Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

Institutionalised Capitalism, aka Corporation, are all bad.

I don't agree, I think the average Corporation would have act morally about the same as the average person.

Some good some bad.

If I label a person as a good moral person, I don't mean to say that they have never done the wrong thing, and have lived a "sinless" life as the Christians would say.

I would say a person is of good moral character if in general they try to do the right thing by their fellow people.

I think I am a pretty good person, I go out of my way to make the best moral choices, But offcourse I am not perfect no person or corporation is, But if a persons actions in general add value to those around them and they go out of their way avoid immoral behaviour then I am happy to say they are a good moral person or company.

To judge a company or a person as Bad and Immoral because they aren't perfect is a bit off.

 

[Value Collector]

There may be a best "moral" option in every case for all I know, but people will disagree what it is, so the objective moral option always reduces to a subjective one in real life.

.

Yes people will always disagree, But we want society to move closer and closer to the right choices over time, and that comes through rational reasoned debate based on the reality of the various facts involved and a willingness to change ideas as the facts change , it doesn't come from the absolute rules of religion.

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

Opinions on where a rifle bullet will land will vary, but through a rational debate of the facts, and a study of all the variables a sniper will be able to land his bullet very close to that light on the hill, much closer than a religious fanatic quoting old texts, and randomly shooting in the air.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes people will always disagree, But we want society to move closer and closer to the right choices over time, and that comes through rational reasoned debate based on the reality of the various facts involved and a willingness to change ideas as the facts change , it doesn't come from the absolute rules of religion.

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

Opinions on where a rifle bullet will land will vary, but through a rational debate of the facts, and a study of all the variables a sniper will be able to land his bullet very close to that light on the hill, much closer than a religious fanatic quoting old texts, and randomly shooting in the air.

You are comparing apples with oranges. A bullet is driven by the laws of physics, it doesn't need a debate to know where it lands, one person can work it out knowing the variables, religious fanatic or not.

You keep on quoting the "absolute laws of religion", so I think your views come from your atheistic background. I don't see how anyone needs religion to make up their own minds on morality and not all atheists will agree on what the most moral option is so morals are therefore demonstrably subjective.

 

[Value Collector]

A bullet is driven by the laws of physics,.

So are the factors that affect human well being. That's my point.

(a Bullet) doesn't need a debate to know where it lands,

Exactly my point again, whether your actions have a negative or positive effect on human well being doesn't depend on a debate, your actions will either increase or decrease human well being based on real world outcomes including physics regardless of your opinion.

one person can work it out knowing the variables, .

Same with morality, if we had all the variables, we can know whether something will increase or decrease well being of those involved and therefore whether it is moral or immoral.

I don't see how anyone needs religion to make up their own minds on morality

Neither do I, but the religious folk say that without a god its impossible to know what is moral vs immoral, My whole point is that Morality has to come back to what is good for human well being, and that is based on real facts, not gods and not opinion.

and not all atheists will agree on what the most moral option is so morals are therefore demonstrably subjective

Not all rifle men will agree where the Bullet will land, But that doesn't make the bullets flight subjective, it makes the persons opinion subjective and the opinion will be either right or wrong.

It's the same with morality, we might have different view points about which is the most moral option because we don't has access to all the variables, but the choice that leads to the outcome which is best for the well being of the individuals involved is not affect by opinion, and the outcome of the choice lands where it lands.

If I say I am going to pour acid on you, and 10 people agree that its the moral thing to do, their opinion will not change the facts of chemistry and biology and make it go for you, your well being will be affected by the facts, which are not subjective.

 

[Value Collector]

.


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

VC, we probably have much in common on some things, but you pushing your atheist views so far, you have to accept that it has become a religion also, imv.


.

No Tink, Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, that's it.

You can't sit here pointing fingers at Christianity, which is the base of this country and western culture, without accepting atheists own failures.

Tink "Atheism" and "Atheists" have no failures that are attributable to Atheism.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, everything else is something else.

