General
19 Aug 03
20 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenDon't confuse a particular "morality choice" with the inborn functionality of the brain, ie, a "moral intuition". You are bringing in a generality that doesn't apply. Do you have a moral intuition? What is the earliest memory you have of a great injustice or a wrong being done? In most people it is their very first memory. Not for any mysterious reason. The brain is designed with "moral" functionality. I know this is controversial. I only know what happened to me. I have always known right from wrong. My first memories are of definite "moral dilemas" in which i had to choose between self protection or protecting loved ones.
No. We have a moral intuition that says, "Don't self-flagellate in public", "Don't skin the eldery", "Respect others' prosthesis", etc. But we DON'T have an ingrained uniform method for deciding what to do in extremely unfa ...[text shortened]... t the sanity of some of the intutions I've seen in this thread.
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow do you know that your innate knowledge of "right and wrong" actually defines a universal morality that is worthy of adherence? My earliest memory is of a spoon falling from a window. Pretty amoral.
Don't confuse a particular "morality choice" with the inborn functionality of the brain, ie, a "moral intuition". You are bringing in a generality that doesn't apply. Do you have a moral intuition? What is the earliest memory you have of a great injustice or a wrong being done? In most people it is their very first memory. Not for any mysterious ...[text shortened]... ite "moral dilemas" in which i had to choose between self protection or protecting loved ones.
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour first places people as having absolute moral characteristics. You second centers on the action in a vacuum, without regard for the person or his circumstances. They are incompatible.
How? In easy, plain English please. Both cases go the the general... "Individual Resposibilty" rules. Not?
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickennot inate knowledge. "intuition". a feeling from the brain, totally unsupported by logic or ability. a "gut reaction". I didn't say it was right or wrong either. Just that it was there. You asked why we couldn't establish , using logical methods, "morally logical choices"... to that effect anyway... I suggest it requires more than is available to most people, because a "logical" intuition doesn't seem to be universal. All people are born thinking of themselves as two parts. a spirit and a body. Not logical. Learned much later... if at all. 😛 ok... hardly ever by the "right wingers"... you happy? you made me say it!😳😞😵
How do you know that your innate knowledge of "right and wrong" actually defines a universal morality that is worthy of adherence? My earliest memory is of a spoon falling from a window. Pretty amoral.
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm happy in that I'm willing to call this a draw....I think bbarr did that in the other thread (hate him or not), so the matter of Freethinker Mob vs. Mike is 0.5-0.5 😛
not inate knowledge. "intuition". a feeling from the brain, totally unsupported by logic or ability. a "gut reaction". I didn't say it was right or wrong either. Just that it was there. You asked why we couldn't establish , using logical methods, "morally logical choices"... to that effect anyway... I suggest it requires more than is available ...[text shortened]... if at all. 😛 ok... hardly ever by the "right wingers"... you happy? you made me say it!😳😞😵
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenthe action in a vacuum? The assumption is that our "captive, unwilling Taliban recruit" becomes an [enforcer] for the state,,, the chief head honcho mulah or whatever... Does the state do anything wrong that deserves punishment... including the "forcing" of the recruit. Yes. Is the recruit justified in "recruiting" other "recruits" at gun point? certainly not. At the singular point where he becomes an enforcer... and that point is well before you take a rifle to meet the american army... you are "of the state".
Your first places people as having absolute moral characteristics. You second centers on the action in a vacuum, without regard for the person or his circumstances. They are incompatible.
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenThat's better than i have done in years!😠 Now i just have to get my kids to join the freethingers and I will be 50/50 with them for the first time in my life!😵
I'm happy in that I'm willing to call this a draw....I think bbarr did that in the other thread (hate him or not), so the matter of Freethinker Mob vs. Mike is 0.5-0.5 😛
20 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenNo.. I'm not neglecting them.. just saying they are irrelevent. Does a "poor or unjust" cause, ie, "forced at gun point to be an enforcer" justify continued immoral acts? That would be a stretch. How many "i was forced" mulligans do we give ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL? One? Two? Three or a thousand. I have never bought into the "Devil Made Me Do It!" theory, so why would I buy into "Some guy with a gun made me do it!" Just because one is imaginary and one is real? My resolution and courage in response to either must be consistent. So my answer is ... "forced or unforced, if you do the deed you are culpable and will be held accountable. Mulligans are good in golf, and in Chess😀 but not in [enabling] butchery."
Sorry, I was unclear. I should have sadi "your second centers on the action without regard for the personal circumstances of the actor". You are neglecting laws of cause and effect I think.
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenCrap! Never thought of that. 😕 Back to the drawing boards. I guess i'll have to have a discussion with the mighty "Abu Zabbu Doggie, Middle Yard Terrorist! " She always lets me win. And licks my face too. Not even my wife will do that anymore!😵
Ah, but with your kids on our side, the Freethinkers will crush you 😀!
20 Aug 03
Yeah, C&R, maybe RHP should support mulligans. I take a kind of "soft determinist" view on the action thing anyway, which is not compatible with holding people totally accountable for all actions without regard to cause or motivation. I see you have changed your mind since our last conversation. Possibly we should let this one go.
Let the record show that Mike showed moral weakness by participating in the pseudohijacking of his own thread 😛😉😲
20 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenSay what? You know this mind difference thing? I swear we got it going again. I for the life of me don't see where our last conversation and this one are different in substance or degree. Even subject matter seems the same. What am I missing?
I see you have changed your mind since our last conversation.