Sshhh! Quiet Time on GSLU! replied by FiNiX @ Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:47:31 -0000

FiNiX — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:47:31 -0000

EVE Online. I’ve heard of that game. I’m thinking of trying it out. :P

A friend is down. replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 10 May 2008 18:40:11 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:40:11 -0000

I do hope he fairs well. Death may be natural to life, but as is our fear of it.

Freedom of hatred? replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 08 May 2008 20:10:46 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:10:46 -0000

What is the limit to which exercising one’s freedom of speech may be taken?

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Tue, 06 May 2008 21:16:38 -0000

FiNiX — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:16:38 -0000

you assert that all morality is relative, you are saying that all moralities are correct except absolute ones

Absolute morality asserts that there is an absolute definition of right and an absolute definition of wrong which apply to all people at all times, even if they are unaware of it. From there it becomes a matter of figuring out what’s right and what’s wrong.

Relative morality asserts that there is no absolute definition of right or absolute definition of wrong, that morality is merely another invention of humanity, and that we each have our own opinions pertaining to right and wrong which are liable to be challenged by others.

So, yes and no. Absolute moralities are valid opinions, but I disagree with them.

What you’re describing encourages people to try to force their moral codes over other people, because it is the only way to ensure that people treat you by how you would like to be treated.

It encourages people to try to force their moral codes upon others because otherwise human society would go to shit; every time the police arrest a criminal, they are forcing their morals upon others. Absolute morality just sugar coats it by asserting that the police were right and the criminal was wrong.

they simply cannot escape absolute terms

That’s because the english language doesn’t contain words with which to properly express relative morality in its purest form, IMO.

If relativists were to be truly “tolerant”, they would recognize the validity of the theistic and philosophic approaches to morality and quit griping.

Absolutists argue about morality all the time. Are you saying relativists shouldn’t also share their thoughts on the subject?

After all, isn’t my opinion just as true as yours, then?

It is; it is truly your opinion.

Global Warming II replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 05 May 2008 01:02:44 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:02:44 -0000

Bottom line, we need to pay attention to things we can really do something about, and not highly speculative crap.

I agree with that, but do you think that we should try to save those animals that will definitely die, and which we can easily save?

I think that, when it comes to spending resources to save/better the lives of living things, there are two factors to consider: efficiency, and importance:

Importance: would the loss/worsening of the lives of these organisms lead to the loss/worsening of the lives of other organisms?

Efficiency: will spending resources in order to save/better the lives of these organisms lead to to the loss/worsening of the lives of more [important] organisms via lack of resources? (IOW, which is better? Helping here, or helping there?)

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 05 May 2008 00:07:26 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:07:26 -0000

The first one was having to do with this whole idea put forward by your speaker and seemingly agreed to by you that discussing morality is something that is worthwhile and can in fact be done. Your statement here just backs up my point that relativists actually assert that morality is meaningless and pointless, and therefore conversations about it are worthless.

Not at all. Morality can help to ensure that societies run smoothly. Even while keeping in mind that morality is relative, this is true. I think that’s very pointed.

If certain moral norms are necessary or helpful for the smooth running of society, and you are holding to those moral norms for that purpose, then yes, you are devising a morality pertaining to an objective goal—the goal of supporting the smooth running of a society. Social stability has become the good by which you define your morality.

Correct. The good (IMO) by which I define my morality.

I don’t know what you’re getting at in your response about judging other cultures. If it’s just a meaningless opinion, then we’re back to the futility of the whole idea of morality—you are asserting that relativism essentially destroys the whole concept and worth of morality. Relative morality is an oximoron.

As morality currently stands, yes, it is an oxymoron, because the current standing of morality opposes relative morality. In my opinion, morality is incorrect and relative morality is correct.

In my opinion, “morally right” and “morally wrong” and “good” and “evil” are all terms which (as they are currently defined) should be trashed in favor of subjective terms.

When you apply the label of “sane” to people, you’re making a judgment based upon an objective norm of sanity, to which you are appealing to make your point. Words and language are not relative in definition. They rely necessarily on common, accepted, objective meanings in order to convey information. You are not a fish, you are a human.

Oh? Then why is it that different dictionaries define the same words differently?

As for prosecution, again, this just demonstrates my point that what relativists really advocate is a kill or be killed, might makes right existence that relies on domination of your will over others.

I don’t agree with “might makes right”; “might wins”, maybe. As for “kill or be killed”, isn’t that just a fact of life?

