[karajorma]

So when do we get to glass the barbarians?

You don't post here any more.

[Grizzly]

So when do we get to glass the barbarians?

You don't post here any more.

Permaban from GenDisc?

[Mikes]

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?

[Bobboau]

You don't post here any more.

hyperbole.

kosh, get the **** over to warpstorm, we don't have thought nazi mods there.

[karajorma]

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.

[Bobboau]

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}

[Mikes]

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 )


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!!! 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.

[Ghostavo]

Jesus ****ing christ, can't you just say tit for tat is an effective strategy and be done with it, instead of a massive wall of text?

[666maslo666]

Get raped, go to jail, and then marry your attacker. Such wonderful traditional values.

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.

[Mongoose]

Gee I sure am glad that certain individuals in here took the message in the "about religious discussion" thread to heart.

[deathfun]

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

[Polpolion]

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.

[FireSpawn]

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.

[Mikes]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[IronBeer]

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.

[Mikes]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Polpolion]

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.

[deathfun]

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