This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
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.
 
bellenuit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
SirRumpole said:
so is there an ultimate moral judge or is it just down to personal preference ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Value Collector said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.


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.
 
SirRumpole said:
if there is a god then he/she/it is the ultimate moral judge,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
Wysiwyg said:
I don't believe in a god and the "ifs" in your sentence tell me you are still not sure.
Click to expand...
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...
 
continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?
 
grah33 said:
...
Weinberg is talking rubbish...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
I'm not OK with IVF at all, I think it should be banned.
Click to expand...

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?
 
grah33 said:
continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...