Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
This is getting derailed into a discussion about government and rape let's try and move it back to what we really started arguing about (and to be honest, I don't know about you, but I don't want to extend this to two posts responses with paragraphs and paragraphs simply because I want to waste a half hour on an internet forum typing up something that lengthy.) We've gone over the government discussion before and if you want to again I will but not in this thread. As for the rape thing its entirely semantics. If something gives any form of consent I'd consider it sex apparently you don't.
|
I agreed with you on the rape issue.
Quote:
|
The great irony of your entire argument is several times you've said you're a christian. You can flip the arguments for morality and religion around and you're just as "irrational" as you're claiming me to me. Which I find weird. I base my argument as to why religion is false off of a scientific and historical information. The problem is you can't do that with morality. Religion is traditional; morality is ever-evolving. As for basing it off science...you couldn't get anywhere with it unless you found were able to find several groups of people with the exact same definitions of right and wrong for each test which is unlikely and would be a horrible way of going about things because it would be selective and therefore have no actual bearing on reality. I'd really like you to accurately explain how my approach to morality is "irrational" and turning off the "logic-switch" because I find the idea that you can find a personal code objective for billions of people to be, well, just fucking silly.
|
Yes, I know I am a Christian. Yes, I know I am irrational. The thing is, I don't make bottomless claims like the fact that religion is the cause of all our problems.
@Bold: This wouldn't be an objective morality. No human can be completely objective. Logic is the most objective way of looking at things, and the best we have. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world has the same exact right and wrong in their minds because that would not mean that their morality is objective. Morality is objective because it is logical and rational. So, Rand's definition of an objective morality is one that is rational. Basically, a morality in which one picks what is right or wrong based on the most rational way to achieve his values.
Like I said before, tons of people can believe in a God. However, that doesn't make it right. In the same way, tons of people can have the same morality, but that doesn't make it objectively right.
Quote:
|
Now if you're saying there can be wrong or right morals then who's to decide what's wrong or right? A mythical space god? Ayn Rand? A dead Palestinian? To me, if there was an objective morality (which I don't believe there is) it would have to be incredibly vague in order to be timeless, universal and objective. Moral norms and ethical standards are constantly changing as we progress as a world. I think the ultimate goal of a some sort of perfect (or objective) morality is unattainable because it would require a universal agreement as to what right or wrong is. Which isn't going to happen. The only other route would be some sort of moral arbitrator but we have those now anyway. I don't like Jesus or Muhammad or Moses or Joe Smith. I think they teach some very immoral things and I could go on and on about the problems I have with organized religion and their teachings but I've beat on about it so much and unless you want me to I won't here. I think you're approach towards morality shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word (and before you ask I don't think Karl Marx and Jesus ruined the definition of that word either) or have very much scope. I believe it should not be treated as something concrete but as an on-going human discussion about seeking a balance between protecting the rights of humans but respecting the beliefs of others.
|
@Bold: Logic and reason decide it, just like logic and reason decide whether something exists or it doesn't.
@Underlined:I have already stated how vague the morality is. The basis for morality is reason. In other words, your right and wrong are based on the rational goals you choose and the most rational way to achieve those goals. That is the objective morality.
Also, morality must be concrete if reality is. Morality is a part of reality. If logic works to disprove a god, then it works to disprove that god's morality.
Quote:
|
you are not a rational man, and you will never be one.
|
Woah! Almost got me there. Great argument. I have already said that I am not rational. The fact is, there is something called romanticism and it shows the best that we can be. That is what the purpose of everyone's life is. The pursuit of happiness. The way to achieve it is to achieve your goals, and because morality and reality intertwine, the moral way is always the most practical way. So, your best way of achieving your values and happiness is to follow your moral code, which is based on the most rational way to achieve your rational goals. If you sit there thinking you will never achieve rationality, then your existence is meaningless. This only leads to destruction of the self.