested as an alternative to utilitarianism. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I would be more than happy to have a conversation with you about moral philosophy sans ad hominem, but I only have control over my owns words. Your call, buddy.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 7
    @piloteer

    Now, why would you construct morality around this principle and what would this moral conduct look like?

    "@Shadowtongue

     It's my life, so I'm the one who will have to live it. Solipsism to me doesn't mean "anything goes".
    Yes, my life is centered around me, and my moral outlook is self centered. But there are still people who are very important to me and who I love deeply. I hope to try to do what I can to help those people be as happy as possible. In doing so, it makes me happy. But the bottom line is making ME happy. Whether I can empirically prove if others exist or not is irrelevant when it comes to how I treat the other entities I interact with that may or may not exist. If I were to try to eliminate all those who I dislike, this won't actually make me happy at all, but cause me great sorrow. The people I do love and care about seem to dislike the idea of hurting others, and I also do not invest any empathy for violence myself. The best I can hope for is to spread love and joy as much as possible and possibly receive some back in return. Even though I'm self centered, I still like being loved.

    I feel a person's righteousness is absolutely crystal clear when they are charitable for the purpose of their own happiness or satisfaction. If a government or a deity is your reason for helping others in need, is it actually righteous? If I help someone, it will only ever be because I genuinely want to do so. It makes me happier to know that when I help others it actually has a positive impact on their lives, even if it's a tiny gesture. But the bottom line is it makes ME happier. Not to say someone who believes in a God that says they should be charitable cannot be genuinely righteous, because they can still want to do it out of their own free will. But when someone who doesn't even know whether the people they are helping are actually sentient beings, then they obviously aren't doing it because they are being forced to. That's righteousness.                
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 6
    @SkepticalOne - I've already exposed the lie of atheism, which you persist in promulgating, knowing it is a lie.  Here are those comments of yours again ...
    @SkepticalOne said:  You discount the historic record regarding  Christian committed atrocities (while acting on behalf of their god). When the entire historic record and the claimed motivations are considered we see a very different picture than the one taught in Sunday School. Christians are certainly not innocent bystanders historically speaking.
    I responded with this ...
    Grafix said: The logic of that dippy daft argument is as follows.  Although, the Law of Christianity is listed in its Ten Commandments, it is nevertheless logical to define it according to those people who rabidly, egregiously and shockingly demonstrate a total disregard for those ten Laws and for Christ's teachings, the Christian precepts, doctrines and disciplines.  Instead, atheists pretend these wicked people are representatives of Christianity.  Huh?  Why not look to the source, Christ Himself and the Gospels to define "Christianity"?  Oh! but that would be far too logical for a bleedin', impractical dreamer and dishonest debater.
     
    And in further response I also pointed out this ....
    Grafix said: This para below on blaming God and Christianity for the atrocities committed by those under the pall of Satan, really takes the cake and shows just how little you understand, how little you put your brain to work and how little is your capacity to think logically.  It directly connects with your inability to accurately define Christianity, as per my previous paragraph.
    @SkepticalOne said:  Given that these revelations or special revelations can just as easily lead to barbarous, benign, or beneficial acts it should be obvious god, or the men who speak on its behalf, do not hold human well-being (of all humanity) as a high priority and subjectivity (not objectivity) is the only consistent component of a morality built on 'the will of god' (regardless of the god claimed). 
    You are not debating the topic, for which I loudly condemned you.  Instead you seek to use it as a vehicle to abuse and to vilify me and the Christian  philosophy in your employment of fabrications to do so, as already pointed out in my first response, as shown above.  The topic requires an objective  discussion of the various different moral philosophies posted.  Instead you are attacking me personally for mine, as well as fabricating the philosophy of Christianity to be something it is not, claiming villains are representative of it.  Christ was not a villain and his teachings condemn such villains.  Do you really think I am going to let you get away with claiming the opposite?


    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - I've already exposed the lie of atheism, which you persist in promulgating, knowing it is a lie.  Here are those comments of yours again ...
    @SkepticalOne said:  You discount the historic record regarding  Christian committed atrocities (while acting on behalf of their god). When the entire historic record and the claimed motivations are considered we see a very different picture than the one taught in Sunday School. Christians are certainly not innocent bystanders historically speaking.
    I responded with this ...
    Grafix said: The logic of that dippy daft argument is as follows.  Although, the Law of Christianity is listed in its Ten Commandments, it is nevertheless logical to define it according to those people who rabidly, egregiously and shockingly demonstrate a total disregard for those ten Laws and for Christ's teachings, the Christian precepts, doctrines and disciplines.  Instead, atheists pretend these wicked people are representatives of Christianity.  Huh?  Why not look to the source, Christ Himself and the Gospels to define "Christianity"?  Oh! but that would be far too logical for a bleedin', impractical dreamer and dishonest debater.
     
    And in further response I also pointed out this ....
    Grafix said: This para below on blaming God and Christianity for the atrocities committed by those under the pall of Satan, really takes the cake and shows just how little you understand, how little you put your brain to work and how little is your capacity to think logically.  It directly connects with your inability to accurately define Christianity, as per my previous paragraph.
    @SkepticalOne said:  Given that these revelations or special revelations can just as easily lead to barbarous, benign, or beneficial acts it should be obvious god, or the men who speak on its behalf, do not hold human well-being (of all humanity) as a high priority and subjectivity (not objectivity) is the only consistent component of a morality built on 'the will of god' (regardless of the god claimed). 
    You are not debating the topic, for which I loudly condemned you.  Instead you seek to use it as a vehicle to abuse and to vilify me and the Christian  philosophy in your employment of fabrications to do so, as already pointed out in my first response, as shown above.  The topic requires an objective  discussion of the various different moral philosophies posted.  Instead you are attacking me personally for mine, as well as fabricating the philosophy of Christianity to be something it is not, claiming villains are representative of it.  Christ was not a villain and his teachings condemn such villains.  Do you really think I am going to let you get away with claiming the opposite?



    Here is where I'm at.  You apparently subscribe to some type of objective morality with the Christian deity as a basis. I pointed out that this deity is known through 'revelation', and this method of acquiring knowledge leads to "facts" which are contradictory.  This is evidenced by the many interpretation of the Bible and the tens of thousands of Christian sects all claiming to be following the will of the same god.  As already stated, (assuming revelation is real and not imagined) this points to one inconsistent source or many sources. If you prefer a less specific criticism, it can be simply said that revelation/faith (regardless of the claimed deity) leads to dissonant conclusions. This is an objective observation of the basis of the moral philosophy you subscribe to. How do you overcome this?

    Notice, I've still told no lies, hurled no insults, made no personal attacks.

    If you'd like to discuss issues you perceive with utilitarianism rather than being 'vilified' by criticism of an ideology (not your person) - feel free.  I'm game.




Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch