Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[cynic]

If referring to me, you are not on ignore. Just as I said in my previous response to you, I find it pointless to further argue with you on the morality issue as you have defined morality as only possible if one has purpose, but then ignore any possibility of purpose other than in the cosmological sense. I do not buy that argument, but cannot argue with you so long as your thinking is constrained by the parameters you have set. As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.

Thanks for chiming in bellenuit, and I am quite glad that you haven't placed me on ignore.

Unfortunately, as too often occurs, in discussions about controversial topics, misunderstandings can easily arise. Particularly if ambiguous statements happen to be present.

If you are saying that I have said that you are not in possession of morality, or moral capacity, then my postings have been seriously misunderstood by either:

(i) myself or
(ii)yourself or
(iii) both of us

I have tried on several occasions now (unsuccessfully it seems), to correct just one persistent misunderstanding, (which, I now suspect to have arisen from a potential ambiguity, in a certain sentence/phrase, featuring in a number of my posts). However, if one chooses not to take the time, to quote the post/s, from which one's understandings have been derived, then the author has little opportunity to identify and correct any defects in communicative expression, and/or any faulty understandings of same.

Whilst you have every right to discontinue any discussion you choose, and are certainly under no obligation to offer any justification for doing so, I do feel entitled to say that, since you have chosen to offer a justification for termination of discussion, it appears that your reason has been founded upon, at least one, serious misunderstanding, of that which I have been attempting to communicate.

 

[Wysiwyg]

My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, if there is a good reason to do so.

I don't believe in a god and the "ifs" in your sentence tell me you are still not sure.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.

We all think we know right from wrong, but two genuine people can have different opinions on the same moral subject, both thinking they are right, so is there an ultimate moral judge or is it just down to personal preference ?

 

[Value Collector]

so is there an ultimate moral judge or is it just down to personal preference ?

does having an “ultimate moral judge”, get you past the personal preference part? or would it just make it the personal preference of that judge?


I think your question is a false dichotomy,

As explained I think there is a third option, being that what is morally correct is defined not by any person or being, but by the outcomes as judged against whether they improve or decrease the well being of those involved.

Of course opinions may vary on what that morally correct outcome would be, but it exists regardless, and the only way to find out what it is, is to use logic and reasoning.

 

[SirRumpole]

does having an “ultimate moral judge”, get you past the personal preference part? or would it just make it the personal preference of that judge?

I have a feeling that we will be going around in circles again, but to answer your question, if there is a god then he/she/it is the ultimate moral judge, but you don't believe that so there is little use labouring the point.

As explained I think there is a third option, being that what is morally correct is defined not by any person or being, but by the outcomes as judged against whether they improve or decrease the well being of those involved.

Of course opinions may vary on what that morally correct outcome would be, but it exists regardless, and the only way to find out what it is, is to use logic and reasoning.

Logic and reasoning rely on making proper assumptions. eg on the abortion issue, when does life begin ? at conception, at 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, whatever it's really a matter of what you and other people want to believe, in order to attain the ends you want to attain. So you are prepared to abort a living person in order to increase the wellbeing of the mother (and father) by relieving them of the guilt of their own actions and you can rationalise this by believing that life does not begin untill a certain point. Now if there was an ultimate moral judge then they would know the answer to this question, but if we can't contact him then people go with what suits them best.

 

[Value Collector]

if there is a god then he/she/it is the ultimate moral judge,

Why? and as I said doesn't that reduce it to opinion

Now if there was an ultimate moral judge then they would know the answer to this question, but if we can't contact him then people go with what suits them best.

Yes, and I would say that is less likely to get you to a good moral system than one which makes its choices based a rational and logically study of the facts and how they affect well being.

eg on the abortion issue, when does life begin ? at conception, at 2 months, 3 months, 6 months,

you don't need to know a persons exact weight to know if they are obese.

But as I have said in other discussions, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, so a foetus without a developed brain is not at the point where they can be considered to a person yet, we can figure out the likely times consciousness forms by studying brain development, then set rules with a margin of safety.

So you are prepared to abort a living person in order to increase the wellbeing of the mother (and father) by relieving them of the guilt of their own actions and you can rationalise this by believing that life does not begin untill a certain point.

If as part of an IVF program, 8 embryos were created but only four were used? does the mother of those embryos have a moral duty to keep having children till all 8 of embryos are used?

or is it ok for her to just have 3 children and discard the unwanted embryos?

If you are ok with discarding embryos from the IVF example, I can't see what the difference is to removing one from the womb and discarding it.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you are ok with discarding embryos from the IVF example, I can't see what the difference is to removing one from the womb and discarding it.

I'm not OK with IVF at all, I think it should be banned.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Since morality has been mentioned a lot. Why is it broadly acceptable to kill an ant but killing an elephant is frowned upon? They are both creatures so is morality a matter of perception and therefore morality is in the eye of the beholdr and the more agreeable beholders the more something is morally right (or wrong)?

 

[cynic]

Stealing food, spoiling picnics, polygamy, incest, and sometimes engaging in cannibalism by eating their relatives, are a few possibilities that come to mind, but do these "crimes" warrant the death penalty?
and
Why wasn't a jury of peers allowed to attend the trial?

 

[Wysiwyg]

I have been on the receiving end of a long term physical, mental and emotional beating approved and handed down by ordinary people and self proclaimed judges and jurors for a non criminal social act. A kangaroo court arrangement. I have apologised, forgiven, pleaded and fought for freedom.

My mantra is:
I forgive eveyone, I forgive myself,
I forgive all past experience,
Forgiving everyone, forgiving myself,
I am free - I am free.

From a recording I enjoyed many years ago though forgot the author's name.

