19 May 11
Originally posted by FMFI think Sam's point of view is a bit fuzzy, he draws lines that he wants to use
Hey Kelly, have you listened to the audio file?
as a goal to judge all things, but when confronted with another's line he claims
they are ending the conversation due to their faith, as if he was not.
Kelly
19 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen confronted with what 'line'?
I think Sam's point of view is a bit fuzzy, he draws lines that he wants to use
as a goal to judge all things, but when confronted with another's line he claims
they are ending the conversation due to their faith, as if he was not.
Kelly
19 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt is ironic that Andrew Marr hosted a discussion on morality in light of events in his personal life, but I digress.
Try this link, its the last one at the bottom -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr
He's not suggesting what you describe though.
I would also like to hear it, but at work at the moment. I will do this evening though.
19 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayDid you think what Obama was offering to discuss or negotiate his assertions about the immorality of other people's marriages? It seems to me that people like Obama assert the "wrongness" of others actions but then that is the end of the discussion because that's just how it works with "faith". How does opposing homosexual marriage promote the well being of homosexuals?
He did it throughout, but the line that first caught my attention was when he
was speaking about Obama making a claim about his faith and marriage.
Kelly
20 May 11
Originally posted by FMFThat would get to the point wouldn't it, where is that line that we say this is
Did you think what Obama was offering to discuss or negotiate his assertions about the immorality of other people's marriages? It seems to me that people like Obama assert the "wrongness" of others actions but then that is the end of the discussion because that's just how it works with "faith". How does opposing homosexual marriage promote the well being of homosexuals?
so important to us, it better be important to everyone? So marriage should
be defined for one group over the objections of another? Why not take on
sex outside of marriage that way we can include everyone with everything
and talk about well being? Well being is very vague, how do we apply it to
the race as a whole over the individual, or the individual over society? If we
want to change tradition for one group why not all groups?
Kelly
20 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWho is asking you to change your behaviour or your tradition? Why should you object to someone else's behaviour if it does not affect your well being?
That would get to the point wouldn't it, where is that line that we say this is
so important to us, it better be important to everyone? So marriage should
be defined for one group over the objections of another? Why not take on
sex outside of marriage that way we can include everyone with everything
and talk about well being? Well being is very vague, h ...[text shortened]... dividual over society? If we
want to change tradition for one group why not all groups?
Kelly
22 May 11
Originally posted by FMFIt is a matter of tradition, words carry meaning, and if you change the meaning
Who is asking you to change your behaviour or your tradition? Why should you object to someone else's behaviour if it does not affect your well being?
of words you change the tradition that are associated to them, and marriage is
a huge on with respect to family unit. I don't worry about what other people
do with respect to their lifestyles for the most part; however, where their
behavior touches my life, and the lives of others, it becomes more important to
me.
Kelly
22 May 11
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayMy apologizes; didn't quite get your meaning the first time-
What do you suggest people us to influence morality, science, religion,
something else, or do you think morality is beyond influence? What are your
views on the topic?
Kelly
Science and religion no doubt influences people's moral beliefs, but I believe both science and religion nearly always does so irrationally.
I do not believe either science nor religion can rationally tell us anything whatsoever about what our moral beliefs ought to be for there is not such thing as a “correct” or “incorrect” moral belief.
Not long ago I believed that the concept of morally right and wrong was so subjective as to be “meaningless” ( but, without having to condone acts of evil -to say that there is “no wrong” does not logically imply that it is “right” to do X , and we can still rationally choose to 'behave' ourselves and be altruistic for emotion reasons -nothing 'wrong' with doing something purely for an emotional reason short of choosing to delude yourself I think) .
But now I have changed my views a bit (mainly do to philosophy discussions with my brother who is a brilliant professor in philosophy (and currently teaching) and who is lot cleverer than I am) because I think morality being totally subjective does NOT make it “meaningless” so it is logically OK to talk about “right” and “wrong” in the moral context (but the rest of my beliefs on this matter stay exactly the same as before).
So I now think there IS a “morally right” and “morally wrong” but it is like beauty in the sense that it is totally subjective. It is also very emotionally based.
I also think that a tendency for most/all people to have moral belief X does not make X any less subjective just as, hypothetically, if everyone believed vanilla flavour to be better than strawberry flavour then that still would not make it any less subjective -I do not think a universal tendency to believe something is a rational criteria for defining what is subjective and what isn't.
22 May 11
Originally posted by FMFHe argues that questions of right and wrong and good and evil have to relate to questions of human and animal well being. And to talk about human "well being" is to talk about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics and so on. These are facts that science can analyze; this is a domain of right and wrong answers.
It's kind of interesting how you didn't listen to it but expressed your preconceived idea of what he might have said - which was, as Proper Knob commented, wide the mark on your part. You then listened to it, found he'd said something else, but stuck with your preconceived idea anyway.
Science, according to Harris, could reshape morality. The split between f ...[text shortened]... iscussed how they can. Are you simply going to contradict him and leave it at that?
Andrew Hamilton's argument, that Harris confuses well-being with moral goodness, although doesn't address exactly what Harris touches on in this radio broadcast, it certainly devastates Harris' larger argument.
23 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo, now two posters have asserted the presence of "confusion" without saying why or what exactly. You suggest moral behaviour is not connected to the well being of the people it affects?
Andrew Hamilton's argument, that Harris confuses well-being with moral goodness, although doesn't address exactly what Harris touches on in this radio broadcast, it certainly devastates Harris' larger argument.
23 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayHow does a marriage between homosexuals "touch your life"?
I don't worry about what other people
do with respect to their lifestyles for the most part; however, where their
behavior touches my life, and the lives of others, it becomes more important to
me.
23 May 11
Originally posted by FMFMarriage is a religious institution changing it to something other than what
How does a marriage between homosexuals "touch your life"?
it has been traditionally alters how it is defined as well as the family. If you
want the state to do something about that than let the state create a secular
equivalent to marriage, you could call them civil unions, but the state should
stay away from religious instituions.
Kelly