You can be an atheist and be a member of the liberal party or labor party, a meat eater or vegetarian, Communist or capitalist, fighter or pacifist etc etc

Atheism is just one opinion on one topic, so you can't blame if for any of the other things, if a communist does horrible things, you have to look at the reasons he did it, no one decides to kill people just because they are not convinced a god exists, there must be a host of other opinions etc inspiring that though.

However someone that's been indoctrinated into a religion, can do horrible things based on belief in the religious texts.

 

[cynic]

It's funny how some fail to recognise that disbelief in the existence of something, is actually belief in that thing's non existence!

Religion, by its very definition, has more to do with being bound to a set of practices and/or beliefs than it does to questions about afterlives and deities. Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner, and for those individuals, their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!

 

[luutzu]

I don't agree, I think the average Corporation would have act morally about the same as the average person.

Some good some bad.

If I label a person as a good moral person, I don't mean to say that they have never done the wrong thing, and have lived a "sinless" life as the Christians would say.

I would say a person is of good moral character if in general they try to do the right thing by their fellow people.

I think I am a pretty good person, I go out of my way to make the best moral choices, But offcourse I am not perfect no person or corporation is, But if a persons actions in general add value to those around them and they go out of their way avoid immoral behaviour then I am happy to say they are a good moral person or company.

To judge a company or a person as Bad and Immoral because they aren't perfect is a bit off.

Nope.

If you ask most people what they want to be when they grow up; ask what give them meaning to their life... you'd get a wide range of answers... most of the answers wouldn't be about making profit and money.

Ask a corporation what is the purpose of their existence and they'll tell you it's for the good of humanity and innovation... oh wait...

Corporations are there to make profit, true? It's enshrined in the law of most lands that a corporation must first and foremost look after the interests of its shareholders.

That alone does not bode well for moral value.

Yes, interests of shareholders are best gained when the company create more value - it create value when its employees are well rewarded; value when it innovate and be responsible etc. etc.

That, as was said before, might be true to some company... and most of those companies would be the small, young upstart mainly owned by only a handful or a couple of shareholders whose prestige and org.chart and hierarchies have yet to caught up with their cash and thinking yet.

There are many ways to make profit, and the easiest of them does not require innovation or competition or greater efficiency or taking care of employees and the community and environment.

Better and easier money are made by hindering competition, reducing innovation - or only innovate on the company's terms - by creating worker insecurity - so they'd work hard and won't be asking for "special" stuff like fair living wage and sick leaves.

Since these extra innovation and persuasion are more open (affordable) to large corporations with entrench position and large resources... the most innovative and most efficient companies, ones that change the world and provide most value... they tend to come from small upstart.

Take Henry Ford and his all black, one model line of car. Cheaper to make if it's all black and it's all just one model. Serve the same purpose anyway.

Innovation would have to pass his thinking - and his thinking is limited to what makes the most money for his company.

So when DuPont came to him to sell different colour paint, he tells them where to go.

Or that guy that invented the windscreen wiper... Ford stole his idea and bet that he won't fight against them in court. It cost the guy his marriage and most of his life to fight...

Or take Disney... Walt and brother were innovative geniuses... change the film/entertainment industry in their time...

Look what happen to the latest innovation in animation - CGI/3D... namely Pixar Studios.

The people who found Pixar worked for Disney Animation. The lead guy was trying something new, his manager gave approval to do some tests... they showed it to the CEO and they promptly got fired before they got back to their desk.

It took the financing of an out of work Steve Jobs to fund Pixar... and they made their money from some commercial and some minor special effects, getting close to bankruptcy a couple times and would have gone down the tube if it weren't for Jobs.

There are "rumours" that the fossil fuel industry bought a bunch of electric car/battery tech start ups and shelved it. There's conspiracy theories that GM trialled their electric car over two decades ago but figured the spare parts/after market business, the infrastructure and plants and know how they've set up... it just does not make economic sense to pursue a new risky venture...

There's a bunch of examples, and I haven't read that many business bio.

