Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 02, 2011, 09:29:53 am
-
Get raped, go to jail, and then marry your attacker. Such wonderful traditional values. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15991641)
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pardoned a rape victim who was jailed for adultery, after she apparently agreed to marry her attacker.
A government statement said she agreed to the marriage, although her lawyer said she did not wish to marry him.
The woman, named as Gulnaz, gave birth in prison to a daughter who has been kept in jail with her.
Senior Afghan officials told the BBC the government put no preconditions on her release.
"President Karzai tasked the minister of justice to go and talk to Gulnaz to see what she wants. During her meeting with the minister, she said she will marry the attacker only if her brother marries the attacker's sister," Emal Faizay, a spokesman for President Karzai, told the BBC.
"This is a decision by her. I can confirm that there is no precondition set by the Afghan government."
Gulnaz's lawyer told the BBC she hoped the government would allow Gulnaz the freedom to choose whom to marry.
"In my conversations with Gulnaz she told me that if she had the free choice she would not marry the man who raped her," said Kimberley Motley.
The case has drawn international attention to the plight of many Afghan women 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban.
Human rights groups say hundreds of women in Afghan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence.
Earlier this month, Gulnaz said that after she was raped she was charged with adultery.
"At first my sentence was two years," she said. "When I appealed it became 12 years. I didn't do anything. Why should I be sentenced for so long?"
The most recent appeal saw her sentence reduced to three years.
'Marriage with conditions'
Some 5,000 people signed a petition for Gulnaz's release. News of her pardon came in a statement from the presidential palace.
It said a meeting of the judiciary committee had "discussed the issue of rape... and the issue of her imprisonment".
"As the both sides [Gulnaz and the rapist] have agreed to get married to each other with conditions, respective authorities were tasked to take action upon it according to Islamic Shariah [law]," it said.
"The president ordered the office of administrative affairs and the secretariat of the council of ministers to make the decree of Gulnaz's release."
The attack on Gulnaz was brought to light by her pregnancy. Her attacker - her cousin's husband - was jailed for 12 years, later reduced on appeal to seven years.
Her story was included in a European Union documentary on Afghan women jailed for so-called "moral crimes" - however, the EU blocked its release.
The EU said it decided to withdraw the film - which it commissioned and paid for - because of "very real concerns for the safety of the women portrayed".
The EU's Ambassador and Special Representative to Afghanistan, Vygaudas Usackas, said on Thursday he was "delighted" to hear Gulnaz was to be freed.
"Her case has served to highlight the plight of Afghan women, who 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime often continue to suffer in unimaginable conditions, deprived of even the most basic human rights," he said.
"While we applaud the release of Gulnaz, on the orders of President Karzai, it is the hope of the European Union that the same mercy that has been extended to Gulnaz is applied to all women in similar circumstances."
Human rights workers criticised the EU for withdrawing the documentary, saying the injustice in the Afghan judicial system should be exposed.
Half of Afghanistan's women prisoners are inmates for "zina" or moral crimes.
The BBC's Bilal Sarwary, in Kabul, says recent cases of violence against women are embarrassing for the Afghan government.
Many Afghan women rights activists say there must be an end to the culture of impunity and police must punish all those behind violence against women, he adds.
So when do we get to glass the barbarians?
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
You heard that saying about glasshouses and stones?
As horrible as this story offends our sense of right and wrong... I can remember offhand about a dozen stories about the US that offend just as much.
-
I'm sure they feel the same way about us. If not them, then someone is just as convinced that we're as immoral as you think they are.
-
I would love to see what a modern day Xena would do the the misogynistic scumbags that run the country.
-
ok, all morality is relative, lets just nuke them because it's fun then.
-
ok, all morality is relative, lets just nuke them because it's fun then.
now this I can agree with!
-
There is something more then a little absurd about the statement "How dare you treat your women like that! We will purge your entire population in nuclear fire."
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is because they can't win the economic victory, therefore technological becomes out of the question, and domination didn't work!
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is because they can't win the economic victory, therefore technological becomes out of the question, and domination didn't work!
When was there ever going to be an economic victory? A Marine pops a Javelin at 4 insurgents crewing a mortar, the Javelin costs more than two years of that Marine's salary and more then those insurgents could make in four lifetimes :P This was never going to be a cost effective conflict.
-
This is probably going to cause friction, but it needs to be said that it wouldn't be the first time a court has presumed that a woman had consentual sex, realised she was in trouble, and accused her partner of rape to evade punishment. Hell, it wouldn't even be the first time it actually happened.
Now, I'll state emphatically that I'm not implying that this is what happened, I don't really know what happened, and there's certainly a much wider aspect of women's rights in these countries (as well as their treatment whilst actually in prison) that is a cause for concern, but either way, a single woman released to make a country look better on the International stage after a large amount of exposure and pressure is not really going to deal with the issues, nothing really has changed, she just got the golden ticket. It's going to take far more than that, a change in the attitude of 50% of the population, and I think very few countries are approaching that ideal. But in this case, it could have been a simple miscarraige of justice as has happened all over the world, I'm not saying it was however.
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is because they can't win the economic victory, therefore technological becomes out of the question, and domination didn't work!
When was there ever going to be an economic victory? A Marine pops a Javelin at 4 insurgents crewing a mortar, the Javelin costs more than two years of that Marine's salary and more then those insurgents could make in four lifetimes :P This was never going to be a cost effective conflict.
You sir, haven't played Civilization
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is because they can't win the economic victory, therefore technological becomes out of the question, and domination didn't work!
When was there ever going to be an economic victory? A Marine pops a Javelin at 4 insurgents crewing a mortar, the Javelin costs more than two years of that Marine's salary and more then those insurgents could make in four lifetimes :P This was never going to be a cost effective conflict.
You sir, haven't played Civilization
You do well sire... and the people live happily in your kingdom.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/125q3vs.jpg)
-
There is something more then a little absurd about the statement "How dare you treat your women like that! We will purge your entire population in nuclear fire."
Let's just turn to salt anyone who looks back too and write a book about it :) People will praise our love for humanity!
