Conquer Club

Jehan wrote:thats true but ive seen the view point of people become so similar through empathy that they come very close to having the same view of good and evil, of course when you consider a divine perspective which interacts with ours then it becomes very possible to have a universal good and evil.

Who's definition of divine? Other religions would find Christianity evil for the simple fact of being Christian... and vice versa... Wouldn't Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, et al be false idols to you and thereby the followers thereof evil?

when you talk about the laws of phyics being aboulstue there not. we live in multiverse. every universe in the multiverse has its own set of laws. anything that can happen will happen. just not nessarcly in this universe. so that is really the only truth. if it can be called a truth because of the fact the you mentioned that a truth is conformity so when the masses dont agree does not be come a truth by our defenition.

Riao wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Aegnor wrote:Short answer: no.

All right...then explain Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies!

Comical antagonist.

tjm123 wrote:when you talk about the laws of phyics being aboulstue there not. we live in multiverse. every universe in the multiverse has its own set of laws. anything that can happen will happen. just not nessarcly in this universe. so that is really the only truth. if it can be called a truth because of the fact the you mentioned that a truth is conformity so when the masses dont agree does not be come a truth by our defenition.

thats the second thread youve posted in where you said we live in a multiverse, what are you basing this on, cos if its string theory thats unproven and entirely theoretical.

OK lets get off of this good/evil thing.

Is there right or wrong? Is it wrong for me to kill you? Why? Who says so? If there is no universal truth and we have all evolved from nothing, there is no law over us all that says killing, stealing, etc is wrong.

The majority of people may think it is wrong but there only basis for the rule is being th majority.

I have yet to find anyone that thinks Hitler was justified in what he did in WW2. However, with no absolute right or wrong, Hitler can justify anything.

So basically with no absolute truth (right or wrong) you can never justify getting angry with someone for doing anything to you because the can justify that what they do.

WM

Jehan wrote:

tjm123 wrote:when you talk about the laws of phyics being aboulstue there not. we live in multiverse. every universe in the multiverse has its own set of laws. anything that can happen will happen. just not nessarcly in this universe. so that is really the only truth. if it can be called a truth because of the fact the you mentioned that a truth is conformity so when the masses dont agree does not be come a truth by our defenition.

thats the second thread youve posted in where you said we live in a multiverse, what are you basing this on, cos if its string theory thats unproven and entirely theoretical.

Well, we have galaxies, and maybe he's just meaning that?

But if he actually is meaning Multiverse, then of course, he's basing it off Science. You know.. that thing that theorises all these other things that make sense.

Jehan wrote:

tjm123 wrote:when you talk about the laws of phyics being aboulstue there not. we live in multiverse. every universe in the multiverse has its own set of laws. anything that can happen will happen. just not nessarcly in this universe. so that is really the only truth. if it can be called a truth because of the fact the you mentioned that a truth is conformity so when the masses dont agree does not be come a truth by our defenition.

thats the second thread youve posted in where you said we live in a multiverse, what are you basing this on, cos if its string theory thats unproven and entirely theoretical.

I thought the multiverse was based on the movie The One. I've been trying to figure out how I can kill myself everywhere else, so I too can be uber-powerful.

I want to fix my previous statement.

CC is evil.

WidowMakers wrote:OK lets get off of this good/evil thing.

Is there right or wrong? Is it wrong for me to kill you? Why? Who says so? If there is no universal truth and we have all evolved from nothing, there is no law over us all that says killing, stealing, etc is wrong.

The majority of people may think it is wrong but there only basis for the rule is being th majority.

I have yet to find anyone that thinks Hitler was justified in what he did in WW2. However, with no absolute right or wrong, Hitler can justify anything.

So basically with no absolute truth (right or wrong) you can never justify getting angry with someone for doing anything to you because the can justify that what they do.

WM

Every feeling we have and how we act and describe it is an abstract. It has no meaning unless we give it one. It has nothing to do with justifying what anyone does. It just means that if we never gave it a name and description, you wouldn't of ever felt or acted that way.

Same thing applies to everything: Time, Knowledge, Economic Systems....
Without establishing a basis for these things, you wouldn't feel bad if you didn't know what being late for something was. Or proud of being smart, or jealous of someone else being smarter than you. People wouldn't act better than others because they had more stuff. You wouldn't be envious of someone else's wealth.

What I'm saying is, we make ourselves feel better and others feel worse by attaching feelings and definitions to things.