Yet it's these corporations that we all see as the epitome of Capitalism... And honestly, these are the nicer ones. There's the Opium trade and the war to force it down people's throat; the slave trade; child labour; sweat shops; tainted meat etc. etc.

So Capitalism as we like to believe - the big skyscrapers with worldwide networks... these are generally bad for society.

The good kind of capitalism - the entrepreneurial spirits, competition, fair dealing, value creation... these are found mostly in smaller cooperatives and mum and pop operations. And these are prevalent everywhere.

So while Capitalism as the Corporations might like to sell themselves as freedom and liberty and democracy and all that is good... Like most sales job, it's full of it.

I don't know what we'd call a good or ideal society, but it's not Capitalism.

 

[luutzu]

It's funny how some fail to recognise that disbelief in the existence of something is actually belief in that thing's non existence!

Religion, by its very definition, has more to do with being bound to a set of practices and/or beliefs than it does to questions about afterlives and deities. Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner and for those individuals their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!

Were you referring to VC?

He's borderline what you're saying, but not really.

I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe that's just me talking about myself

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't know what we'd call a good or ideal society, but it's not Capitalism.

This might be of interest to you and others.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/berg-greens'-innovation-plan/7439642

 

[Value Collector]

If you ask most people what they want to be when they grow up; ask what give them meaning to their life... you'd get a wide range of answers... most of the answers wouldn't be about making profit and money.

Ask a corporation what is the purpose of their existence and they'll tell you it's for the good of humanity and innovation... oh wait...

Corporations are there to make profit, true? It's enshrined in the law of most lands that a corporation must first and foremost look after the interests of its shareholders.

That alone does not bode well for moral value.

.

Hang on, since when is making money immoral?

Ask the average guy on the street if they would be working at their job for free and I bet very few would actually work for free, its a matter of practicality.

You seem to have a warped view that, making a profit equals immorality, and that some how you can't be doing a good thing if you are making money.


A profit is just your share of the value that got created.

Or that guy that invented the windscreen wiper... Ford stole his idea and bet that he won't fight against them in court. It cost the guy his marriage and most of his life to fight...

That goes exactly along with my answer, the average company is probably as moral as the average person, in society you will have people that do immoral things from time to time, and some companies will do immoral things.

Some people will work for free, but most work for money, that doesn't mean they are immoral.

Or take Disney... Walt and brother were innovative geniuses... change the film/entertainment industry in their time...

Look what happen to the latest innovation in animation - CGI/3D... namely Pixar Studios.

The people who found Pixar worked for Disney Animation. The lead guy was trying something new, his manager gave approval to do some tests... they showed it to the CEO and they promptly got fired before they got back to their desk.

It took the financing of an out of work Steve Jobs to fund Pixar... and they made their money from some commercial and some minor special effects, getting close to bankruptcy a couple times and would have gone down the tube if it weren't for Jobs.

The world is full of individuals and companies that miss opportunities, I don't think that makes them immoral.

There are "rumours" that the fossil fuel industry bought a bunch of electric car/battery tech start ups and shelved it. There's conspiracy theories that GM trialled their electric car over two decades ago but figured the spare parts/after market business, the infrastructure and plants and know how they've set up... it just does not make economic sense to pursue a new risky venture...

Lets not get into conspiracy theories.

 

[cynic]

Were you referring to VC?

He's borderline what you're saying, but not really.

I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe that's just me talking about myself

Let's not make this about a solitary poster. The behaviours I described are alarmingly common within society. Hence, it comes as no surprise to me, that those behaviours have been exhibited by various posters (past and present) across many threads within this forum.

 

[SirRumpole]

Lets not get into conspiracy theories.

Even if they are true.

 

[Value Collector]

Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner, and for those individuals, their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!

you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"

The fact is we all have things we aren't convinced exist, that doesn't mean we have a religion, it just means we aren't convinced.

I am open to being convinced, so far I have never seen any good reason to believe, hence I am unconvinced so I am an atheist, no religion there.