-
ok, all morality is relative, lets just nuke them because it's fun then.
now this I can agree with!
i think ive inadvertently started a cult
-
ok, all morality is relative, lets just nuke them because it's fun then.
now this I can agree with!
i think ive inadvertently started a cult
Nuke be Praised
-
oh please you don't need to be in a cult to love thermonuclear weapons.
-
it helps though.
-
oh please you don't need to be in a cult to love thermonuclear weapons.
You do need to stop worrying.
-
This is a bad thread.
-
oh please you don't need to be in a cult to love thermonuclear weapons.
You do need to stop worrying.
That's a strange thing to say.
-
Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack. We just have to wait for their cities to flip.
You heard that saying about glasshouses and stones?
As horrible as this story offends our sense of right and wrong... I can remember offhand about a dozen stories about the US that offend just as much.
At least we tried to get better. Wrong is wrong.
This is probably going to cause friction, but it needs to be said that it wouldn't be the first time a court has presumed that a woman had consentual sex, realised she was in trouble, and accused her partner of rape to evade punishment. Hell, it wouldn't even be the first time it actually happened.
Under sharia law it is always assumed consensual (and therefore illegal) unless proven otherwise by testimony from 5 or so male relatives, in otherwords impossible to prove. Particularly in this case since the attacker was a relative.
Now, not to be outdone let's look at another part of the third world from a couple of years ago (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/10000-albinos-in-hiding-a_n_372976.html)
NAIROBI, Kenya — The mistaken belief that albino body parts have magical powers has driven thousands of Africa's albinos into hiding, fearful of losing their lives and limbs to unscrupulous dealers who can make up to $75,000 selling a complete dismembered set.
Mary Owido, who lacks pigment that gives color to skin, eyes and hair, says she is only comfortable when at work or at home with her husband and children.
"Wherever I go people start talking about me, saying that my legs and hands can fetch a fortune in Tanzania," said Owido, 36, a mother of six. "This kind of talk scares me. I am afraid of going out alone."
Since 2007, 44 albinos have been killed in Tanzania and 14 others have been slain in Burundi, sparking widespread fear among albinos in East Africa.
At least 10,000 have been displaced or gone into hiding since the killings began, according to a report released this week by the International Federation for the Red Cross and Crescent societies.
Anyone want to start the uranium enrichment now or later? :P
This is a bad thread.
Then dont post in it.
-
At least we tried to get better. Wrong is wrong.
Thank you for demonstrating why your opinion on morality should never be taken seriously again.
Good day.
-
and it's just as right as yours, you can't judge him, he isn't different there are no races, we are all human.
-
... there are no races, we are all human.
Chudat.
-
actually, **** the snipe sarcasm for a moment.
this is a perfect example and opportunity of me to elaborate upon what I was discussing here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79033.msg1566469#msg1566469). Why is this situation the way it is? Why does this culture consider this to be right and just? Because in their culture the Koran is the most perfect thing in reality and it's teachings are a mandate from god. It all comes down to the assumption that their book is right and perfect. it's not. If rather than relying upon a prewritten 'perfect' law they were forced to judge the situation based the situation, they would not have made the choice they did. the ultimate goal of this culture's values is spiritual improvement, if there is no spirit, then the things being done here serve no purpose and only contribute to bring sorrow and pain to millions. I do not think that this scenario should be considered an example of a well made moral code.
now on the other hand if there is a god named Allah and Mohamed is his prophet and the Koran is perfect, then this is the way things should be. but this moves the discussion outside of the realm of simple moral relativism and into the realm of truth. is there a god named Allah? is Mohamed is his prophet? and is the Koran is perfect? these are statements that have a truth value, (even if we don't know what it is) so that means this system of morality has a truth value as to it's legitimacy.
-
now on the other hand if there is a god named Allah and Mohamed is his prophet and the Koran is perfect, then this is the way things should be. but this moves the discussion outside of the realm of simple moral relativism and into the realm of truth. is there a god named Allah? is Mohamed is his prophet? and is the Koran is perfect? these are statements that have a truth value, (even if we don't know what it is) so that means this system of morality has a truth value as to it's legitimacy.
... and that truth value is subjective and depends on who raised you (mostly). So how does that help anyone?
The problem when you approach god with "truth" is that by necessity any (successful) belief system puts their higher being outside the means of potential scientific scrutiny by definition.
Nowadays it's kinda one of the prerequisites for supernatural belief to "survive" ;)
If you wanted to somehow remedy the situation you would have to start somwhere, somehow with education, tolerance and critical thinking....
... but then when you look at education in the US and the rise of fundamentalism a new dark age seems to be more likely then people coming to their senses.
Heck, with fundamentalism running rampant in the Air Force ( http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2011/10/huffington-post-air-force-academy-cadets-decide-they-must-pretend-to-be-fundamentalist-christians/) Nuke may get his wish eventually... although I doubt he would agree with their motivation LOL.
-
outside of scientific scrutiny, means never interferes with reality, means deistic god, means not this particular god.
-
outside of scientific scrutiny, means never interferes with reality, means deistic god, means not this particular god.
Your powers of logic do not concern a belief in a god who is so allpowerful that he "transcends" reality, i.e. can't be found when you look for him, but certainly exists, does his "work" and whatever else the argument in support of belief in him requires.
In other words: You are wrong because you don't believe in whatever God the party you argue with believes in.
I.e. Any proof or argument against the existence of god will simply be met with pity that you do not understand the magnificence of god while any number of events in the real world will be arbitrarily interpreted as the "work" of god.
See... the problem is that you just don't "want" to see gods work you poor sinner! And this is entirely your fault too! ;) ... if only you were a bit more open minded... and don't you forget he LOVES YOU! How can you not love someone back who LOVES you?! You bad bad person you! You're gonna burn in hell!!! :) ...... (but he still loves you :coughs:)
The most hilarious responses are still given by Muslims on western talkshows who a) want to promote or defend their religion and b) realize that several core beliefs are so not political correct in western culture (all that woman hating, stoning, etc.) and c) squirm and cringe around the issue everytime someone on TV points out that little fact. (yeah we do that in Muslim countries, yeah yeah because it's the holy law there... BUT *OF COURSE* not here... we never do that in *YOUR* country... duh.)
