Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

I don't know, it's like arguing with a wall.

Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?

I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.

But let me ask you this

If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?

Would morality still exist ?

 

[Value Collector]

Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?

I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.

I think determining what are the right moral actions and determining scientific facts about the universe are very similar, both can be appraised scientifically and what is true for us would be true for another alien race on the other side of the universe.

You can see this on earth, tribes and civilisations developed a lot of the same moral codes independently, societies the world over had rules against killing each other, stealing from each other etc

 

[luutzu]

All the other cases you quoted, whether they are good or bad require A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Nature discriminates against gays having children. Evolution that is supposed to decide the best outcome for the species and it's been doing that for 4 billion years.

I'm quite happy to stick with that and say that anything else is Frankenstein science designed to achieve a social objective, and that is immoral in my opinion.

Nature also has it that we live in caves, go hunt for food everday, and all die around 30 years of age due to natural causes. No medicine, no medical care and antibiotics and fancy x-rays and chemo and blood transfusion; no air conditioning, no cars, no planes, no TV, no internet...

You can pick what you like from modern science and banned the others you don't care much for. You got to have an army to do that kind of stuff

 

[luutzu]

But let me ask you this

If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?

Would morality still exist ?

Of course it will still exists.

The only thing that didn't exists until discovered are the Americas, the Native Indians, Australia and its Aborigines.

 

[SirRumpole]

Of course it will still exists.

The only thing that didn't exists until discovered are the Americas, the Native Indians, Australia and its Aborigines.

Morality exists in a universe devoid of life ?

Does love exist if there is no one to love ?

Come on, these are CONCEPTS not laws, they are products of sentient minds and we define them how we choose.

 

[Value Collector]

But let me ask you this

If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?

Would morality still exist ?

Firstly I don't know if its possible for a universe to form without life eventually popping up, but for the sake of your thought experiment.

Yes, gravity would still exist.

Yes, I guess you could say laws of morality wouldn't exist, but only in the same way that the laws of biological evolution wouldn't exist, because offcourse with out self replicating life forms, there would be no biological evolution happening, so you could say evolution doesn't exist, you could also say the entire field of medical science doesn't exist, germ theory doesn't exist.

Perhaps you could even say in a universe devoid of water hydrology wouldn't exist, none of this means hydrology or evolution or morality is any less real or universal or is a human construct.

The tides wouldn't exist without the moon, but that doesn't mean they are real.

The fact is thinking life does exist in the universe, and certain things about the welfare of this thinking life is universal. that's all morality is concerned with, the welfare of the thinking beings that exist.

 

[luutzu]

Morality exists in a universe devoid of life ?

Does love exist if there is no one to love ?

Come on, these are CONCEPTS not laws, they are products of sentient minds and we define them how we choose.

"The Way that can be defined is not the Original Way" - Lao Tzu

So the love that is defined by people is not True Love. True love cannot be defined. Therefore, love exists regardless of people or being exists or not to define them.

In other words, if you define love... that is your definition of love; that definition may or may not be what true love actually is. Say a person define love as that between a man and a woman... or some define love as "I love him/her because... good looks, hot body, lots of money, really really rich, can buy me lots of stuff..." to many people that's what love is.

Same with morality or any other concept.

These concepts only get closer to the "true" meaning when it passes certain logical tests, as I think what VC is saying...

 

[SirRumpole]

"The Way that can be defined is not the Original Way" - Lao Tzu

So the love that is defined by people is not True Love. True love cannot be defined. Therefore, love exists regardless of people or being exists or not to define them.

Doesn't seem logical to me Captain

If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?

 

[sydboy007]

Doesn't seem logical to me Captain

If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?

The usual religious response - my personal experience.

If that's not enough proof you'll burn in hell

 

[sydboy007]

well worth a read

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-t...tural-or-supernatural-the-craig-taylor-debate

The second question is more serious. It’s supposed to be the same question, but you will see that it isn’t. This question is, as it was put to me: Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not know any better. No one in this room thinks that if God had not told us this, if God had not delivered these rules to Moses, then we would not see anything wrong with my stealing, assaulting, and killing.

 

[SirRumpole]

The usual religious response - my personal experience.

If that's not enough proof you'll burn in hell

Religious response !!! Bwaaa what rot. I'm simply asking for the same proof for "true love" that you are asking for God, so I'll see you down below

 

[Value Collector]

If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?

"True" love, as apposed to what, "false" love. When dealing with loaded terms such as that each user of the word probably has a different definition, so it's probably best to get the user of the term to define it for you before they carry on with their monologue.

However, when it comes to love as with a range of other emotions, they are emergent properties of physical brains and we can see physical signs of them when we conduct brain scans, and we also see people who become incapable of certain emotions when certain parts of the brain is damaged, so I wouldn't say we can't prove its existence.

 

[SirRumpole]

"True" love, as apposed to what, "false" love. When dealing with loaded terms such as that each user of the word probably has a different definition, so it's probably best to get the user of the term to define it for you before they carry on with their monologue.