There is a finite amount of matter in the universe. This means that, for every something that exists, something else does not exist. To flip an old saying on its head, “a penny found is a penny lost.”

Also, there’s something you’re overlooking, and that is that cooperation trumps defection: a large nation trumps a small one, a united nation trumps a fractured one. “Kill or be killed” and “might wins” both encourage morality, because an army trumps a loner, and a man without morals stands alone; no one wants to ally with a man who might stab them in the back.

Now which idea is more tolerant and peaceful?

Relative morality’s my guess, because it is more understanding.

Global Warming II replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 03 May 2008 00:59:29 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:59:29 -0000

The other argument is that nature will suffer. Again, this is a pretty ridiculous concern, considering that this world will keep ticking long after we’re gone, and has weathered (literally) dozens of catastrophic mass extinctions.

True, but does that mean that we shouldn’t try to stop it from (or at least delay it) happening again? I think we should at least try to lower the death toll of our furry friends. (How to go about doing that is up for debate.)

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 02 May 2008 23:49:07 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:49:07 -0000

So how can a bunch of relativists have a discussion of good and evil and what they ought to be defined as without appealing to some standard they refuse to consciously name and recognize, but upon which they are all subconsciously relying?

To a relativist, neither good nor evil has an absolute definition. The definition of good and evil is a matter of personal opinion. Nothing more.

So now the “good” being appealed to is for societies and lives to “run smoothly.” Be careful, you’re suggesting an objective goal of morality.

No, I just said that “absolutes are required to ensure that a society runs smoothly”. I never said anything about morality pertaining to an objective goal.

His argument still suggests that one can judge another culture by another standard.

Correct. Your opinion.

Another absolutist term: “sane.”

When did I say that the definition of “sane” isn’t relative? When did I say that the definition of any word isn’t relative?

Why does it matter if they protest? There’s no good or evil here.

It matters ‘cause they might just prosecute yo’ @$$ if you’re not careful.

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 02 May 2008 19:15:01 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:15:01 -0000

My morals are my standard of conduct.

If that’s your definition of a moral, I have plenty of morals. The difference is, I choose my standard of conduct, and am free to change it if necessary.

How can you discuss or persuade anyone about a label that you are claiming has as much meaning as gibberish? You might as well try to define your morality by saying murder is gojrbump and love is tarflac. You’ve reduced the terms “good” and “evil” to be similarly meaningless gibberish, and you cannot even discuss them anymore.

That’s not true; I know that much from experience. If all participants in a conversation fully understand relative morality, things go just fine.

Note that he was evaluating this culture based on a moral absolute that as long as people choose things willingly and things are done to them according to their own idea of what is good for them, then how could you criticize it?

Yes; he chose that absolute. Absolutes (laws/rules/opinions) are required to ensure that societies (and lives) run smoothly. However, relative morality claims that those absolutes are man made, and that there is no more a perfect set of absolutes than there is a perfect way to build a car, and just as you can modify a car, you can modify those absolutes.

A basic failure of relative morality is that even if I am the kindest, most loving and innocent person in the world and am a strict pacifist, never having harmed anyone and wanting only love and peace and harmony, a terrorist or sadist murderer commits a perfectly good and acceptable act by torturing and murdering me and everyone I’ve ever known or loved in the most sadistic and horrific way for weeks on end before raping and slaughtering us in front of each other.

His fellow terrorists might consider that to be a “perfectly good and acceptable act”, but most every other sane person on the face of the earth would not and would protest against such treatment.

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 02 May 2008 04:14:06 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:14:06 -0000

on what basis can you have any sort of discussion if you’re not trying to arrive at some definable good?

Ah, but according to relative morality, that’s just it; we define what is good and what is bad. Nothing is bad or good, we merely label it bad or good. So says relative morality.

as far as morality goes I base mine on an immovable anchor point… If your morality has no such base then I believe it arguable you have no morals…

What’s your definition of “morals”?

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 01 May 2008 18:22:49 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:22:49 -0000

absoluteliquid wrote:
“They are wrong and they should be punished.”
LOL Show me the recurring theme in the Bible teaches this about absolute morality. You’ll find the exact opposite message presented… It’s about forgiveness and redemption… Not condemnation and punishment… No, you can have absolute morality and NOT be bigoted, spiteful, and close-minded…

No, but you might be wrong. :]

But still, if you believe in the absolute morality presented in the bible, then you see some actions as downright wrong, and others as right. I suspect that that is incorrect: that no action is “wrong” or “right”.