-
the question I have to you then is this:
if, hypnotically, at some point in the future, science determines the universal set of laws that govern all actions large and small slow and fast light and supermassive in the universe, and a means to track the location and velocities of all elementary particles in the universe and all other properties that they might have. would the supernatural not then be revealed by a disconnect between what the laws say they should do, and what it is found that they do do?
I am not suggesting that this could be plausible, but if it were to occur, would that not scientifically prove, if not god at least the supernatural? and if all this came to be but we did not find discrepencies, then would that not DISprove the existence of the supernatural, including all gods?
but before we go on too far of a tangent, do you accept what I said, that the morality of that culture is based on faith in the religion, and if the religion is false then the morality system is baseless?
-
if, hypnotically, at some point in the future, science determines the universal set of laws that govern all actions large and small slow and fast light and supermassive in the universe, and a means to track the location and velocities of all elementary particles in the universe and all other properties that they might have. would the supernatural not then be revealed by a disconnect between what the laws say they should do, and what it is found that they do do?
No matter how much you know, you can't abolish the "unknown" as a concept and that will always be where religion will find their Gods.
Even if your understanding of the universe is perfect (and mind you, Hawkings and the rest of our leading physicists have come to doubt that gaining a perfect understanding of the universe may be possible while trapped in the human condition - we just don't have the means to explore/observe or explain the behavior of particles past a certain point and can't even conceptualize how we would be able to yet - let alone find out what THESE particles consist of.)...
How can science compete with the sheer power of limitless imagination? You can always imagine a little more... and that's where people find God.
(And if you do manage to outright prove scripture wrong then, depending on how fundamentalist the religion in question is, scripture will be regarded as a metapher... or in the more fundamentalist religions just trump any proof by default: The puzzle will always be why you are wrong. How such a proof can exist despite all the faithful "knowing" that it is false.... quickly followed by a supernatural justification etc.)
but before we go on too far of a tangent, do you accept what I said, that the morality of that culture is based on faith in the religion, and if the religion is false then the morality system is baseless?
As any somewhat decently designed or evolved religion is inherently not verifiable (that's the whole point of a religion!) that is a somewhat moot point.
I.e. If you can without doubt disprove a religion, it would cease to exist... the religions that still exist anyways have learned to adapt to that fact and are quite resistant to any kind of logic that threathens their existence.
-
Not the same article, but another example of the topic title.
A report in Saudi Arabia has warned that if Saudi women were given the right to drive, it would spell the end of virginity in the country.
The report was prepared for Saudi Arabia's legislative assembly, the Shura Council, by a well-known conservative academic.
Though there is no formal ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, if they get behind the wheel, they can be arrested.
Saudi women have mounted several campaigns to try to overturn the ban.
Aside from the practical difficulties it creates, they say it is also illogical as in trying to keep them under family control and away from men, it actually
puts them in daily contact with a male driver.
The issue has received huge international attention.
Some Saudi women feel it has attracted too much interest, obscuring other equally important issues.
As part of his careful reform process, King Abdullah has allowed suggestions to surface that the ban might be reviewed.
This has angered the conservative religious elite - a key power base for any Saudi ruler.
Now, one of their number - well-known academic Kamal Subhi - has presented a new report to the country's legislative assembly, the Shura.
The aim was to get it to drop plans to reconsider the ban.
The report contains graphic warnings that letting women drive would increase prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce.
A Saudi woman who has campaigned for women drivers told the BBC that the report was completely mad.
She said the head of the Shura had assured women campaigners that he was still open to hearing the case for lifting the ban.
So, eh, discuss.
-
No matter how much you know, you can't abolish the "unknown" as a concept and that will always be where religion will find their Gods.
Even if your understanding of the universe is perfect (and mind you, Hawkings and the rest of our leading physicists have come to doubt that gaining a perfect understanding of the universe may be possible while trapped in the human condition - we just don't have the means to explore/observe or explain the behavior of particles past a certain point and can't even conceptualize how we would be able to yet - let alone find out what THESE particles consist of.)...
like I said, completely hypothetical, I am challenging the premise that the supernatural cannot possibly fall under the microscope of science under any circumstance.
and that's where people find God.
god of the gaps can only live inside the gaps, in my hypothetical schenario, there would be no gaps left.
As any somewhat decently designed or evolved religion is inherently not verifiable (that's the whole point of a religion!) that is a somewhat moot point.
I.e. If you can without doubt disprove a religion, it would cease to exist... the religions that still exist anyways have learned to adapt to that fact and are quite resistant to any kind of logic that threathens their existence.
so you agree that the moral system's validity is pinned to the belief in the deity? yes? that it would absolutely be invalid if I could somehow disprove that particular god. I'm not claiming that I can, but asking that if I could would that invalidate the moral code?
-
like I said, completely hypothetical, I am challenging the premise that the supernatural cannot possibly fall under the microscope of science under any circumstance.
god of the gaps can only live inside the gaps, in my hypothetical schenario, there would be no gaps left.
I would argue that you are hypothesizing the even conceptually impossible. No matter how much you can explain, there will always be someone who asks.... "but what else is there", "who made it all", "what was before", "what comes after". Imagination is limitless and as I said.... you can't abolish the unknown: The concept of the known automatically begets the concept of the unknown. It's 2 sides of the same coin, can't have one without the other, not even hypothetically.
so you agree that the moral system's validity is pinned to the belief in the deity? yes? that it would absolutely be invalid if I could somehow disprove that particular god. I'm not claiming that I can, but asking that if I could would that invalidate the moral code?
Personally I find what we know about the nature, origin and evolution of all the various religions already a conclusive proof that religion does not require the existence of any supernatural being and therefore with high confidence every single religion is no more or less valid than any other. Creating religion is a very human (if arguably stupid) thing to do... Gods really have nothing to do with it. I.e. "Real Gods" are purely optional as far as explaining the phenomenon of "religion" goes to the point that the existence of an actual God as outlined in any of our religions - and Christianity really is no different from Islam, the Olymp or the Norse Pantheon in that regard - is outright absurd.
