01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendWhat is wrong with saying that our moral thinking/understanding, like our thinking/understanding in other areas like science, has evolved?
But how did those rules get started? How did we go from a might makes right "society" to what we see today? Why was one set of proposed rules accepted by the people over the currently in place set?
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrPremise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules.
Premise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules. You have given no reason to think that these rules must come from some external authority like God. It is perfectly possible that such rules may come from considerations of what is in our ...[text shortened]... yours is unjustified and mine is justified).
So, what's your next argument?
(1)....?
That's the crux of my point. WHY did people agree upon the set of rules now in place? What was the "sufficient reason"? I say it's authority.
Why would the big guy agree not to steal from another when nobody can stop him. And if he's gets sentimental, the #2 guy would gladly step up and take his place. Etc.
In a might-makes-right society, if the big guy opines P and you opine not P, the big guy just pummels you until you either die or agree to opine P. Thus, he solves his problem of a contradicting opinion. It takes a civilized society to be able to sit down and explain the differenet positions and agree to go by whichever one seems best overall. Your prosposed scenario already assumes an agreeed upon set of rules.
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellAgain, go back to the might-makes-right society. If the big guy evoles his way of thinking into a kinder way of dealing with folks, the #2 man will step up and take his place (and the #1 guy will probably disappear because this new way of thinking is a threat to the new man in charge). In order for this to work, the whole populace must agree at approximately the same time. An enlightened person here or there isn't enough to change a might-makes-right society into what we see today.
What is wrong with saying that our moral thinking/understanding, like our thinking/understanding in other areas like science, has evolved?
DF
PS
Wow. What a difference one letter can make. I originally left the h out of the word threat and it changed the whole meaning of the sentence.
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendAnthropologically, I'm not sure that's a good description of how societies have actually evolved. No one is claiming that a certain person in a society of "savages" would suddenly start thinking like JS Mill.
Again, go back to the might-makes-right society. If the big guy evoles his way of thinking into a kinder way of dealing with folks, the #2 man will step up and take his place (and the #1 guy will probably disappear because this new way of thinking is a threat to the new man in charge). In order for this to work, the whole populace must agree at approxim ...[text shortened]... originally left the h out of the word threat and it changed the whole meaning of the sentence.
I can't help feeling you are question-begging by assuming there are no moral truths that peoples come to realise and eventually apply to their societies.
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendIf you want to know that, then do research in history. Do you have an argument showing that these rules couldn't have started without God? Do you have an argument showing that people couldn't have agreed on sets of rules without God giving them the rules and making them agree?
But how did those rules get started? How did we go from a might makes right "society" to what we see today? Why was one set of proposed rules accepted by the people over the currently in place set?
DF
(1).....?
01 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendPresumably, people agreed to rules governing their conduct because they realized that there were benefits they could derive from engaging in cooperative and trusting relationships, and that it was a necessary condition of entering into these sorts of relationships that they cultivate certain traits of character. After all, if we all knew that some big guy was willing to pummel us to get what he wanted, that provides us a good reason to work together, and that provides us a good reason to come up with some ground rules for our working together (e.g., if one of us is threatened, render aid), and you wouldn't want to enter this sort of relationship with somebody you thought was going to defect as soon as it was in their best interest.
[b]Premise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules.
That's the crux of my point. WHY did people agree upon the set of rules now in place? What was the "sufficient reason"? I say it's authority.
Why would the big guy agree no s best overall. Your prosposed scenario already assumes an agreeed upon set of rules.
DF[/b]
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrI've stated my argument. If you believe me wrong, disprove me.
If you want to know that, then do research in history. Do you have an argument showing that these rules couldn't have started without God? Do you have an argument showing that people couldn't have agreed on sets of rules without God giving them the rules and making them agree?
(1).....?
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendActually there's some evidence to suggest that this is not true with our closest relations, the Bonobos. They may indeed have a matriarchal structure.
Good point. But which of those primates (or horses or ...) are in charge? The largest/strongest of them. They live in a might-makes-right society. If you don't like it, you can challenge the big guy.
I believe civilized peole are beyond might-makes-right.
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendAre we beyond this? Really? Even nowadays might does (unfortunately) make right. It's not necessarily the man with the biggest muscles who is right, but ask yourself why there are so many lobby-ists in Washington (or any similar centre of governnment) if it's not the case? You rarely hear of the rich (and powerful - notice how those two go together?) having their rights trampled upon. Even the church, prevalent in Europe for 1000 years has stipulated that might is right (provided it's their might) - and they have (allegedly) the ultimate underwriter.
Good point. But which of those primates (or horses or ...) are in charge? The largest/strongest of them. They live in a might-makes-right society. If you don't like it, you can challenge the big guy.
I believe civilized peole are beyond might-makes-right.
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionplease remember it must be capilised when speaking about the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
You've stated nothing but a belief, you may as well ask us to disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
now say 20 meatballs and hope for forgiveness.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeWhat's this? You are actually reading the context of the current discussion prior to jumping in? My, three days into this, and you're already showing such maturity. Good for you!
If God did not exist the world could not exist so no, goodness and badness could not exist.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPardon?
What's this? You are actually reading the context of the current discussion prior to jumping in? My, three days into this, and you're already showing such maturity. Good for you!
What's your problem this time?
You like picking arguments for the sake of it don't you?
Sort of person who would make trouble in an empty room.
You are certainly not showing any maturity.