"What I'm doing is good, so you must be doing bad" "I'm right, your wrong" "Do it like this, not like that" It's a bunch of bullshit, people nodded and agreed to, so they would feel better about the things they do, say, and act on.

What I have learned from this thread:

Riao and Pico feel that torturing innocent children and skeet shooting newborns is not only justifiable, but they can be fun pastimes as well.

Thank you for your perspective gentlemen.

One other thing:

WidowMakers can truly lay down the smack!

Skittles! wrote:

Jehan wrote:

tjm123 wrote:when you talk about the laws of phyics being aboulstue there not. we live in multiverse. every universe in the multiverse has its own set of laws. anything that can happen will happen. just not nessarcly in this universe. so that is really the only truth. if it can be called a truth because of the fact the you mentioned that a truth is conformity so when the masses dont agree does not be come a truth by our defenition.

thats the second thread youve posted in where you said we live in a multiverse, what are you basing this on, cos if its string theory thats unproven and entirely theoretical.

Well, we have galaxies, and maybe he's just meaning that?

But if he actually is meaning Multiverse, then of course, he's basing it off Science. You know.. that thing that theorises all these other things that make sense.

um well, i'm doing a degree in physics at the university of sydney, you know, that place that teaches people stuff, and as it stands the only theory that has a multiverse in the strictest sense of the term with any decent backing is string theory, but like i said till someone finds some gravitons or something else, its still entirely theoretical, there is no experimental evidence, so there's an interesting argument for the theory to not even be classed as scientific, since the theory as yet makes no testable predictions.

I've always just looked at it like this :-

1. Society's Laws decide what is good and bad <not evil>.

2. For Example :- Cannibalism is bad <possibly evil> in USA or UK, but in the Amazon <or what other tribe nation> it is accepted and part of every day life.

3. Are the tribes evil or wrong? No. It's just their way of life.

4. Therefore, if someone truly believed deeply in this, they would start living only for their own personal advancement <which I do to a certain extent>.

That's what I think anyway.

"Good" and "Evil" are human-created abstracts to help define things that are positive and negative. It's a classification, and not a standard.

Since humankind doesn't exist everywhere, the abstracts are not universal.

MR. Nate wrote:What I have learned from this thread:

Riao and Pico feel that torturing innocent children and skeet shooting newborns is not only justifiable, but they can be fun pastimes as well.

Adding vtmarik and Rocky Horror to my list.

Oh, and vt, how can something be intrinsically right, if right and wrong are social constructs? (per your sig)

If someone truly believes that there is no Universal Good and Evil, then they have the ability to kill children guilt-free.

Here's a question :- Why is it wrong to kill children?

MR. Nate wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:What I have learned from this thread:

Riao and Pico feel that torturing innocent children and skeet shooting newborns is not only justifiable, but they can be fun pastimes as well.

Adding vtmarik and Rocky Horror to my list.

Oh, and vt, how can something be intrinsically right, if right and wrong are social constructs? (per your sig)

Because it is in line with the construct of righteousness.

I would have thought that you could've assembled that for yourself. Just because something isn't universal, doesn't mean that it can't be referenced.

vtmarik wrote:"Good" and "Evil" are human-created abstracts to help define things that are positive and negative. It's a classification, and not a standard.

Since humankind doesn't exist everywhere, the abstracts are not universal.

Well said.


if the guy skeet-shooting newborns doesn't believe it's wrong, how can it be universally wrong?

EDIT:
Ah. I see. Because God is the arbiter. But he doesn't exist.

Rocky Horror wrote:If someone truly believes that there is no Universal Good and Evil, then they have the ability to kill children guilt-free.

Here's a question :- Why is it wrong to kill children?

Because the standard that emerges from the character of God dictates that individuals are outside of morality when they take it upon themselves to kill others, with possible exceptions for self defense or acting on behalf of governments.

However, for you? Like I said, under your "construct" there are to absolutes, so torture, rape, filicide and genocide are all "OK" if that's how you've built your construct.

vtmarik wrote: Because it is in line with the construct of righteousness.

I would have thought that you could've assembled that for yourself. Just because something isn't universal, doesn't mean that it can't be referenced.

Can't be, that means the action is not "intrinsically" right, it simply is right within a particular construct. If universals to not exist, than nothing can have intrinsic morality, the rightness or wrongness is always imposed from outside.