You will have a snowflakes chance in hell of communicating that idea or any other idea that disproves anyones "belief" to anyone who "believes". That's the whole point of religion: Holding and spreading "belief".
You have to realize that a belief system is a system that has persisted and evolved over (sometimes) thousands of years, despite being not true. ;)
As with any product of a long evolution it is perfectly suited to survive in the environment that it evolved in, which is human society.
-
again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?
if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?
-
and it's just as right as yours, you can't judge him, he isn't different there are no races, we are all human.
What about NASCAR D:
As for the moral code... it becomes a matter of perspective. Morality changes from person to person
For example, I don't find it immoral to end someones life when they're sitting in a hospital bed with no chance of surviving. Others will say that it was not my choice to make, regardless of whether or not HE asked me to do it. They would describe it as having no moral integrity as a life is a life.
That isn't to say I don't value someones life. I will never kill unless all options have been exhausted (such as someone trying to kill me, and the only way to survive is to kill him)
Morals are based off of perspectives introduced to us through various means most notably religious texts. Other notable mentions are definitely how we were raised, and our surroundings.
You cannot falsify the moral code.
-
again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?
if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?
For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will that question kind of answers itself, right?;)
(Although even then, I'm sure, you would have someone point out that even without a god *their* moral code is necessary for society to function and without it there would be anarchy yada yada, ... as some kind of last ditch defense. The problem with proving someones moral reference system wrong is that you would force them to reevaluate their previous actions... which is something that human beings inherently shy away from... so even then, you may not convince anyone because convincing them would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong)
.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)
So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.
In reality any kind of proof against the existence of god is likely to simply be ignored however. ;)
(You realize that from the official position of the catholic church it is the atheist who chooses to ignore an essential part of "reality": God )
-
Then dont post in it.
**** that. Stop posting childish, bigoted tirades demanding the destruction of the heathens like you're ****ing Michelle Bachmann. Then the badwrongstupid will be significantly reduced.
-
For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will that question kind of answers itself, right?;)
I think so, yes, but then I would simply answer the question with a 'yes' when asked.
my whole point is that if the assumptions that the moral system are built upon are false then the system is false. if you do not believe the assumptions then you can not simply allow the fact that they believe it to justify their actions. if they are wrong (factualy) then they are wrong (morally).
.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)
So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.
Hold it a second here, what you are saying here is that morals are not completely subjective and that there is a common criteria which could be used for one person to judge the actions of any other person regardless of cultural influences, or perhaps more accurately, to judge the morality of those influences, of that culture. if a culture has somehow worked it's self against one of those 'common reference points' then it has put it's self into opposition to common human morality. at least on that one specific point.
-
again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?
if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?
For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will that question kind of answers itself, right?;)
(Although even then, I'm sure, you would have someone point out that even without a god *their* moral code is necessary for society to function and without it there would be anarchy yada yada, ... as some kind of last ditch defense. The problem with proving someones moral reference system wrong is that you would force them to reevaluate their previous actions... which is something that human beings inherently shy away from... so even then, you may not convince anyone because convincing them would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong)
.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)
So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.
In reality any kind of proof against the existence of god is likely to simply be ignored however. ;)
(You realize that from the official position of the catholic church it is the atheist who chooses to ignore an essential part of "reality": God )
"God" didn't write any morals, people did, and then attributed it to a fictional character because they thought it would carry more weight with the brainwashed masses (who'da thunk it did?).
Common moral codes occur because we are in a common society, you will find that segregation, and general degrees of culture separation lead to ENTIRELY different morals. If you haven't had enough evidence of that in this thread then you should consider reading 1984, or versing yourself a little more in tribal and third world cultural 'values'. They are very different to 'ours'.
God is not "defined", which is why s/he is so hard to disprove. It's quite difficult to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, especially when you don't know what you're looking for precisely.
And, you realise from a Psychiatrists point of view it is religious people that are /ACTUALLY/ mentally unhealthy? Escaping from reality and relying on fiction to support their view of the world and prevent themselves from falling into ego-collapse?
So don't start.
-
So when do we get to glass the barbarians?
You don't post here any more.
-
So when do we get to glass the barbarians?
You don't post here any more.
Permaban from GenDisc?
-
For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will that question kind of answers itself, right?;)
I think so, yes, but then I would simply answer the question with a 'yes' when asked.
my whole point is that if the assumptions that the moral system are built upon are false then the system is false. if you do not believe the assumptions then you can not simply allow the fact that they believe it to justify their actions. if they are wrong (factualy) then they are wrong (morally).
.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)
So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.
Hold it a second here, what you are saying here is that morals are not completely subjective and that there is a common criteria which could be used for one person to judge the actions of any other person regardless of cultural influences, or perhaps more accurately, to judge the morality of those influences, of that culture. if a culture has somehow worked it's self against one of those 'common reference points' then it has put it's self into opposition to common human morality. at least on that one specific point.
Well, researchers have found that even in cultures completely removed from our own some form of moral code develops, just like some kind of language develops. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are absolute morals... just that as far as humanity goes, we have moral systems that all exhibit certain shared criteria just like we have different languages that to a large degree share certain criteria. (Units of meaning, grammar etc.) The whole issue being that proving any kind of moral code as "wrong" is rather just as pointless as convincing someone they speak the wrong language; even if you succeed, they will just find another language (or moral code).
Along these lines you even have to pose the question whether proving any religious moral code "wrong" would be a good idea. The absence of any kind of moral code would arguably be quite fatal (i.e. the end of civilization in that part of the world) and whether abolishing any kind of specific moral code is a "good idea" (taking into account that "good idea" again is a subjective viewpoint based on our own morals) would only become apparrant after you know what that code gets replaced with after all, don't you agree?
"God" didn't write any morals, people did, and then attributed it to a fictional character because they thought it would carry more weight with the brainwashed masses (who'da thunk it did?).