 

[grah33]

And this is the crux of the matter. I really would have had no issue with what you have contributed except when you insisted that Christianity showed perfect morality. It should be now obvious that it doesn't and it is simple to prove. Christian morality that doesn't condone vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality that does condone vile acts of God. Thus the latter cannot be perfect.

That is why Steven Weinberg opined: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

So true.

You haven't proved anything related to this issue. And I just hope you realize this. Maybe you're just writing on an impulse. You asked qs, and I gave answers. With this kind of posting, it doesn't bring out the best in a thread. This also seems to happen at the pro debating level too.


Weinberg is talking rubbish. I know people in real life that help the poor, and give alms. It's because they believe in God, that they devote so much of their time, not getting paid for it. But they have a peace and other good things. To them it's worth it and they get back from it. They're nice people in real life too. You're judging again.

 

[grah33]

One has openly declared it,but, I would be very surprised if others haven't decided that they'd prefer to exclude my posts from view. For example, devotees of Deacon Dick Dawkins have been known to react strongly to anyone expressing their contempt for him and his antitheist sermons.
(Strangely enough, it seems that one such person, had no problem (unfairly in my opinion) levelling an accusation of unseemly behaviour, at a (sadly now deceased) member of the Catholic religion, who was so highly respected for her charitable works, that she had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.)

As to the functioning of the ignore facility, I cannot advise on the scope, and/or reversibility, of its effects, as my preference has always been to never use it, irrespective of how disagreeable and unsavoury, some viewpoints may seem.

Oh well, don't worry about it.

From the posts I read, you wrote some good stuff. And the way you create analogies for common sense principles. Hilarious...

 

[grah33]

I don't believe in a god and the "ifs" in your sentence tell me you are still not sure.

Actually I do believe a fair bit. I don't doubt. Seems like on this thread, a few people don't doubt much about God's existence, from what I came across in earlier posting. I also know people personally who, at some point in their life, have gone looking for God, and say they have found something special. I think that's a big thing in all of this, about whether a person has it in them to look for the Deity. If I look back on my past, I knew I should have done it long ago, but I didn't want any of it. I suspect it's the same with many people.

From your other comment, you still do believe in something , which I think is good. From my own life experiences, I think having morals (applies to everyone) leads to avoiding painful experiences. Hopefully your situation will get better. Regarding reconciliation, I have a similar mantra I guess. I should probably add that when I've done something seriously wrong I own up to the effected person, and if it's really embarrassing to do that, usually the matter is more serious and needs confrontation between the people. A great parable about that actually...

 

[grah33]

you seemed to have missed the value of this sentence "once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?"


--------------

When have I ever said late term abortions are ok?

But two reasons I think abortions in early pregnancy abortions are ok.

1, There is a big difference between a zygote and fully formed human baby, eg I don't consider either sperm or eggs to be human, neither do I think they become human the moment they combine, I think your human rights start to kick in when you are much further down the line in terms of development.

2, Every one has the right to their own body, and can decide how its used and what risks they want to take. A 20 year old guy doesn't have the right to demand his mother give him a kidney, even if he needs a kidney to survive and will die without out it, in the same way an unborn baby doesn't have the right to use his mothers body even though it will die without the use of that body.

If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.

continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?

 

[cynic]

...
Weinberg is talking rubbish...

The funny thing about Weinberg, like so terribly many ardent critics of religion, is that he is completely oblivious to his own religiosity. It is really quite comical!

I am of the view that he was initially on the right track but was blinded (by his personal prejudice), to the existence of some important distinctions, resulting in his somewhat erroneous conclusion. (I say that it takes one very specific religion, namely "HolierThanThouism", for good people to do evil things.)

Like those whom proudly quote him, he chooses not to recognise the full true meaning of the word religion, thereby disavowing its presence in his own psyche, and maintaining his personal fantasy of freedom from hypocrisy.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not OK with IVF at all, I think it should be banned.

you dodged the question,

I know you have issue with people not knowing their biological parents, but if it is a husband and wife just getting help to fall pregnant and both will be biological parents do you still have a problem with it?

And as with my original question, do you think they should be forced to keep having kids till all viable embryos are used?

 

[Value Collector]

continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?

I am not an embryologist, but it would be far enough along that the baby has developed enough that it's brain its functional and it has consciousness, and as I said if you were making a rule of law, you would give some safety margin and make the cut off a bit earlier.

that would cover point 1 that I mentioned.

there is still the issue of the mothers rights to her body though, technically no matter how old the baby is, it doesn't have the right to live inside its mother if she doesn't want it in there.

However, given the fact the mother can terminate during early stages, I would be ok with the law requiring her to keep it once it gets to late, unless there is a really terrible heath consequence for the mother, eg a good chance both her and the baby with die unless its aborted.

 

[Value Collector]

Since morality has been mentioned a lot. Why is it broadly acceptable to kill an ant but killing an elephant is frowned upon? They are both creatures so is morality a matter of perception and therefore morality is in the eye of the beholdr and the more agreeable beholders the more something is morally right (or wrong)?

I would use the example of a human and a robot.

It's ok to cut the head off a robot, but its not ok to cut the head of a human.

The difference is the entity's ability to feel pain, and have conscious awareness etc.

We know Humans and some other higher animals have the brain function to have a sense of self, feel pain, morn loss etc etc, but ants are probably more like robots running the unthinking software of instinct.

So the higher up the spectrum of consciousness the more rights will will probably give the animal.

 

[SirRumpole]

you dodged the question,

No, I have made a moral decision that I don't believe that IVF should be allowed because I think it creates more problems than it solves.

 

[Value Collector]

No, I have made a moral decision that I don't believe that IVF should be allowed because I think it creates more problems than it solves.

my question was about whether you felt a few cells like this, have full human rights.