Edited to include a response to heavycola

heavycola wrote: if the guy skeet-shooting newborns doesn't believe it's wrong, how can it be universally wrong?

EDIT:
Ah. I see. Because God is the arbiter. But he doesn't exist.

Which is why I always ask what atheists base morality on. Nothing in particular. Which is why I believe morality is an argument in favor of God, but we'll have to save that for another thread.

MR. Nate wrote:Can't be, that means the action is not "intrinsically" right, it simply is right within a particular construct. If universals to not exist, than nothing can have intrinsic morality, the rightness or wrongness is always imposed from outside.

Are you critiquing the quote or my use of it given my opinions?

EDIT: I believe you are misidentifying what I mean by universal. I don't mean "Applying to human affairs" I mean "applying to the universe."

Since the universe encompasses things that we did not create, we cannot apply our creations to the whole of creation.

I'm saying that the quote you're using is inconsistent with your worldview. I'm not bothered by it, I just thought you might want to reconsider one or the other.

Edit:
Therein lies our issue. For me, morality is not a human creation, therefore it is outside the universe, as it were. It supersedes physical existence, so the definition of universal becomes moot.

MR. Nate wrote:I'm saying that the quote you're using is inconsistent with your worldview. I'm not bothered by it, I just thought you might want to reconsider one or the other.

I like how you assume my disagreement with the idea of universal morals as part of my worldview. I don't have a worldview. I have a collection of opinions and ideas, but they are by no means a solid and unwavering system by which I judge the reality of the world.

It's a cognitive gap, and unlike some people in the world I don't see the need to reconcile it with anything. I just put up a sign that says "Watch your step, cognitive gap!"

vtmarik wrote:I like how you assume my disagreement with the idea of universal morals as part of my worldview. I don't have a worldview. I have a collection of opinions and ideas, but they are by no means a solid and unwavering system by which I judge the reality of the world.

It's a cognitive gap, and unlike some people in the world I don't see the need to reconcile it with anything. I just put up a sign that says "Watch your step, cognitive gap!"

I would argue that a worldview does not have to be solid or unwavering to exist, it can be full of cognitive and logical gaps. If you're comfortable with your Weltanschauung being full of gaps, so be it, I prefer, for myself, some consistency.

MR. Nate wrote:

vtmarik wrote:I like how you assume my disagreement with the idea of universal morals as part of my worldview. I don't have a worldview. I have a collection of opinions and ideas, but they are by no means a solid and unwavering system by which I judge the reality of the world.

It's a cognitive gap, and unlike some people in the world I don't see the need to reconcile it with anything. I just put up a sign that says "Watch your step, cognitive gap!"

I would argue that a worldview does not have to be solid or unwavering to exist, it can be full of cognitive and logical gaps. If you're comfortable with your Weltanschauung being full of gaps, so be it, I prefer, for myself, some consistency.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance.

Check out the essay itself, might change your life.

MR. Nate wrote:
Edited to include a response to heavycola

heavycola wrote: if the guy skeet-shooting newborns doesn't believe it's wrong, how can it be universally wrong?

EDIT:
Ah. I see. Because God is the arbiter. But he doesn't exist.

Which is why I always ask what atheists base morality on. Nothing in particular. Which is why I believe morality is an argument in favor of God, but we'll have to save that for another thread.

Sorry to interrupt, i am digging your and vtmarik's little exchange. i can see this thread going down the god/no god path, but i guess that's inevitable, at least partly, given the question.
Asking where atheists get their morality is the same as asking them where religion comes from: People. It's all from people.

heavycola wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:
Edited to include a response to heavycola

heavycola wrote: if the guy skeet-shooting newborns doesn't believe it's wrong, how can it be universally wrong?

EDIT:
Ah. I see. Because God is the arbiter. But he doesn't exist.

Which is why I always ask what atheists base morality on. Nothing in particular. Which is why I believe morality is an argument in favor of God, but we'll have to save that for another thread.

Sorry to interrupt, i am digging your and vtmarik's little exchange. i can see this thread going down the god/no god path, but i guess that's inevitable, at least partly, given the question.
Asking where atheists get their morality is the same as asking them where religion comes from: People. It's all from people.

This line of conversation makes me wonder, when religious people judge what's right and wrong they call it "morals." When non-religious people judge what's right and wrong they (9-times-out-of-10) call it ethics.

Is there a fundamental difference between ethics and morals other than the religious connotations?