Common moral codes occur because we are in a common society, you will find that segregation, and general degrees of culture separation lead to ENTIRELY different morals. If you haven't had enough evidence of that in this thread then you should consider reading 1984, or versing yourself a little more in tribal and third world cultural 'values'. They are very different to 'ours'.
Japanese is different from German which is different from English... yet all of them have some form of grammer and units of meaning.
Our morality follows similar rules... only the content may be different. Yet that content is also the end product of evolution and certain content like, for example "the indiscriminate killing of others" is rather a huge disadvantage for the evoultionary fitness of a moral code.... hence, you will find with great statistical significance that any moral codes that are somewhat stable in historic terms have some say against random killings. You seem to be hung up on the word absolute, when the word that explains it much better would be "emergent" due to our shared human condition and due to the prerequisites of stable societies. Or in other words: If a certain moral code violates certain principles it necessarily will phase itself out before long.
God is not "defined", which is why s/he is so hard to disprove. It's quite difficult to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, especially when you don't know what you're looking for precisely.
And, you realise from a Psychiatrists point of view it is religious people that are /ACTUALLY/ mentally unhealthy? Escaping from reality and relying on fiction to support their view of the world and prevent themselves from falling into ego-collapse?
So don't start.
Of course God is defined Quantum Delta. Existence is not a prerequisite for definition. You can define anything you want and if your definition includes that it can't be verified by worldy means it naturally becomes impossible to prove or disprove, which is essentially the nature of god.
As far as religion being "unhealthy" goes... it would be fatal to approach the issue without some pragmatism: I.e. what would be the alternative for that specific person in that specific situation?
If "curing" them from their current religion means they inevitable join some more fundamentalist sect or cult or become suicidal... then is it a really good idea to fight against that specific religion? Can you justify such an outcome of your actions in the framework of your own subjective morals?
-
You don't post here any more.
hyperbole.
kosh, get the **** over to warpstorm, we don't have thought nazi mods there.
-
So when do we get to glass the barbarians?
You don't post here any more.
Permaban from GenDisc?
Week off this time. Next time it's permanent.
-
Well, researchers have found that even in cultures completely removed from our own some form of moral code develops, just like some kind of language develops. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are absolute morals... just that as far as humanity goes, we have moral systems that all exhibit certain shared criteria
I am not saying that there are absolute right(correct)s in morality, at least not any that I can prove, but that if the basis and justification for some precept of some moral system is false, then that precept is therefore by extension false. this is a completely separate issue from the absolute subjectivity (or not) and by extension absolute inability (or ability) for one person to judge the actions of another person. If there are as you say "certain shared criteria" then that means that any person can use that criteria as a basis for judgement for any other person regardless of culture. They are shared*, they are universal*, and are therefore not subjective. note that what I am saying here is qualified.
*to all humans
-
I am not saying that there are absolute right(correct)s in morality, at least not any that I can prove, but that if the basis and justification for some precept of some moral system is false, then that precept is therefore by extension false. this is a completely separate issue from the absolute subjectivity (or not) and by extension absolute inability (or ability) for one person to judge the actions of another person. If there are as you say "certain shared criteria" then that means that any person can use that criteria as a basis for judgement for any other person regardless of culture. They are shared*, they are universal*, and are therefore not subjective. note that what I am saying here is qualified.
Just because you can observe that due to our human nature and the nature of our societies certain shared moral criteria evolve, i.e. can be defined and "described" does not at all necessarily mean that you can presume that they are absolute and it would be a good idea to "prescribe" them. (Look into descriptive and prescriptive lexicography and you will find the same hilarity.... what the "right" way to speak and spell is appears to be just as hilariously controverse as what the "right" thing to do is... but due to the nature of the matter, lexicography can usually be discussed in a much more lighthearted manner, because most of us are not so emotionally invested in the subject... unless you talk to a lexicographer, then you will find fervor and fanatism to match any religious discussion.)
As far as disproving religion goes, what you are missing is that (part) of the moral system could be "right" despite the justification for it being wrong (... why? well because it evolved and survived and propagated itself and obviously also is the basis of a society that doesn't immidiately collapse onto itself). As any judgment could only be passed from another morally subjective position it is frankly outright irrelevant if the religion that the moral framework comes from is true or not.
Let me clarify: Can you imagine a society where killing as many of your neighbors as possible is a basic moral prerogative successfully propagating itself? It's quite easy to conclude that any moral framework developing in human societies has something against concepts that threathen the survival of that society (and if it doesn't it just ceases to exist). That's not absolutism, that's evolution.
One of the most prevalent concepts appears to be "Don't do to others what you would not like to be done to yourself". Of course this may be amended to suit certain societies and religion by defining "others" as being male or believers or whatever suits the majority that is in power, but while modified... the underlaying principle is still apparant: Treat others of your arbitrarily defined peer group nicely or your arbitrarily defined peer group will likely suffer". Just common sense, right? ;) That's also why external threaths and common enemies are so effective at suddenly making people overcome their religious and ideological differences... an external threath suddenly forces you redefine who your peers are in order to survive.
What you can observe is that religious moral frameworks usually feature rules and concepts that directly advocate strong belief and the spread of that belief (like the concept of "going to hell" as punishment or the more worldly "death sentence" for apostacy in Islam)... that's also evolution, it helps religion to survive. Only ideas designed to last and spread themselves survive. That moral frameworks of stable societies feature certain shared criteria that are benefitical for that kind of society to propagate itself is just applied evolution as well.
Frankly... the whole question of whether morals are "true or false" as an absolute statement is outright missing the point when considering the nature, evolution and purpose of moral systems. It's like asking whether humans are the "right" organism to evolve. I.e. Right and wrong is pointless, what evolved just exists because... well, it evolved in the face of environmental pressure and we understand why it would, given the environment.