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

 

[Value Collector]

Even if they are true.

he admitted he didn't know if they were true.

 

[Value Collector]

I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe D

Spot on exactly, also I don't want them to force these silly beliefs onto the rest of us.

When it comes to Morality, If they want to instill a moral rule, they need secular reasoning say "But Gawd Said X" or "Jebus said" etc etc doen't cut it.

 

[SirRumpole]

you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"

I think the propensity of some to frequent social media and act as evangelists for anti religion certainly shows that they behave in a similar way to religious zealots.

They have every right to do so of course.

 

[cynic]

you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"

The fact is we all have things we aren't convinced exist, that doesn't mean we have a religion, it just means we aren't convinced.

I am open to being convinced, so far I have never seen any good reason to believe, hence I am unconvinced so I am an atheist, no religion there.

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

Again you display your complete misunderstanding of the word religion.

Note the inclusion of the word "bound" in my post. So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone disbelieving a thing is somehow automatically bound to their disbelief!

 

[luutzu]

Hang on, since when is making money immoral?

Ask the average guy on the street if they would be working at their job for free and I bet very few would actually work for free, its a matter of practicality.

You seem to have a warped view that, making a profit equals immorality, and that some how you can't be doing a good thing if you are making money.




That goes exactly along with my answer, the average company is probably as moral as the average person, in society you will have people that do immoral things from time to time, and some companies will do immoral things.

Some people will work for free, but most work for money, that doesn't mean they are immoral.



The world is full of individuals and companies that miss opportunities, I don't think that makes them immoral.



Lets not get into conspiracy theories.

I didn't say that making money is immoral; or that it is immoral to not work for free. Did not say that.

What I said was that if a person, or a corporation... if their main driver is to make money, then they will be forced into immoral act.


A person who want to do good, who want to contribute their talent and effort to society... they can decide what field they want to work in; what work they would do and what work would be out of the question - that certain things money just cannot buy.

You're saying, yea but corporations do all sort of things too.

Maybe the upstart would choose and decide what area to get into; what industry they can do the most good and produce the most value to society and themselves... But larger corporations, in having already established their position, having already built that castle... they will do anything to defend it.

And defending castles and profitable positions often does not mean doing moral or innovative things; it often mean having to scuttle innovation and kick those upstart to the curb. That, then, mean corporations are often immoral.

The nicest thing you can say about them is that they're amoral.

So take the fossil fuel industry...

If you're the CEO of the major players, owning all those assets and fields and knowhow... would you really, seriously, permit alternative sources? Would you make investment in alternative?

You might do it for PR purposes but the real money is in doing what you've done best and what you have the most. So if that mean the world may go the heck, that's another opportunity for another day.

---

I don't know the mind of psychopaths, but it's really strange... You can get a perfectly decent person, put them in a position where their responsibility is for the "greater good".. .and if that greater good mean cost cutting must be made, older workers could be replaced with machines or younger and cheaper graduates... you'd do it regardless of the consequences to other parties - these are what they call "externalities", or, other people's problem.

That why most politicians and business leaders look and sound pretty stupid. Not because they are, but because they think their role and responsibility mean they'd have to do certain things and so verbal and logical gymnastics have to be done to sell it to the public and to themselves.

 

[Value Collector]

Again you display your complete misunderstanding of the word religion.

Note the inclusion of the word "bound" in my post. So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone disbelieving a thing is somehow automatically bound to their disbelief!

To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.

this is the definition most would like of.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. a particular system of faith and worship.

 

[luutzu]

Spot on exactly, also I don't want them to force these silly beliefs onto the rest of us.

When it comes to Morality, If they want to instill a moral rule, they need secular reasoning say "But Gawd Said X" or "Jebus said" etc etc doen't cut it.

Yup.

My wife call be a bigot because I don't believe in religion and are amused by those who do.

To which I replied, I believe they are perfectly welcome to practice and pray to whatever god... So how am I intolerant? Just you can't seriously think that believing in god are just as rational as laughing at it.