However, when it comes to love as with a range of other emotions, they are emergent properties of physical brains and we can see physical signs of them when we conduct brain scans, and we also see people who become incapable of certain emotions when certain parts of the brain is damaged, so I wouldn't say we can't prove its existence.

It wasn't me who introduced the term "true love", someone else did and said it couldn't be defined, therefore I ask if it really exists. It seems like a pointless argument anyway.

You point about emotions being a product of physical brains leads to the question of whether morality is also a product of brains, not an underlying quality of the Universe. I don't know whether the answer is relevant to anything or if there really is any point arguing about it.

I think it's quite possible that a race of beings with a different brain structure may come up with a different version of morality than we do, and may use a different set of rules to do so; eg they may think that the only things that matters is survival of the species and anything that might prevent that must be destroyed. It's pretty hard to argue that that viewpoint is "wrong" from their perspective, we make our own rules so why shouldn't they be able to do the same ?

 

[Value Collector]

You point about emotions being a product of physical brains leads to the question of whether morality is also a product of brains, not an underlying quality of the Universe. I don't know whether the answer is relevant to anything or if there really is any point arguing about it.

I think it's quite possible that a race of beings with a different brain structure may come up with a different version of morality than we do, and may use a different set of rules to do so; eg they may think that the only things that matters is survival of the species and anything that might prevent that must be destroyed. It's pretty hard to argue that that viewpoint is "wrong" from their perspective, we make our own rules so why shouldn't they be able to do the same ?

Physical brains are a property of the universe, life in general in a property of the universe, it's all complex chemistry, a series of self sustaining chemical reactions (don't believe me, hold your breath and how short the period is your body can go without oxygen to sustain the chemical reactions)

Morality is not affected by opinion, whether that's our opinion or the opinion of an alien race. The aliens system of right and wrong you describe would just be an immoral system. We don't make the rules of what is moral, we discover what's moral, our rules may or may not be moral.

Remember it's based on the well being of thinking beings, we don't make the rules, what will cause another thinking being to suffer and there by reducing its well being is a matter of fact not opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

Morality is not affected by opinion, whether that's our opinion or the opinion of an alien race. .

That's where you are wrong.

What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.

 

[Tisme]

That's where you are wrong.

What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.

Slavery is still seen as moral by some/many. The Chinese had no problem forcing single child families. Indian men burn infant girls to death. .......

Morality and ethics is a culturally subjective truth, not objective and relative to that pertinent culture.

 

[SirRumpole]

Remember it's based on the well being of thinking beings, we don't make the rules, what will cause another thinking being to suffer and there by reducing its well being is a matter of fact not opinion.

The "well being of thinking beings" can be distorted as much as you like.

e.g. The A bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The justification was that these actions would have saved many more lives. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified or not according to "your" rules ?

Other people will disagree with you whatever you say because they have their own rules. Who is to say which set of rules provides the "most moral" option ?

Secondly, how do you define "thinking being" ? Does a dog think ? A cat ? A cow ? They all have brains. Why would you eat one of them and keep the others as pets ?

 

[Value Collector]

The "well being of thinking beings" can be distorted as much as you like.

e.g. The A bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The justification was that these actions would have saved many more lives. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified or not according to "your" rules ?

Other people will disagree with you whatever you say because they have their own rules. Who is to say which set of rules provides the "most moral" option ?

Secondly, how do you define "thinking being" ? Does a dog think ? A cat ? A cow ? They all have brains. Why would you eat one of them and keep the others as pets ?

In every situation there is a most moral option, and what determines this is not going to be opinion, but fact.

I am not claiming to know what the best moral action is, or even that it's possible to know the most moral option in every situation, all I am saying is that in every situation there is an option that would be the most moral option, and that doesn't change because of opinion it is based on the reality of the situation and real world factors and outcomes.

I don't have all the information required for me to assess the use of nuclear weapons in world war 2.

Offcourse people can disagree with me, but neither my opinion or there's will affect what would actually be best for the well being of all thinking beings involved, who's opinion is closet to the best moral outcomes depends on the logic used to get to that opinion and the accuracy of the data used.

Life forms range on a sliding scale from micro scoping plants like photoplankton, I would class them as thinking beings, all the way up to animals with complex brains like the higher mammals, who are capable of thought, emotions suffering etc, a mud crab is probably more robotic than a puppy, but a mud crab is more of a thinking being than a yeast bacteria, how we treat living organisms is important, and morality questions need to factor in those hire beings that are likely to have emotions and a capable of suffering.

That's why I said some of the things we do now, might be considered gross immorality in 100years, and that doesn't mean it was moral when we did it

 

[Tisme]

Jesus! After all that we can understand why sky pilots write books on codes of conduct and call them Bibles, Korans, etc

 

[SirRumpole]

That's why I said some of the things we do now, might be considered gross immorality in 100years, and that doesn't mean it was moral when we did it

Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.

If you are saying that morality depends to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.

It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority. The basis of how we assess "rights" and "good" are obviously movable and will vary from individual to individual, which is why we have to discuss the issue as a group and not take the words of a small number of people as gospel.

Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election.