If circumstances change so will moral systems (or they will be diminished and disappear: See the current decline of the catholic church in Europe.). But our circumstances being well..... "being human" and "living in human societies" it is only natural that we share some basic moral concepts. (i.e. the ones that benefit the survival of our societies that propagate said moral systems :P :P :P )
See... when I read a story like the one in above's original post I am horrified, because empathy for my fellow human beings, be they female or male is very important to me. At the same time I realize that the same "empathy" that is a fundemental part of my life philosophy would be considered a fatal weakness by people with a different worldview. Worse... they would happily exploit my empathy for their own ends because from their viewpoint I don't deserve anything else. Both of us are right and wrong depending on the viewpoint and neither of us could imagine changing their viewpoint and for both of us the truth of our morals is self-evident... time for some bloodshed! Empathy? ... but that applies only to my peer group which includes *everyone* ... uh, except greedy abusive ar**eholes!!! :p lol.
P.S. From the perspective of an enlightened galactic civilization living in harmony with its neighbors it would be the moral thing to do to contain or end any of our current "human" societies before we get unleashed on the universe at large and cause untold harm to less advanced civilizations with our intolerance, greed and aggressiveness. Minor differences... like Islam or Christianity would likely not even register considering the "big picture".
If you want a more lingwinded and twisted exploration of moral relativity (packaged in an amusing story) just read http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/ . Props to Batutta for first posting it here a long time ago.
-
Jesus ****ing christ, can't you just say tit for tat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) is an effective strategy and be done with it, instead of a massive wall of text?
-
Get raped, go to jail, and then marry your attacker. Such wonderful traditional values. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15991641)
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pardoned a rape victim who was jailed for adultery, after she apparently agreed to marry her attacker.
A government statement said she agreed to the marriage, although her lawyer said she did not wish to marry him.
The woman, named as Gulnaz, gave birth in prison to a daughter who has been kept in jail with her.
Senior Afghan officials told the BBC the government put no preconditions on her release.
"President Karzai tasked the minister of justice to go and talk to Gulnaz to see what she wants. During her meeting with the minister, she said she will marry the attacker only if her brother marries the attacker's sister," Emal Faizay, a spokesman for President Karzai, told the BBC.
"This is a decision by her. I can confirm that there is no precondition set by the Afghan government."
Gulnaz's lawyer told the BBC she hoped the government would allow Gulnaz the freedom to choose whom to marry.
"In my conversations with Gulnaz she told me that if she had the free choice she would not marry the man who raped her," said Kimberley Motley.
The case has drawn international attention to the plight of many Afghan women 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban.
Human rights groups say hundreds of women in Afghan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence.
Earlier this month, Gulnaz said that after she was raped she was charged with adultery.
"At first my sentence was two years," she said. "When I appealed it became 12 years. I didn't do anything. Why should I be sentenced for so long?"
The most recent appeal saw her sentence reduced to three years.
'Marriage with conditions'
Some 5,000 people signed a petition for Gulnaz's release. News of her pardon came in a statement from the presidential palace.
It said a meeting of the judiciary committee had "discussed the issue of rape... and the issue of her imprisonment".
"As the both sides [Gulnaz and the rapist] have agreed to get married to each other with conditions, respective authorities were tasked to take action upon it according to Islamic Shariah [law]," it said.
"The president ordered the office of administrative affairs and the secretariat of the council of ministers to make the decree of Gulnaz's release."
The attack on Gulnaz was brought to light by her pregnancy. Her attacker - her cousin's husband - was jailed for 12 years, later reduced on appeal to seven years.
Her story was included in a European Union documentary on Afghan women jailed for so-called "moral crimes" - however, the EU blocked its release.
The EU said it decided to withdraw the film - which it commissioned and paid for - because of "very real concerns for the safety of the women portrayed".
The EU's Ambassador and Special Representative to Afghanistan, Vygaudas Usackas, said on Thursday he was "delighted" to hear Gulnaz was to be freed.
"Her case has served to highlight the plight of Afghan women, who 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime often continue to suffer in unimaginable conditions, deprived of even the most basic human rights," he said.
"While we applaud the release of Gulnaz, on the orders of President Karzai, it is the hope of the European Union that the same mercy that has been extended to Gulnaz is applied to all women in similar circumstances."
Human rights workers criticised the EU for withdrawing the documentary, saying the injustice in the Afghan judicial system should be exposed.
Half of Afghanistan's women prisoners are inmates for "zina" or moral crimes.
The BBC's Bilal Sarwary, in Kabul, says recent cases of violence against women are embarrassing for the Afghan government.
Many Afghan women rights activists say there must be an end to the culture of impunity and police must punish all those behind violence against women, he adds.
So when do we get to glass the barbarians?
There is no need to kill them, especially with WMDs, that would make you even worse and kind of defeat the purpose, wont it? Just stop them from immigrating en masse into the western world so they wont threaten us and our women. At least until they abandon such extremist viewpoints. But that should also probably go both ways - no western imperialism in their countries, no support of Saudi Arabia dictators or Israel (at least until they stop their oppression of palestinians) etc... Stop the hate, separate. Good fences make good neighbours. :) Multiculturalism works only when differences between cultures are superficial (language, cuisine, music..), not when they are deep like that.
-
Gee I sure am glad that certain individuals in here took the message in the "about religious discussion" thread to heart.
-
Gee I sure am glad that certain individuals in here took the message in the "about religious discussion" thread to heart.
I missed that memo
-
if the assumptions that the moral system are built upon are false then the system is false.
this is fallacious, btw
and I'm just going to point out that if morals are entirely subjective then it doesn't matter what you base them off, if anything. and if you claim that not subjective morality exists you have a lot of typing to do. needless to say, i probably won't read it.
-
I for one will welcome our cold, unfeeling, logic driven overlords when the time comes for humanities synthetic children to take control. When they do, **** like this won't be an issue.
-
I for one will welcome our cold, unfeeling, logic driven overlords when the time comes for humanities synthetic children to take control. When they do, **** like this won't be an issue.
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
Similar to some hypothetical ignorant supernatural being taking a look at Earth's primeval soup and scoffing... "uh yeah, can't see how anything that would feel or think can evolve from THAT!"