Oh yeah, and Hitler was psychotic … using him as the proving point for your morality debate is probably not the best idea…

Ahem! To quote: “I don’t agree with everything this guy says here, but it should make a good topic starter.”

Arandur, I’ll get around to dealing with those recordings later. I have to go soon. I’ll talk to my friends about relative morality, and report back, sirs! Salute

Relative morality replied by FiNiX @ Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:41:39 -0000

FiNiX — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:41:39 -0000

I’m not sure whether we’ve gone over this yet, but I thought I’d start a new topic on it anyway.

I don’t agree with everything this guy says here, but it should make a good topic starter.

Hello replied by FiNiX @ Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:47:16 -0000

FiNiX — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:47:16 -0000

Just thought I’d remind y’all that I’m still alive.

Spammer replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:42:47 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:42:47 -0000

We have spammage…

Admin: Help! replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:01:14 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:01:14 -0000

Eh? O.o

Atheism in the U.S. replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:43:04 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:43:04 -0000

absoluteliquid wrote:
>God is eternal.

You say god is eternal. What if the matter of our universe is eternal? Always has been, always will be? If that logic explains god, then couldn’t it be applied to the universe as well?

Atheism in the U.S. replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:00:40 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:00:40 -0000

absoluteliquid wrote:
>What I find silly is that given the amazing intricacy of our universe that people can believe that it all came from nothing…

I dunno. Seems more likely to me than being purposefully created by a living, thinking something. (God.) And where did he come from again? Nothing?

Atheism in the U.S. replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:02:21 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:02:21 -0000

What I find silly is “worshiping god is good, but worshiping anything else is baaaad.” Of course, then there’s the question of what defines worship.

Clinton,Obama,McCain... replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:53:48 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:53:48 -0000

emptycalm wrote:
>A dark comedy where everyone dies in the end.

Sounds about right…

Clinton,Obama,McCain... replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:25:33 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:25:33 -0000

emptycalm wrote:
>Oh it’s very exciting! We get to see 2 assholes call each other names and lie to us about everything.

Politics is like a comedy show. Only with nukes.

Daily Thread - March 08 replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:07:41 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:07:41 -0000

crazyjuice wrote:
>what happened to the Gravatars???

Eh… They must’ve… De-gravitated…

Press CTRL + F5. That fixed it for me.

Daily Thread - March 08 replied by FiNiX @ Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:01:48 -0000

FiNiX — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:01:48 -0000

absoluteliquid wrote:
>Well I for one REALLY like our site… I can’t think of anything in particular that I would like changed at the moment…

New users? That would be a change.

The Quagmire of Life replied by FiNiX @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:31:42 -0000

FiNiX — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:31:42 -0000

Arandur wrote:
>And what do you mean by “get anywhere?”

Figure anything out about the world. Theories are nice. For entertainment purposes. But if they aren’t true, they don’t do much else, and the more evidence, the more likely the theory will be true.

Does the evidence need to be scientifically measurable?

Depends on the theory.

Hard science or soft science (soft=sociology and psychology for instance)?

The definition of soft science is less evidence, more guesswork. Sometimes it’s the only way. Even then, however, claims should be backed by as much – if nothing else, circumstantial – evidence as possible.

What is your threshold or definition of evidence?

Again, it depends upon the theory that is being tested.

By my understanding, there’s plenty of evidence used in philosophical and theological arguments.

Sometimes. But remember, interpreting the evidence correctly is also half the trick.

The Quagmire of Life replied by FiNiX @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:02:13 -0000

FiNiX — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:02:13 -0000

Arandur wrote:
>Are you suggesting we shouldn’t entertain any philosophical questions because we can’t touch them with our fingers or see them with our eyes? We shouldn’t bother questioning how we ought to live, what things mean, or even have this conversation?

We can theorize, but that’s it. If you want to get anywhere with it, you need evidence. The the more evidence the better. If you don’t, it’s just another idea.

The Quagmire of Life replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:37:49 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:37:49 -0000

Arandur wrote:
>Religion and philosophy have “definite reference points in reality”—existence itself, human nature, human society, what ought we to do, unmeasurable realities (thought, imagination) etc.

“What ought we to do” is a definite reference point?

So why persist in your false dichotomy? There is no valid criticism of religion and philosophy vs. science yet illustrated here.

“speculation should be based upon that which is definitely real.” That is my opinion.

Recent Posts by FiNiX | GOD STILL LOVES US