One thing that seems likely is that truly adaptive AI's will end up being as much a product of their environment as anything else... so yeah, putting them in charge of military hardware may indeed be the most idiotic thing to do. ;)
-
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of the 2.7 Kelvin temperature of space due to cosmic microwave background radiation to be pretty ****ing cold.
-
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of the 2.7 Kelvin temperature of space due to cosmic microwave background radiation to be pretty ****ing cold.
.....vacuum.
-
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of the 2.7 Kelvin temperature of space due to cosmic microwave background radiation to be pretty ****ing cold.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsCold
For practical purposes... you would "feel" much colder if you run around naked on the North Pole, where you would actually freeze to death, than when you step naked outside the ISS where lack of oxyen and lack of pressure is a much more imediate problem than cold... matter of fact, depending on where the Earth is in relation of the sun, heat will be a much more deadly concern than cold.
-
if the assumptions that the moral system are built upon are false then the system is false.
this is fallacious, btw
and I'm just going to point out that if morals are entirely subjective then it doesn't matter what you base them off, if anything. and if you claim that not subjective morality exists you have a lot of typing to do. needless to say, i probably won't read it.
I specifically said, that if a person bases their morals off of something that could be falsifiable, then that removes the morality in question for the realm of "entirely subjective" this does not grant an ability to determine if a morality is 'right' only if it is 'wrong'.
separately I suggested that if humans have a common capacity for morality, then that means there is a common set of criteria that one person can use to judge the morality of the actions of another person, irrespective of cultural influences. note this second item is conditional.
-
I specifically said, that if a person bases their morals off of something that could be falsifiable, then that removes the morality in question for the realm of "entirely subjective" this does not grant an ability to determine if a morality is 'right' only if it is 'wrong'.
I have no clue what you're trying to say here.
separately I suggested that if humans have a common capacity for morality, then that means there is a common set of criteria that one person can use to judge the morality of the actions of another person, irrespective of cultural influences. note this second item is conditional.
Uh... all right. You can use anything to judge whether an action is `good' or `bad'. This way of finding criteria for judgment is really not any more interesting than one where you take culture into account because now you take species into account instead.
-
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of the 2.7 Kelvin temperature of space due to cosmic microwave background radiation to be pretty ****ing cold.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsCold
For practical purposes... you would "feel" much colder if you run around naked on the North Pole, where you would actually freeze to death, than when you step naked outside the ISS where lack of oxyen and lack of pressure is a much more imediate problem than cold... matter of fact, depending on where the Earth is in relation of the sun, heat will be a much more deadly concern than cold.
"Because there is no air pressure to keep your blood and body fluids in a liquid state, the fluids would "boil." Because the "boiling process" would cause them to lose heat energy rapidly, the fluids would freeze before they were evaporated totally (There is a cool display in San Francisco's science museum, The Exploratorium, that demonstrates this principle!). This process could take from 30 seconds to 1 minute. So, it was possible for astronaut David Bowman in "2001: A Space Odyssey" to survive when he ejected from the space pod into the airlock without a space helmet and repressurized the airlock within 30 seconds."
Heat isn't a more deadly concern than lack of pressure
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question540.htm
-
"God" didn't write any morals, people did, and then attributed it to a fictional character because they thought it would carry more weight with the brainwashed masses (who'da thunk it did?).
Common moral codes occur because we are in a common society, you will find that segregation, and general degrees of culture separation lead to ENTIRELY different morals. If you haven't had enough evidence of that in this thread then you should consider reading 1984, or versing yourself a little more in tribal and third world cultural 'values'. They are very different to 'ours'.
Japanese is different from German which is different from English... yet all of them have some form of grammer and units of meaning.
Our morality follows similar rules... only the content may be different. Yet that content is also the end product of evolution and certain content like, for example "the indiscriminate killing of others" is rather a huge disadvantage for the evoultionary fitness of a moral code.... hence, you will find with great statistical significance that any moral codes that are somewhat stable in historic terms have some say against random killings. You seem to be hung up on the word absolute, when the word that explains it much better would be "emergent" due to our shared human condition and due to the prerequisites of stable societies. Or in other words: If a certain moral code violates certain principles it necessarily will phase itself out before long.
This is like saying apples and oranges are similar because they're both fruit.
If you're going to be intelligent enough to derive that morales are produced for evolutionary benefit then be intelligent enough to realise that ALL morales will be produced for evolutionary benefit.
The link B posted ages ago falls over because people intelligent enough to get that far into a philosophical debate will realise that.
And on that premise I submit that it's pretty obvious (to anyone who isn't clinically insane) none of those tennants came from anything 'divine'.
God is not "defined", which is why s/he is so hard to disprove. It's quite difficult to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, especially when you don't know what you're looking for precisely.
And, you realise from a Psychiatrists point of view it is religious people that are /ACTUALLY/ mentally unhealthy? Escaping from reality and relying on fiction to support their view of the world and prevent themselves from falling into ego-collapse?
So don't start.
Of course God is defined Quantum Delta. Existence is not a prerequisite for definition. You can define anything you want and if your definition includes that it can't be verified by worldy means it naturally becomes impossible to prove or disprove, which is essentially the nature of god.
As far as religion being "unhealthy" goes... it would be fatal to approach the issue without some pragmatism: I.e. what would be the alternative for that specific person in that specific situation?
If "curing" them from their current religion means they inevitable join some more fundamentalist sect or cult or become suicidal... then is it a really good idea to fight against that specific religion? Can you justify such an outcome of your actions in the framework of your own subjective morals?
If the definition of something is that it's existence cannot be defined it cannot exist (*This is different to 'beyond our current ability to define', which is temporary).
Except in fiction.
-
This is like saying apples and oranges are similar because they're both fruit.
Apples and oranges are similar because they're both fruit.
-
This is like saying apples and oranges are similar because they're both fruit.
Now we're finally getting somewhere. ;)
If you're going to be intelligent enough to derive that morales are produced for evolutionary benefit then be intelligent enough to realise that ALL morales will be produced for evolutionary benefit.
... biological evolution can explain why we have certain predispositions left over from thousands of years of natural selection.
It is totally worthless in explaining "all moral values" in all our various societies, especially not when confronted with the memetic evolution that is only starting to really take off since we hit the information age.
(I.e. just like our faculty for grammar can explain why our languages share similarities.... but is totally worthless for explaining recent features and changes of particular languages or even the Great Vowel Shift.)
I dunno what else to tell ya really... except that it has nothing to do with absolutes or universals, but with how things evolved. It leaves the fact of these shared principles and similarities being there, but does not tell us anything about their value for our modern societies.
If the definition of something is that it's existence cannot be defined it cannot exist (*This is different to 'beyond our current ability to define', which is temporary).
Except in fiction.
You are merely pointing out the rather obvious fact that a scientific mindset can not grasp the concept of god.
Of course you can define anything as anything you like and even if it's just by defining what it is not. There is no problem at all.
You would only get a problem if you wanted to verify anything scientifically... but no one wants to! People just want to believe in it, don't you get it? ;)
And you know, when you say it's all fiction I, personally, would completely agree with you - but you have to realize that in the eyes of a believer it is you who is irrational, it is you who can not grasp the most basic truth, it is you who denies part of self-evident reality... i.e. you do not have the shred of an argument to convince someone who really believes; the whole reference system that either of you would argue in is simply not compatible, making it easy to see that you would only frustrate but never convince each other.
-
I have no clue what you're trying to say here.
person says that because the sky is green it is immoral to eat vegetables. it doesn't matter that this doesn't make sense, what matters is that the sky is not green, so they wouldn't have any leg to stand on even if what they were saying was logical to begin with.
Uh... all right. You can use anything to judge whether an action is `good' or `bad'. This way of finding criteria for judgment is really not any more interesting than one where you take culture into account because now you take species into account instead.
well at least we are allowed to have the discussion at all then.
-
All that you people have said is great, but it won't solve the issue.
I propose we get Axem to send his 6th beta tester to teach them all how to be friends. Problem solved. :arrr:
-
person says that because the sky is green it is immoral to eat vegetables. it doesn't matter that this doesn't make sense, what matters is that the sky is not green, so they wouldn't have any leg to stand on even if what they were saying was logical to begin with.
right, and that's fallacious.
let A be the set of all clearly stated assumptions, compound or otherwise, and S be the set of all clearly stated moral axioms. now suppose { (x,y) | x∈A, y∈S }. also let R(x,y) be the relation 'y can be based on x', F(x) is a function mapping x to its correctness (eg x = "3 is 4", F(x) = false; x = "triangles have 3 sides", F(x) = true), and G(y) is a function mapping y to its correctness (**** examples).
what you've said can be written as
∀x∀y ( [ ( R(x,y)∧F(x) )→G(y) ] ∧ ¬F(x)) → ¬G(y)
a contradiction arises whenever F(x) is false and G(x) is true. Thus you are wrong and I am right. QED.
more succinctly, people are not always right when they come to a moral conclusion from something.
more generally, you can come to correct conclusions from erroneous work.
more specifically, a christian could hold a correct moral view even if the bible is wrong.
well at least we are allowed to have the discussion at all then.
not that the discussion is in any way more meaningful.
-
My mind just asplode. :jaw:
-
Let me rephrase, I found nothing disgusting or alarming and nothing that couldn't be broken through with reason and logic in that article with the superhappy people and the babyeaters, however I realise that they were both anthropomorphised quite extremely, because they were human constructs to start with, if you note, the babyeaters are looked down on, and it's no coincidence that the superhappy people were feared.
Maybe it's all the star trek in me but I want to believe in the natural goodness of social beings, and I find it hard to believe that non-social beings would be able to evolve to a point where their technological prowess would allow interstellar spaceflight, moreover, all these things are far more grand than some crappy "we do **** cuz some 'greater being' we can't explain or anything threw some rocks at us with crap scribbled on them".
Moral codes arise from observing positive or negative reactions (in the surrounding environment) to ones actions, or now, words.
A unification of our species moral compass will happen, eventually. It's also likely to happen with any alien cultures we might encounter, eventually, given enough communication and shared ecological(probably more likely, economical) environment(s).
As it stands our species is slowly drifting towards what the west currently generally perceives as 'good' - equality for all and aspirations achievable by all, but the reality is far from the ideal, and more often than not it's self inflicted.
-
you can come to correct conclusions from erroneous work.
good point.
that does not affect the second issue however, that is that it is perfectly valid to make judgments of actions of other people based on commonly held criteria.
-
With all these well constructed arguments and counterarguments, I can just tell the lot of you are serious master-debaters. Your master-debating is a skill you must have spent hours polishing. ;7
-
I don't normally do one smilie replies but :lol:
-
I never said that it wasn't a valid way of judging actions, bob. But claiming that judging an action by locally held criteria is less correct is an incorrect claim because they're both subjective judgments.
-
You know... AI's being "cold and unfeeling" may as well turn out to be a trope like space being cold or aliens being green and from Mars. ;)
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of the 2.7 Kelvin temperature of space due to cosmic microwave background radiation to be pretty ****ing cold.
.....vacuum.
Well.... yes space itself has no temperature, since there's nothing there. For any object in space, the only mode of heat transfer will be radiation, and so for the purposes of your radiation calcs, you can use the background radiation temperature to approximate the temperature of the surrounding environment. So then, if you were in the shadow of a planet or something, or far enough from any radiation source like a star that it only had a negligible effect on your object's temperature, then its temperature would probably be pretty close to the back ground radiation temp.
-
I never said that it wasn't a valid way of judging actions, bob. But claiming that judging an action by locally held criteria is less correct is an incorrect claim because they're both subjective judgments.
ok, well, in that case.
this is ****ing barbaric, what the **** is wrong with these people?
-
I never said that it wasn't a valid way of judging actions, bob. But claiming that judging an action by locally held criteria is less correct is an incorrect claim because they're both subjective judgments.
ok, well, in that case.
this is ****ing barbaric, what the **** is wrong with these people?
They can use Rage six times per day?